One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
Will Broad give a mankad warning or just hop straight to it.
At least with a mankad the batsman is actually trying to gain an advantage. But maybe we should wait to see what happens this week before we judge the English response.
Many stumpings are because the batsman screwed up rather than because they were trying to gain an advantage.
This was just a fairly egregious mistake by Bairstow.
The Aussies never held onto the ball, that means the action was never over. Quite often the keeper takes a swipe at the stumps for a stumping but the batsman is at his crease so the bails are just put back on and play goes on. This is just a bizarre instance where Bairstow decided to leave the crease after the Keeper had already thrown at the stumps. That's not the Keeper's mistake.
O/T fascinating charts. The most interesting items are not the ones where they diverge, which are as expected, but those where they are almost identical, and reasonably salient. Therein lie the swing votes.
Economy (of course) Taxation Law and order
James Carville is still right, more than three decades later:
I imagine a lot of changes of government around the world in the coming years, because the past few years havn’t been good, and the ire of the people usually goes to the incumbents.
The risk of using that campaign slogan is that it will be used against you in 2028/9...
I think a variation of that slogan has appeared in every US presidential election campaign since 1980 - most usually by the opposition to the incumbent.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
He was given out stumped, but the on field umpire asked the third umpire for a run out verdict
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
All that does is slow down price increases for buying property, as the BTL landlords sell.
At the same time, the rental market supply contracts.
The actual solution to the property crisis is 8 million more properties.
You're not going to have me disagree that the solution is more properties in the long term, but fewer parasites seeking to have other's pay their mortgage for them is a good thing in the short term too.
That's not to say there should be no private rentals, but in a functioning market economy rentals should be cheaper than mortgages, and are in much of the world. If someone can afford to pay a landlord's mortgage, they can afford to pay their own, and for them to be paying someone else's instead is a market failure that needs addressing.
People or firms who invest their own money, not their tenant's money, into a property to let is entirely reasonable, but should be getting a return less than a mortgage.
I find it disturbing that you refer to human beings as “parasites”.
It used to be called “othering”
The word has a meaning. A parasite is one that gets its nutrition from the efforts of others.
BTL landlords who don't pay their own mortgage with their own income from their own wages, but instead pay it out of their tenants wages instead, are quite literally engaged in parasitical behaviour.
It's a market failure that people who can afford to pay a mortgage repayment are paying their landlords mortgage instead of their own. A market failure brought about by the regulations on the housing market.
For many cities and countries around the world rent is a cheaper option for people who can't afford a mortgage.
I feel your anger, comrade. Living off the work of others is a feature of Capitalism.
Hope to see you at our next gathering. Thursday 2 pm and it's Hugo's turn to host. Come and have a cuppa and a chinwag.
On topic: quite interested to see Education as the net 4th issue, and 4th for both blue and red.
I feel like this is an area of particular vulnerability for the Tories - you don't have to look to far to see that Govism has failed and in fact caused quite lot of damage. As well as a workforce crisis, a worrying number of schools are falling apart.
It was interesting to finally see some (sadly rather flaccid) policy ideas from Labour last week.
I don't get that feeling about education i.e. things are in a crisis. I am a School Governor and certainly the message at the primary school level is that things are ticking along. Yes, there are the strikes but there is no sense from parents they feel the system is collapsing. My own suspicions is that education is mentioned more because it is a subject people feel is generally important rather than a specific concern driving mention of the topic.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
It's quite literally a stumping.
He wasn't attempting a run and was out of the crease when the Keeper took the bails off. How is that anything but a stumping?
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
Will Broad give a mankad warning or just hop straight to it.
At least with a mankad the batsman is actually trying to gain an advantage. But maybe we should wait to see what happens this week before we judge the English response.
Many stumpings are because the batsman screwed up rather than because they were trying to gain an advantage.
This was just a fairly egregious mistake by Bairstow.
The Aussies never held onto the ball, that means the action was never over. Quite often the keeper takes a swipe at the stumps for a stumping but the batsman is at his crease so the bails are just put back on and play goes on. This is just a bizarre instance where Bairstow decided to leave the crease after the Keeper had already thrown at the stumps. That's not the Keeper's mistake.
It seems like a lot of willy-waving over nothing.
If England had won, it would have been forgotten about soon enough. It is the sting of defeat that is making this an issue.
As for the alternatives: I don't trust Dorsey, and hence Bluesky.
The CEO Dorsey hired also didn't trust Dorsey, so she insisted on a separate non-profit corporation independent of Twitter and not controlled by him. He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it as far as I can tell. Graber came from Zerocash, the other board member made Jabber, and the team seem to be the same kind of people, ie they're from the techie, non-hustler end of p2p/crypto.
Dorsey is a techbro. He operates, and thinks, like a techbro.
"He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it."
That means little - see the way Musk has operated in the past.
And if you want the ultimate reason not to go with Bluesky - Dorsey is backing RFK Jr. Before it has even started, BlueSky has gone over to the dark side.
You've lost me. He doesn't own or control the company. That means a lot. It means that if he wanted it to do some shitty thