Lesson - If you want to dominate an industry - yes, line up the government, the unions and the other manufacturers. But it really, really helps to build some actual product.
I guess CCS will become the European standard though? Bit of a pain, it would have been good to have agreed a global standard.
Fortunately we don't have to align with the eu standard for uk bound cars....oh my a brexit benefit
So that's a benefit? There are three accepted aligned standards, North America, the EU and the Asian Pacific. Why would we want to plough our own furrow unless we are thinking of reintroducing the Morris Minor Traveller for the full 1950s effect?
From what I understand and no expert here just going by what people on here have said. Tesla is a better charging system.....who said anything about plowing our own furrow. Adapt the best charging system and people who want to drive their car abroad can get an adapter. The number of cars driven abroad are going to be a minority
Still don't understand why that might be a Brexit bonus. But any straw is worth clutching I guess.
Is it better to do the very best thing (even at the price of doing different things to your neighbours) or do an OK thing that is consistent across a wider area?
There's no obvious universal answer there. It depends on the upside and downside. (Though the conservative instinct is to not change unless it's an abomination.)
Hence the pre- and post- Brexit debates. Some people think that fine-tuning the UK is worth the resulting boundary effects. Personally, I'm not convinced. What's not on is pretending that either side of the balance doesn't exist.
Seeing Rishi Sunak talking about getting therapists (did he mean hygienists?) to do dental work, it’s hard to escape the thought that he will be a disaster in a general election campaign.
Let's face it, we saw him against Liz Truss, and he lost the argument, albeit to a crowd that contained more than the normal level of howlers at the moon. It doesn't bode well.
Seeing Rishi Sunak talking about getting therapists (did he mean hygienists?) to do dental work, it’s hard to escape the thought that he will be a disaster in a general election campaign.
Let's face it, we saw him against Liz Truss, and he lost the argument, albeit to a crowd that contained more than the normal level of howlers at the moon. It doesn't bode well.
Most of them are so swiveleyed they probably didn't know where they were putting an X
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
I don't think it's entirely about "secretly wanting to" (though moderate exercise is pretty good for endorphins).
But drawing some strands together... The chain from overuse of fossil fuels to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to bad and worsening climatic effects is pretty damn convincing. Science is never fully settled, sure, but the projections made in 1990 are coming in pretty well and they do not end in a good place.
There are going to be difficult choices to be made in decades to come. Hopefully improved tech can smooth off the sharper edges, but at an order-of-magnitude level, burning hydrocarbons at the rate we currently do in the West simply isn't on.
You need a better reason than "I don't want to".
I have not claimed climate change is untrue not sure where you got that from.
I don't own a car. If I go out I use a bus or train.
I fly rarely this year will be my third time in since 2000
I think I do my bit frankly so yes I don't want to ride a bike is perfectly valid for me to say so don't fucking lecture me about it because I am pretty sure I put a lot less carbon in the atmosphere than most of you cycling zealots
I mixed the personal and generic there, and I shouldn't have done. It doesn't alter my point that "we prefer it this way" isn't a sufficient reason to do things that are predictably spoiling life for future generations, but there were better targets for that critique. I should have taken time to be clear about that.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
Good for her. The number of people fluent in Welsh and Japanese but not English must be quite small. Has anyone noticed this gap in her CV? Even after Brexit it has its uses.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
Lesson - If you want to dominate an industry - yes, line up the government, the unions and the other manufacturers. But it really, really helps to build some actual product.
I guess CCS will become the European standard though? Bit of a pain, it would have been good to have agreed a global standard.
Fortunately we don't have to align with the eu standard for uk bound cars....oh my a brexit benefit
I hope we do though! It'll be even more of a pain if we end up using a different standard to the EU. Imagine a future where UK drivers can't charge in the EU and vice versa.
Chat GPT comparison. "NACS and CCS2 are not the same charging standard. NACS is the most common charging standard in North America, while CCS2 is used in Europe and most of the rest of the world, excluding China1. Tesla uses NACS in North America, South Korea, and Japan, but not in Europe or most of the rest of the world."
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
I don't think it's entirely about "secretly wanting to" (though moderate exercise is pretty good for endorphins).
But drawing some strands together... The chain from overuse of fossil fuels to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to bad and worsening climatic effects is pretty damn convincing. Science is never fully settled, sure, but the projections made in 1990 are coming in pretty well and they do not end in a good place.
There are going to be difficult choices to be made in decades to come. Hopefully improved tech can smooth off the sharper edges, but at an order-of-magnitude level, burning hydrocarbons at the rate we currently do in the West simply isn't on.
You need a better reason than "I don't want to".
I have not claimed climate change is untrue not sure where you got that from.
I don't own a car. If I go out I use a bus or train.
I fly rarely this year will be my third time in since 2000
I think I do my bit frankly so yes I don't want to ride a bike is perfectly valid for me to say so don't fucking lecture me about it because I am pretty sure I put a lot less carbon in the atmosphere than most of you cycling zealots
I mixed the personal and generic there, and I shouldn't have done. It doesn't alter my point that "we prefer it this way" isn't a sufficient reason to do things that are predictably spoiling life for future generations, but there were better targets for that critique. I should have taken time to be clear about that.
While I accept we all need to reduce our carbon footprint to help with climate change, arguing that people must degrade their lifestyle is never going to go down with any of them. They won't vote for it, they won't vote for politicians that support it.
All the main advocates of it that get in the press are generally people that are passionate about the hair shirt approach to it. We must stop doing this, that and the other, however most of those that advocate this hair shirt approach also do not by a long way lead by example.....cf emma thompson and her private jets. Most of the JSO and extinction rebellion folk that get interviewed seem to be people who live hugely privileged lifestyles compared to even most people in the uk.
Sorry I snapped at you just rankled it being implied I am a problem compared to most of them
This is going well. That was unlucky. It is a good job that England bat deep. We'll get them when we field It looks like its going to rain, that will save us. Well 2-0 is recoverable We've lost but we've got two tests to avoid the whitewash It'll be a different story in Australia
Bazball, meet reality - you've managed to avoid one another for a year.
Bazball seems like one of @Leon's relationships, fast, exciting and short. Those of us that have been happily married for decades are much more attuned to conventional test match cricket. But it is fun whilst it lasts, no one can deny that.
If Oz end up with say, a lead of 450, England will be obliged to chase it (there is no more rain forecast for the weekend)
That at least will be exciting. They might as well Bazball it, and go for a record run chase
I imagine they will end up all out for about 189, but it will be a fun ride
If the choice is to go out with an attempted slog to the boundary, or to go out to a timid defensive block that takes the outside edge and gets caught at second slip, then I say swing the bat.
The Aussies will probably have a day and a half, there is no chance of us defending for that long to scrape a draw. So yes, smash it out the park on day 5 and take the honourable L
Seeing Rishi Sunak talking about getting therapists (did he mean hygienists?) to do dental work, it’s hard to escape the thought that he will be a disaster in a general election campaign.
Let's face it, we saw him against Liz Truss, and he lost the argument, albeit to a crowd that contained more than the normal level of howlers at the moon. It doesn't bode well.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
Going to work to just do the job asked of you seems to an outdated idea....
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
"It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English?" interesting thought!
You may be right about simple translation per se in the medium term, but until that Babelfish is fully developed languages will still be valued by companies that need people who can converse for business purposes in different languages. many people believe language fluency is the best way to fully immerse in a culture. Alternatively just shout DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH? very loudly as that always works.
This is going well. That was unlucky. It is a good job that England bat deep. We'll get them when we field It looks like its going to rain, that will save us. Well 2-0 is recoverable We've lost but we've got two tests to avoid the whitewash It'll be a different story in Australia
Bazball, meet reality - you've managed to avoid one another for a year.
Bazball seems like one of @Leon's relationships, fast, exciting and short. Those of us that have been happily married for decades are much more attuned to conventional test match cricket. But it is fun whilst it lasts, no one can deny that.
If Oz end up with say, a lead of 450, England will be obliged to chase it (there is no more rain forecast for the weekend)
That at least will be exciting. They might as well Bazball it, and go for a record run chase
I imagine they will end up all out for about 189, but it will be a fun ride
If the choice is to go out with an attempted slog to the boundary, or to go out to a timid defensive block that takes the outside edge and gets caught at second slip, then I say swing the bat.
One of my brothers had exactly that attitude to batting. He retired with a career average of 4.7.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
Going to work to just do the job asked of you seems to an outdated idea....
Telling people to "just do the job asked " is an outdated management technique. Thankfully.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
Shakespeare’s influence is even more remarkable considering he was German.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
"Two heads are better than one" is not one of his, but it perhaps ought to have been.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
Going to work to just do the job asked of you seems to an outdated idea....
Telling people to "just do the job asked " is an outdated management technique. Thankfully.
Productivity stats suggest perhaps this new wave thinking might not be all its cracked up to be.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
Going to work to just do the job asked of you seems to an outdated idea....
Telling people to "just do the job asked " is an outdated management technique. Thankfully.
Productivity stats suggest perhaps this new wave thinking might not be all its cracked up to be.
Command and control management techniques are generally believed to reduce productivity, increase absenteeism and increase staff turnover.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
Going to work to just do the job asked of you seems to an outdated idea....
Telling people to "just do the job asked " is an outdated management technique. Thankfully.
Productivity stats suggest perhaps this new wave thinking might not be all its cracked up to be.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
Seeing Rishi Sunak talking about getting therapists (did he mean hygienists?) to do dental work, it’s hard to escape the thought that he will be a disaster in a general election campaign.
Let's face it, we saw him against Liz Truss, and he lost the argument, albeit to a crowd that contained more than the normal level of howlers at the moon. It doesn't bode well.
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
Going to work to just do the job asked of you seems to an outdated idea....
Telling people to "just do the job asked " is an outdated management technique. Thankfully.
Productivity stats suggest perhaps this new wave thinking might not be all its cracked up to be.
Command and control management techniques are generally believed to reduce productivity, increase absenteeism and increase staff turnover.
I’m not so sure it’s about “command and control management techniques” but about the flip side of “activist staff”. If what the company wants to do is legal then staff in the company need to get that the business involved helps pay their wages or they can leave if they have a moral problem. Unfortunately the activist staff, usually in a minority to put it kindly, can cause such a problem beyond the actual worth of the problem that the business becomes untenable for their employers to take on.
All you need is a loud minority of say, anti-oil, employees kicking off and leaking stories etc to make a bank walk away from a potential client. It’s all great until other banks, maybe in other countries, say “ok we’ll take that and the fees” and then the clients drip away and the activist employee is crying because their employer had to cut jobs, one being theirs.
Always makes me laugh when you read a series of stories in the Guardian castigating the National Gallery or similar from taking sponsorship from the likes of BP, the National drop the sponsorship and then the Guardian is having kittens months later bemoaning how galleries are at risk from a lack of funding.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
Thank you, and yes she was top student at her school and has a talent for languages
"And Prigozhin has now disbanded his fake news holding, leaving hundreds of fake news manufacturers, and likely thousands of trolls unemployed and unemployable. Expect waves of leaks from young people who suddenly found their conscience on the way out."
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
Didnt they literally just abandon an attempt to introduce a UK human rights act?
Lesson - If you want to dominate an industry - yes, line up the government, the unions and the other manufacturers. But it really, really helps to build some actual product.
I guess CCS will become the European standard though? Bit of a pain, it would have been good to have agreed a global standard.
Fortunately we don't have to align with the eu standard for uk bound cars....oh my a brexit benefit
I hope we do though! It'll be even more of a pain if we end up using a different standard to the EU. Imagine a future where UK drivers can't charge in the EU and vice versa.
Chat GPT comparison. "NACS and CCS2 are not the same charging standard. NACS is the most common charging standard in North America, while CCS2 is used in Europe and most of the rest of the world, excluding China1. Tesla uses NACS in North America, South Korea, and Japan, but not in Europe or most of the rest of the world."
NACS is actually built on top of the CCS protocol. The CCS standard plug the other automotive players were trying to push was an insanely bad design.
The real issue is that Tesla is actively expanding to their network.
Everyone else is promising that it will be done Real Soon.
Essentially, Tesla standardised on a supercharger design, mass produced it, installed it and updated it in a simple series of versions with full retro comparability. Since their charging arm now makes a 20% profit, despite expanding by double digit compound increase per year, there is little prospect of them stopping.
All the MBAs at the other companies have told each other that charging is a low margin business and not “core business” - so why bother, when you can invest in surefire winners like NFT or Crypto?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
His clever use of the English language always had me in stitches.
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
Meanwhile, disgraced Former PM Boris Johnson has clearly got bored of writing anodyne piffle for The Mail. Either that, or the editor has reminded him who pays him shedloads of dosh;
Boris Johnson has demanded that Rishi Sunak takes urgent action to ensure the Rwanda deportations go ahead to break the business model of "evil" people traffickers.
The former Prime Minister has waded into the Channel small boats debate in his weekly column for the Daily Mail which he said he would avoid discussing politics unless absolutely necessary.
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
Didnt they literally just abandon an attempt to introduce a UK human rights act?
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
To be honest, and as a conservative, I would suggest that if the ERG and the right want to go down that route they will become more marginalised than ever, and are unlikely to be anymore relevant than Corbyn is at present
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
Didnt they literally just abandon an attempt to introduce a UK human rights act?
Yes that was Raabs project .
The right to bully your underlings was to be enshrined in law.
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
To be honest, and as a conservative, I would suggest that if the ERG and the right want to go down that route they will become more marginalised than ever, and are unlikely to be anymore relevant than Corbyn is at present
I sincerely hope so . To leave the ECHR would be shameful.
Seeing Rishi Sunak talking about getting therapists (did he mean hygienists?) to do dental work, it’s hard to escape the thought that he will be a disaster in a general election campaign.
Let's face it, we saw him against Liz Truss, and he lost the argument, albeit to a crowd that contained more than the normal level of howlers at the moon. It doesn't bode well.
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
To be honest, and as a conservative, I would suggest that if the ERG and the right want to go down that route they will become more marginalised than ever, and are unlikely to be anymore relevant than Corbyn is at present
I sincerely hope so . To leave the ECHR would be shameful.
I do not support leaving the ECHR, indeed I have just done a ConHome survey which asks just that question and it got a resounding no
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
To be honest, and as a conservative, I would suggest that if the ERG and the right want to go down that route they will become more marginalised than ever, and are unlikely to be anymore relevant than Corbyn is at present
I sincerely hope so . To leave the ECHR would be shameful.
I do not support leaving the ECHR
That's because it's currently not Conservative Party policy (I think). What will you do if it's in the next manifesto?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
Have you ever thought about writing comedy stuff at all @Leon? I think you would be pretty good at it. Did you always have a talent for writing, or did you have to work at it?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
The Meaming of Liff was very clever, as well. And insghtful
I always remember
"Glasgow: the sense of infinite sadness when you enter a room full of happy, noisy people fifteen years younger than you"
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud, though some of it was so surreal it made me chuckle with the thought "wtf", or whatever the equivalent was back then. I don't know if he used mind altering drugs, but he certainly gave the impression of being able to imagine such a state.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
I've always considered myself to be inactivist staff.
Seeing Rishi Sunak talking about getting therapists (did he mean hygienists?) to do dental work, it’s hard to escape the thought that he will be a disaster in a general election campaign.
Let's face it, we saw him against Liz Truss, and he lost the argument, albeit to a crowd that contained more than the normal level of howlers at the moon. It doesn't bode well.
He's outlasted a lettuce though.
Just the tip of the iceberg
Is it 'cos he is a little gem?
The Tory faithful will be saying "lettuce pray that he is"
Some Tories now want a referendum on leaving the ECHR in the next manifesto .
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
To be honest, and as a conservative, I would suggest that if the ERG and the right want to go down that route they will become more marginalised than ever, and are unlikely to be anymore relevant than Corbyn is at present
I sincerely hope so . To leave the ECHR would be shameful.
I do not support leaving the ECHR
That's because it's currently not Conservative Party policy (I think). What will you do if it's in the next manifesto?
A very good question but I genuinely hope the party can move on from the Johnson days
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
Have you ever thought about writing comedy stuff at all @Leon? I think you would be pretty good at it. Did you always have a talent for writing, or did you have to work at it?
I've always found writing easy - and enjoyable. Since I was a tiny lad
I am extremely lucky that, when I'm not doing my flint knapping, I get paid to do something I would do for frree anyway, and something that I am apparently quite good at. I think it's a bit like having a good singing voice. If you've got one, you use it, anyway, and if you are paid for it, even better
But I have had to work on aspects, as well. eg How to structure: longform, or stories, or articles. That doesn't come so naturally at all. I read a LOT of books by Hollywood scriptwriters, to understand all this. They are the absolute masters of structure
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
The Meaming of Liff was very clever, as well. And insghtful
I always remember
"Glasgow: the sense of infinite sadness when you enter a room full of happy, noisy people fifteen years younger than you"
Oh man - now I have to dig out my old copy of Meaning of Liff. I recall Probus of course but there were so many other good entries!
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
Er, because there won't be any money in it? No one will pay for human translation, when they can get it cheaper and faster from machines? So it won't actually be "a career"?
Had that not occurred to you? I guess not
Diplomats and lawyers will still pay for a human interpreter, and I would probably still fork out the £100 it cost me to have a human translate the letter I sent to my future wife’s father, asking him for permission to marry his daughter.
But for everything else, you’re right.
Translating novels still needs the human touch. You don't get the flavour and naunce of the original otherwise.
That’s a good point. Artistic translation will remain a human skill for a while, although TV show subtitles probably won’t take long.
That all said. My wife, as you know, speaks Russian. There’s already a cottage industry of TV and movie pirates in Russian-speaking countries, who can be uploading not just subtitled but dubbed media, within a day of release in the English-speaking world.
My assumption is that there’s a bunch of students from the language school, the drama school, and the media school, who watch the original, write the script, translate the script, get a group of actors to read the script, record the script, edit the voice recording back into the original programme, and have it uploaded onto pirate websites, all in a matter of hours.
There’s several of these groups out there, who compete on time and quality. It’s like the ‘90s OG English-speaking internet all over again, where forum collaboration on all sorts of mad stuff, just for the hell of it, was rife.
There are two industries who are always first to embrace technological advancement. Adult industry and the pirates.
Oh indeed. That’s how VHS beat Betamax, and how mp3 beat whatever DRM crap Sony tried to push.
I now assume that OnlyFans must be either a CIA or FBI operation, to have not been shut down by the payment processors.
Having helped a part of OF deal with their banking issues their problems are also due to what I can only call “activist staff” as much as anything else. Wish I could expand on here but it’s not easy for companies like that. Payment processors weren’t their problem as much as finding a home for their revenue to sit.
That sounds like a fun job! “Activist staff” does appear to be an increasingly problematic business issue.
I've always considered myself to be inactivist staff.
I worked with a South African guy who was an excellent surrealist anarchist.
He was especially proud of his efforts with respect to his conscription into the Army, during Apartheid.
Being an IT geek, he managed to wrangle a position in Communications. Where he claimed to have produced the worst communication software, less productively than anyone else had ever managed. He reckoned that he had done about minus 8-9 years of work in 2 years. Which, as he put it, was far more fun than shooting some poor bastard in Namibia.
The cherry on the cake was, apparently, that he hid his deliberate fuckups so well, that his boss wrote him up for a commendation for his work. Despite a logged track record of communication failures and disasters associated with his software.
SCOTUS is having a busy week. In the 303 Creative case, it ruled that a web designer can refuse commissions for same-sex weddings. News report from "The Hill" below
Supreme Court rules web designer can refuse same-sex weddings BY THEHILL.COM - 06/30/23 10:05 AM ET
Summary: The Supreme Court decided in favor of a web designer who wanted to refuse clients celebrating marriages she does not endorse, stating that it violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
The Meaming of Liff was very clever, as well. And insghtful
I always remember
"Glasgow: the sense of infinite sadness when you enter a room full of happy, noisy people fifteen years younger than you"
Aberystwyth (n.) A nostalgic yearning which is in itself more pleasant than the thing being yearned for.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
Amusing more than funny. But incredibly important to a whole generation of bright sciencey-minded teenagers who have worked out that cool ideas are happening somewhere, but not where they are growing up. (Gosport, for example.) So probably a large percentage of PBers.
In terms of radio comedy, the one I regret not hearing much earlier was The Burkiss Way. That really is full of high-density, very funny ideas.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
I'm on a train from Ipswich to Darsham at the moment and to get here I have been on several trains and recently I was on several to start and end my cycling holiday and something I have noticed is the conductors all seem to have got a lot happier and friendly. Obviously been on charm courses.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
Mechanisation rarely destroys all the jobs in a particular area, it normally just shifts the emphasis. BigG's granddaughter might well end up on a six figure salary advising the coders on how to validate the next great translation software.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Gullivers Travels is genuinely funny, especially the later chapters.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud, though some of it was so surreal it made me chuckle with the thought "wtf", or whatever the equivalent was back then. I don't know if he used mind altering drugs, but he certainly gave the impression of being able to imagine such a state.
He was the first comedian/comic writer I noticed whose work reflected his career path. Stand-up comedians evolve from everyday things to complaining about how you can't pee on a bus to complaining about lack of space on aircraft overhead lockers, tracking their own trajectory as they move from poor angry young firebrand to smug rich sell-out. Hitchhikers started with a penniless hitchhiker clutching a towel, then went thru arguing about bills in expensive restaurants, and ended up with a virtual (spoilers!) environment in which he was the most important thing in the world. I've wondered if a plot point about a character escaping from an office thru the window was based on his editor's insistence of getting an agent to force him into a hotel room and not come out until he had written something.
And yes, i know I'm not the first person to work this out: I seem to remember Neil Gaiman or Adams himself remarking on it...
SCOTUS is having a busy week. In the 303 Creative case, it ruled that a web designer can refuse commissions for same-sex weddings. News report from "The Hill" below
Supreme Court rules web designer can refuse same-sex weddings BY THEHILL.COM - 06/30/23 10:05 AM ET
Summary: The Supreme Court decided in favor of a web designer who wanted to refuse clients celebrating marriages she does not endorse, stating that it violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment
The emerging line on this appears to be that the provision of a basic service, such as a hotel room or retail goods business, is not allowed to be discriminatory; but the provision of a creative service, such as a wedding cake or a website, can take into account the views of the artist. IMHO that does appear to be a reasonable compromise.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
I think Hitchhikers and of course PB are/were the only things I have read that make/made me laugh out loud regularly
SCOTUS is having a busy week. In the 303 Creative case, it ruled that a web designer can refuse commissions for same-sex weddings. News report from "The Hill" below
Supreme Court rules web designer can refuse same-sex weddings BY THEHILL.COM - 06/30/23 10:05 AM ET
Summary: The Supreme Court decided in favor of a web designer who wanted to refuse clients celebrating marriages she does not endorse, stating that it violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Riotous Assembly is brilliant
Indeed. also Wilt and Porterhouse Blue. The latter of which had the exploding condoms that blew up the college and the rampant Mrs Biggs is all laugh out loud stuff
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
SCOTUS is having a busy week. In the 303 Creative case, it ruled that a web designer can refuse commissions for same-sex weddings. News report from "The Hill" below
Supreme Court rules web designer can refuse same-sex weddings BY THEHILL.COM - 06/30/23 10:05 AM ET
Summary: The Supreme Court decided in favor of a web designer who wanted to refuse clients celebrating marriages she does not endorse, stating that it violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment
The emerging line on this appears to be that the provision of a basic service, such as a hotel room or retail goods business, is not allowed to be discriminatory; but the provision of a creative service, such as a wedding cake or a website, can take into account the views of the artist. IMHO that does appear to be a reasonable compromise.
Hmm. I assume a case involving the boundary between the two things will make itself known soon. (Unless it already has and I'm just not keeping up?)
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
SCOTUS is having a busy week. In the 303 Creative case, it ruled that a web designer can refuse commissions for same-sex weddings. News report from "The Hill" below
Supreme Court rules web designer can refuse same-sex weddings BY THEHILL.COM - 06/30/23 10:05 AM ET
Summary: The Supreme Court decided in favor of a web designer who wanted to refuse clients celebrating marriages she does not endorse, stating that it violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
I can visually picture Mr Bean mouthing the word “Halibut”, in his exaggerated style, while holding a fish in his hands.
Bill Bryson used to be very funny until about 10/15 years ago. His latest book on Britain was interesting but not amusing. It was rather curmudgeonly.
Yes, completely agree
The first book, The Lost Continent, was one of the funniest things I have ever read. I laughed - out loud - mulltiple tmes. Genius. Then a slow decline.... Like a brilliant debut album
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
Catch 22 is good, but more of a snigger for me. We obviously both have differing levels of titillation.
I know what you mean. Did I actually laugh OUT LOUD when reading Catch 22? I think I did, or is that me misremembering my appreciation of the intense wittiness? Also it could be me actually remembering Catch 22 the movie, which did definitely make me laugh, but then laughing at a movie is a daily occurrence
Doing it just with words on paper - thats the fiendishly difficult thing. It's what makes Wodehouse such a genius
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
I never knew undervolting a CPU to keep the temperature down was a thing. Until now. 20 Celsius cooler by undervolting by 50mV. That's a worry off my mind about overheating.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
What cod be the reason?
Nope, I am NOT going to indulge a fish pun fest. I will fin -ish it now because I do not want anyone to plaice me under pressure with the scale of the number of puns used on PB, so there will be no tails where we have to skate around the subject or where someone tries to knock me off my perch about how hooked they are on puns or some such line that might net the odd laugh.
SCOTUS is having a busy week. In the 303 Creative case, it ruled that a web designer can refuse commissions for same-sex weddings. News report from "The Hill" below
Supreme Court rules web designer can refuse same-sex weddings BY THEHILL.COM - 06/30/23 10:05 AM ET
Summary: The Supreme Court decided in favor of a web designer who wanted to refuse clients celebrating marriages she does not endorse, stating that it violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment
The emerging line on this appears to be that the provision of a basic service, such as a hotel room or retail goods business, is not allowed to be discriminatory; but the provision of a creative service, such as a wedding cake or a website, can take into account the views of the artist. IMHO that does appear to be a reasonable compromise.
Hmm. I assume a case involving the boundary between the two things will make itself known soon. (Unless it already has and I'm just not keeping up?)
There’s groups of activists pushing all of these cases, and eventually they will meet in the middle. I think that the legal decisions have been about right so far. One can’t discriminate in the provision of goods or services, but one can object to be asked to create something new, with which the artist has an objection.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
With you on Catch 22 - more laughs in that than in all the other books I've read combined, I reckon.
How about J.P. Donleavy - Ginger Man and others? I'd have thought you may like his lewd hilarity?
Liked Donleavy, but no belly laughs, no
There must be some obscure psychological reason why it is so hard to evoke laughter just with sentences on a page, yet so easy for even an average stand up comic on a stage. Something about timing, and body language, and seeing a face and gestures?
Same goes for terror. Very hard to induce real scares with mere words. So much easier in a movie when you can use light and dark and music and everything else
Only four or five books/stories have ever actually scared me
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
What cod be the reason?
Nope, I am NOT going to indulge a fish pun fest. I will fin -ish it now because I do not want anyone to plaice me under pressure with the scale of the number of puns used on PB, so there will be no tails where we have to skate around the subject or where someone tries to knock me off my perch about how hooked they are on puns or some such line that might net the odd laugh.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
With you on Catch 22 - more laughs in that than in all the other books I've read combined, I reckon.
How about J.P. Donleavy - Ginger Man and others? I'd have thought you may like his lewd hilarity?
Liked Donleavy, but no belly laughs, no
There must be some obscure psychological reason why it is so hard to evoke laughter just with sentences on a page, yet so easy for even an average stand up comic on a stage. Something about timing, and body language, and seeing a face and gestures?
Same goes for terror. Very hard to induce real scares with mere words. So much easier in a movie when you can use light and dark and music and everything else
Only four or five books/stories have ever actually scared me
Laughter is a collective activity, like yawning. Comedians or movies are less funny watched alone
Seeing Rishi Sunak talking about getting therapists (did he mean hygienists?) to do dental work, it’s hard to escape the thought that he will be a disaster in a general election campaign.
Let's face it, we saw him against Liz Truss, and he lost the argument, albeit to a crowd that contained more than the normal level of howlers at the moon. It doesn't bode well.
He's outlasted a lettuce though.
Just the tip of the iceberg
Is it 'cos he is a little gem?
The Tory faithful will be saying "lettuce pray that he is"
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
I recommend the short stories of Lorrie Moore. Also, “That Old Ace In The Hole” by Annie Proulx is a wonderfully funny book that nobody has heard of.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
What cod be the reason?
Nope, I am NOT going to indulge a fish pun fest. I will fin -ish it now because I do not want anyone to plaice me under pressure with the scale of the number of puns used on PB, so there will be no tails where we have to skate around the subject or where someone tries to knock me off my perch about how hooked they are on puns or some such line that might net the odd laugh.
I think you might have snook one or two in there.
I knew there was a reel risk I might get caught. I'm gutted.
I never knew undervolting a CPU to keep the temperature down was a thing. Until now. 20 Celsius cooler by undervolting by 50mV. That's a worry off my mind about overheating.
Same goes for terror. Very hard to induce real scares with mere words. So much easier in a movie when you can use light and dark and music and everything else
Only four or five books/stories have ever actually scared me
I've seen it suggested that it's easier to be scared by stories if you're the sort of person who pictures vivid images in their head when they read. (I don't have much mental imagery at all so I wouldn't know.)
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
I can visually picture Mr Bean mouthing the word “Halibut”, in his exaggerated style, while holding a fish in his hands.
Rowan Atkinson is one of those rare comedians who can make you laugh: virtually as soon as you look at him
Eric Morecambe had the same gift
Exceptionally unusual
99% of comics - even really good comics - have to do or say SOMETHING to get you amused, but the real unique comic geniuses can just stand there and they are funny. No idea how that works
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
I can visually picture Mr Bean mouthing the word “Halibut”, in his exaggerated style, while holding a fish in his hands.
Rowan Atkinson is one of those rare comedians who can make you laugh: virtually as soon as you look at him
Eric Morecambe had the same gift
Exceptionally unusual
99% of comics - even really good comiucs - have to do or say SOMETHING to get you amused, but the real unique comic geniuses can just stand there and they are funny. No idea how that works
Same goes for terror. Very hard to induce real scares with mere words. So much easier in a movie when you can use light and dark and music and everything else
Only four or five books/stories have ever actually scared me
I've seen it suggested that it's easier to be scared by stories if you're the sort of person who pictures vivid images in their head when they read. (I don't have much mental imagery at all so I wouldn't know.)
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Neat humblebrag about making the halfway point in Ulysses
the most LOL books ever written are Letters to Emma Jane and The Balloons in the Black Bag by William Donaldson, better known for the overrated Henry Root letters.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
With you on Catch 22 - more laughs in that than in all the other books I've read combined, I reckon.
How about J.P. Donleavy - Ginger Man and others? I'd have thought you may like his lewd hilarity?
Liked Donleavy, but no belly laughs, no
There must be some obscure psychological reason why it is so hard to evoke laughter just with sentences on a page, yet so easy for even an average stand up comic on a stage. Something about timing, and body language, and seeing a face and gestures?
Same goes for terror. Very hard to induce real scares with mere words. So much easier in a movie when you can use light and dark and music and everything else
Only four or five books/stories have ever actually scared me
It is remarkable how much a standard style of twinkley, off key music can instantly make anything creepy. Our brains must be intensely wired for sound.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
I can visually picture Mr Bean mouthing the word “Halibut”, in his exaggerated style, while holding a fish in his hands.
Rowan Atkinson is one of those rare comedians who can make you laugh: virtually as soon as you look at him
Eric Morecambe had the same gift
Exceptionally unusual
99% of comics - even really good comics - have to do or say SOMETHING to get you amused, but the real unique comic geniuses can just stand there and they are funny. No idea how that works
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
Catch 22 is good, but more of a snigger for me. We obviously both have differing levels of titillation.
I know what you mean. Did I actually laugh OUT LOUD when reading Catch 22? I think I did, or is that me misremembering my appreciation of the intense wittiness? Also it could be me actually remembering Catch 22 the movie, which did definitely make me laugh, but then laughing at a movie is a daily occurrence
Doing it just with words on paper - thats the fiendishly difficult thing. It's what makes Wodehouse such a genius
This book always travels with me - I have read it a hundred times and it never fails to make me laugh. On the joint worst day of my life I had it on my flight and despite the absolute zombified state of hell I was in I read it and laughed even if nothing else in the world was good. I can just pick a particular story out of it and everything g is ok.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
With you on Catch 22 - more laughs in that than in all the other books I've read combined, I reckon.
How about J.P. Donleavy - Ginger Man and others? I'd have thought you may like his lewd hilarity?
Liked Donleavy, but no belly laughs, no
There must be some obscure psychological reason why it is so hard to evoke laughter just with sentences on a page, yet so easy for even an average stand up comic on a stage. Something about timing, and body language, and seeing a face and gestures?
Same goes for terror. Very hard to induce real scares with mere words. So much easier in a movie when you can use light and dark and music and everything else
Only four or five books/stories have ever actually scared me
Laughter is a collective activity, like yawning. Comedians or movies are less funny watched alone
Good point. I suppose terror is infectious as well, to an extent - the collective gasp of horror in a cinema. If all cinemas close we will lose that shared experience, which will be a damn shame
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Cheers for the response.
The issue is about allocation of scarce resources - eg road space - so there are decisions that have to be made.
The challenge is sharpest in cities. And the factors include efficiency (private vehicles being the most inefficient in terms of moving people), equality (many people *cannot* get a driving license for eg medical reasons), safety, perceived safety, emissions, and others I can't think of for now.
Discouraging / reducing use of private motor vehicles in cities helps efficiency and congestion for two desirable outcomes.
Do we give this 3.5m of road width to a second general lane, or to an extra 1.0m of pavement, a 2m protected mobility lane for cycles, mobility scooters, wheelers, and e-scooters, and a 0.5m protective buffer to stop the motor vehicles injuring people?
Or the recent case of Kensington High Street, where the Borough Council removed a protected mobility lane, and that space is now taken up mainly by a very small number of parked cars? Desirable?
We need to make decisions so that they different modes *can* exist safely side by side. Cycles, pedestrians, wheelers etc do not mix safely with general traffic unless the general traffic is a very small minority, and the speed limit is under 20mph.
Equally, there is an argument for separated road / mobility / pedestrian networks everywhere to encourage cycles and mobility scooters to stay off roads.
I'd say that decisions are somewhat different in rural areas.
The political issues are two fold here though
a) People like the convenience of cars where as public transport is inconvenient b) The only real way to get less cars because of a) is to make them evermore expensive to run and then that will be perceived as pricing the poor of the road.
*Note I don't own a car or motorcycle and haven't driven in 15 years or so and therefore really have no skin in the game
There is a c), if you make public transport as convenient as possible, and tax car externalities appropriately (not excessively), then people will choose public transport, at least some of the time.
c) Is not achievable, I mostly use the bus when I absolutely have to go out but its never going to be convenient and there is no way it can be made as convenient as a car. The inconvenience of the bus actually means there are many times I think oh I could go do this then think shit no that means a bus and we have a pretty good bus service here compared to most places outside central london.
However, if the journey by bus (or bike) took 2/3 of the time of the journey by car, and cost half as much?
(Agree - that would be dependent on area.)
I've noticed people change their habits whilst we have the current £2 bus fare cap. Has that affected your habits?
No I don't go out much because almost everywhere I want to get to means take a bus to the town centre then wait for another bus that goes to where I actually want to go. Each bus is only likely to actually turn up and because bus routes tend to be circuitous they take an age so a journey I can do in a car in 10minutes usually takes an hour or more. Hence why I am often put off when I think about going out.
You couldn't pay me to ride a bike even if you turned all the roads to cycle lanes and removed all the cars
Why? I'm genuinely intrigued. Because you're worried about falling off? Because you feel you'd look silly? Don't want to get sweaty?
Weather for starters, most of the year it is either too hot or too cold or too wet to want to use a bike. Secondly nowhere to keep a bike, thirdly I have back issues and the risk of them kicking in when about and not being able to cycle back, fourthly when I go out I want to dress the way I want to and not how I have to in order to ride a bike.
Stats on cycling show that isn't much variance by weather or month.
There are currently plans to roll out cycle storage (cyclehoop) across most cities and towns
Sorry about the back issue. Not much you can do about that, though cycling tends to be a pretty low impact activity (unless you get hit by a driver)
You don't have to wear lycra. I cycle in my work stuff
Stats on cycling show that there isn't much variance for people who already like to cycle for those that don't I am betting its a major factor
I meant to store at my home so cyclehoop is totally irrelevant
I didn't imagine I had to wear lycra, however all my coats are too long to be safe wearing while cycling and I have no intention of changing that to get on something I don't want to get on in the first place. The whole idea of even getting on a cycle is anathema for large numbers of the population.
You seem to be of the opinion that everyone secretly wants to cycle and its just a matter of assuaging external reasons. Frankly I would rather go out wearing a lime green mankini than get on a bike. I have zero interest in cycling and didn't before my back issues.
In about ten years there will be thousands of tiny electric self driving cabs which will be perfect for people like you. Summon them with your phone, they turn up at your door, chauffeur you to yout desrination (cheaply) then they tootle off to the next job
No there really won't, you are living in your fantasy world again.
There really will. It's obvious. Indeed, it is already happening in China
"Driverless vehicles may sound like something from science fiction, but they are racing into daily life sooner than many people expected, experts said.
These vehicles have immense potential to be a revolutionary technology to transform lives and open a new chapter in intelligent transportation, they added.
In some Chinese cities, robotaxis can now be hailed through ride-hailing apps for travel to destinations such as subway stations, commercial areas and residential communities. Users only need to input the pickup and drop-off points and the number of passengers. A few minutes later, a self-driving taxi approaches."
Also, why be so miserably pessimistic about it! This technology will be perfect and transformative for people who are in exactly your position, with limited public transport, who can't afford to get wildly expensive normal cabs everywhere, and who don't want to cycle.
The taxis will be small little things, podules almost. Cheap and cheerful
A decade ago you were fapping yourself off over the *fact* there would be no lorry drivers in a decade...
A decade ago you were adamant that machine translation would always be rubbish
Quote, please. IIRC, I believe you were going on about how you would advise your daughters never to become translators, as the machines would win. I was (and still am) far more bearish than that.
That's not quite what you said above.
It still doesn't change the fact you were, and are, hilariously wrong.
Only a world class idiot would be advising his kids to "think about translation as a career" in the light of ChatGPT (and everythig that will come after, as it just gets better and better). Machine translation, in many cases, is now near flawless. And virtually free
I was right. Which makes you are a world class idiot. This is not a revelation for the ages
However I will accept that self driving has taken longer than expected to arrive; it is, nonetheless, on the way
I disagree with almost everything you wrote there. As for "think about translation as a career" : why not? Even if the bottom falls out of the market, there are still transferable skills. And if someone wants to do it, and has a passion for it, why not?
My granddaughter is about to join a Milan Law firm for one year from Leeds University as a translator before returning to complete her degree
But I am right. It is happening, here and now. As we sit here and check the rain at Lords
"Who killed the EU’s translators?
Automation is creeping into European Union institutions — and translators are among its first victims.
Artificial intelligence has taken its first bite out of the Brussels bubble.
High-tech machines that can run through Eurocratic jargon at record speed have replaced hundreds of translators working for the EU, downsizing one of the largest and oldest departments among the multilingual Brussels institutions.
And this might be just the start, as new AI tools have the potential to further replace humans."
My granddaughter was offered a place at Kyoto University as well but chose Milan as she wanted the practical experience of translating in a working environment
She is fluent in Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese and frankly I have no worries about her future, as languages open a whole world of opportunity
I think she will do very well. That many languages she is clearly very bright. Besides, I wouldn't worry too much about @Leon's pessimism (I expect you know that). I was told in about 2000 that the internet would kill my business by one kind soul. It didn't and did quite the reverse. I haven't seen the plonker since because I'd love to remind him lol.
You should give the sacked EU translators or redundant Bild Subeditors a pep talk - "don't worry, it will all be fine, I'm doing great". It will be a massive solace to them, and remind them that AI is no threat at all
I was more referring to @Big_G_NorthWales's granddaughter. Those that have been made redundant I feel great sympathy for. Many companies I have worked with over the years will continue to value language skills. Maybe one day someone will discover an AI driven electronic implant version of the Babel Fish where no-one needs to know any languages to converse in real time with cultural subtleties but that is quite sometime off
Amazingly, the Babelfish is, aleady, nearly here
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
I wonder how many Douglas Adams words and phrases have entered the English language. A lot less than Shakespeare, but then he wrote a lot more, clearly not having Douglas Adams word blockage and sadly slightly less longevity.
A friend of mine lives with the woman who inherited virtually the entire Adams estate
It generates enormous sums of money
He is one of the finest surreal comedy writers of all time. Rivals the Pythons, possibly better.
I never found his humour particularly funny. It was often clever but it had a sixth form quality. Intelligent but somehow adolescent?
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
"Fish" is one of those words that is just surreally funny. Python also had the knack for use of amusing but mundane words. Halibut always makes me smile. Maybe I have a sea creature thing.
I can visually picture Mr Bean mouthing the word “Halibut”, in his exaggerated style, while holding a fish in his hands.
Rowan Atkinson is one of those rare comedians who can make you laugh: virtually as soon as you look at him
Eric Morecambe had the same gift
Exceptionally unusual
99% of comics - even really good comics - have to do or say SOMETHING to get you amused, but the real unique comic geniuses can just stand there and they are funny. No idea how that works
It’s the funny bones.
Apropos the earlier discussion, Mr Bean is known in pretty much every country in the world, because there was almost no translation necessary. Very few spoken words, in the whole series.
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story) The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information Ham on Rye by Bukowski There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
Have you tried Tom Sharpe?
Yes, didn't work for me. But I am very hard to please and /I am setting a high bar: I mean books that actually make me guffaw - a proper belly laugh - not a smile and a titter, not a witty line that makes me slightly chuckle
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
Catch 22 is good, but more of a snigger for me. We obviously both have differing levels of titillation.
I know what you mean. Did I actually laugh OUT LOUD when reading Catch 22? I think I did, or is that me misremembering my appreciation of the intense wittiness? Also it could be me actually remembering Catch 22 the movie, which did definitely make me laugh, but then laughing at a movie is a daily occurrence
Doing it just with words on paper - thats the fiendishly difficult thing. It's what makes Wodehouse such a genius
This book always travels with me - I have read it a hundred times and it never fails to make me laugh. On the joint worst day of my life I had it on my flight and despite the absolute somebodies state of hell I was in I read it and laughed even if nothing else in the world was good. I can just pick a particular story out of it and everything g is ok.
Comments
There's no obvious universal answer there. It depends on the upside and downside. (Though the conservative instinct is to not change unless it's an abomination.)
Hence the pre- and post- Brexit debates. Some people think that fine-tuning the UK is worth the resulting boundary effects. Personally, I'm not convinced. What's not on is pretending that either side of the balance doesn't exist.
Apologies, @Pagan2
"NACS and CCS2 are not the same charging standard. NACS is the most common charging standard in North America, while CCS2 is used in Europe and most of the rest of the world, excluding China1. Tesla uses NACS in North America, South Korea, and Japan, but not in Europe or most of the rest of the world."
"In-Ear Device Delivers Clear Multilingual Communication with Close to Zero Latency"
https://slator.com/in-ear-device-delivers-clear-multilingual-communication-close-to-zero-latency/
A review:
https://www.thetravelmagazine.net/product-review-timekettle-m3-translator-earbuds/
They sound quite good, with obvious flaws. But that is remarkable in itself. A sci fi dream - the Babelfish - is close to reality.
In three years? Five? Ten?
I imagine it will be very hard to get "Babelfish" that capture every subtle nuance and idiom of language, but for everyday wandering around as a tourist, or for basic business chats and the like, they will be absolutely fine
Another nail in the coffin of the translator's job
It is interesting to speculate how it will impact the hegemony of English? Will so many people feel a need to learn it? Probably not. But English is the absolute language of technology, and as technology expands so does English, so there will be opposing forces
I reckon we will end up in a world where there is one dominant language, English, and a load of others that slowly die out, until the aliens zap us with weird lasers shaped like bassoons
All the main advocates of it that get in the press are generally people that are passionate about the hair shirt approach to it. We must stop doing this, that and the other, however most of those that advocate this hair shirt approach also do not by a long way lead by example.....cf emma thompson and her private jets. Most of the JSO and extinction rebellion folk that get interviewed seem to be people who live hugely privileged lifestyles compared to even most people in the uk.
Sorry I snapped at you just rankled it being implied I am a problem compared to most of them
Even better as I will be there, God willing
You may be right about simple translation per se in the medium term, but until that Babelfish is fully developed languages will still be valued by companies that need people who can converse for business purposes in different languages. many people believe language fluency is the best way to fully immerse in a culture. Alternatively just shout DO YOU SPEAK ENGLISH? very loudly as that always works.
It generates enormous sums of money
Does the country need another round of toxic politics and division . And not sure vote to leave the ECHR so you can be like Russia and Belarus is quite the vote winner !
This will of course mean the UK would be tearing up the Good Friday Agreement , trashing any co-operation with the EU and destroying what’s left of its global reputation but for pond life like the odious Gullis it’s all worth it !
All you need is a loud minority of say, anti-oil, employees kicking off and leaking stories etc to make a bank walk away from a potential client. It’s all great until other banks, maybe in other countries, say “ok we’ll take that and the fees” and then the clients drip away and the activist employee is crying because their employer had to cut jobs, one being theirs.
Always makes me laugh when you read a series of stories in the Guardian castigating the National Gallery or similar from taking sponsorship from the likes of BP, the National drop the sponsorship and then the Guardian is having kittens months later bemoaning how galleries are at risk from a lack of funding.
"And Prigozhin has now disbanded his fake news holding, leaving hundreds of fake news manufacturers, and likely thousands of trolls unemployed and unemployable. Expect waves of leaks from young people who suddenly found their conscience on the way out."
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1674814603627307008
I wonder if this will affect our regular weekend visitors?
The real issue is that Tesla is actively expanding to their network.
Everyone else is promising that it will be done Real Soon.
Essentially, Tesla standardised on a supercharger design, mass produced it, installed it and updated it in a simple series of versions with full retro comparability. Since their charging arm now makes a 20% profit, despite expanding by double digit compound increase per year, there is little prospect of them stopping.
All the MBAs at the other companies have told each other that charging is a low margin business and not “core business” - so why bother, when you can invest in surefire winners like NFT or Crypto?
Boris Johnson has demanded that Rishi Sunak takes urgent action to ensure the Rwanda deportations go ahead to break the business model of "evil" people traffickers.
The former Prime Minister has waded into the Channel small boats debate in his weekly column for the Daily Mail which he said he would avoid discussing politics unless absolutely necessary.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-demands-pm-get-rwanda-done-in-blistering-intervention-after-major-court-setback
However he was fantastically imaginative and fiercely bright, which goes a long way
So many of his concepts and memes have entered global discourse. From Babelfish to "42" to the Probability Drive, and many more
I always remember
"Glasgow: the sense of infinite sadness when you enter a room full of happy, noisy people fifteen years younger than you"
We will have to see
I am extremely lucky that, when I'm not doing my flint knapping, I get paid to do something I would do for frree anyway, and something that I am apparently quite good at. I think it's a bit like having a good singing voice. If you've got one, you use it, anyway, and if you are paid for it, even better
But I have had to work on aspects, as well. eg How to structure: longform, or stories, or articles. That doesn't come so naturally at all. I read a LOT of books by Hollywood scriptwriters, to understand all this. They are the absolute masters of structure
He was especially proud of his efforts with respect to his conscription into the Army, during Apartheid.
Being an IT geek, he managed to wrangle a position in Communications. Where he claimed to have produced the worst communication software, less productively than anyone else had ever managed. He reckoned that he had done about minus 8-9 years of work in 2 years. Which, as he put it, was far more fun than shooting some poor bastard in Namibia.
The cherry on the cake was, apparently, that he hid his deliberate fuckups so well, that his boss wrote him up for a commendation for his work. Despite a logged track record of communication failures and disasters associated with his software.
Supreme Court rules web designer can refuse same-sex weddings
BY THEHILL.COM - 06/30/23 10:05 AM ET
Summary: The Supreme Court decided in favor of a web designer who wanted to refuse clients celebrating marriages she does not endorse, stating that it violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4075558-read-supreme-courts-ruling-303-creative-case-free-speech/
"Hitchhikers was one of the first books I read that made me laugh out loud"
+++++
Books that make me laugh OUT LOUD with mere words are so rare I can name nearly all of them
P G Wodehouse in general
One immortal line in The Granton Star Cause by Irvine Welsh (a short story)
The near plane crash scene in Martin Amis' The Information
Ham on Rye by Bukowski
There's a very good joke halfway through Joyce's Ulysses
Evelyn Waugh at his most waspish, maybe
Early Bill Bryson
After that I struggle
In terms of radio comedy, the one I regret not hearing much earlier was The Burkiss Way. That really is full of high-density, very funny ideas.
Makes my day a bit happier.
And yes, i know I'm not the first person to work this out: I seem to remember Neil Gaiman or Adams himself remarking on it...
And the supposed gay customer in the complaint is heterosexual, and not a customer.
So the usual bang up job by the grotesques.
The student loan case is similarly based on a legal fiction.
This is a good list and has reminded me of a couple of others
David Foster Wallace's A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again
and
Catch 22
Pretty sure I lol'd several times at Catch 22
https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/books/g5331/funniest-books-ever/
The first book, The Lost Continent, was one of the funniest things I have ever read. I laughed - out loud - mulltiple tmes. Genius. Then a slow decline.... Like a brilliant debut album
Doing it just with words on paper - thats the fiendishly difficult thing. It's what makes Wodehouse such a genius
How about J.P. Donleavy - The Ginger Man and others? I'd have thought you may like his lewd hilarity.
I never knew undervolting a CPU to keep the temperature down was a thing. Until now.
20 Celsius cooler by undervolting by 50mV.
That's a worry off my mind about overheating.
There must be some obscure psychological reason why it is so hard to evoke laughter just with sentences on a page, yet so easy for even an average stand up comic on a stage. Something about timing, and body language, and seeing a face and gestures?
Same goes for terror. Very hard to induce real scares with mere words. So much easier in a movie when you can use light and dark and music and everything else
Only four or five books/stories have ever actually scared me
Also, “That Old Ace In The Hole” by Annie Proulx is a wonderfully funny book that nobody has heard of.
Oh, and “A House for Mr Biswas”, obviously.
I think we found ourselves an undervolter…
Eric Morecambe had the same gift
Exceptionally unusual
99% of comics - even really good comics - have to do or say SOMETHING to get you amused, but the real unique comic geniuses can just stand there and they are funny. No idea how that works
the most LOL books ever written are Letters to Emma Jane and The Balloons in the Black Bag by William Donaldson, better known for the overrated Henry Root letters.
This book always travels with me - I have read it a hundred times and it never fails to make me laugh. On the joint worst day of my life I had it on my flight and despite the absolute zombified state of hell I was in I read it and laughed even if nothing else in the world was good. I can just pick a particular story out of it and everything g is ok.
Apropos the earlier discussion, Mr Bean is known in pretty much every country in the world, because there was almost no translation necessary. Very few spoken words, in the whole series.
Jeeves and Wooster books given trigger warnings and edited by publisher to remove 'unacceptable' PG Wodehouse prose
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/jeeves-wooster-trigger-warning-edited-publisher-unacceptable-prose-pg-wodehouse/
(From the story it does appear to be minor updates, and at least less stupid than the Roald Dahl estate).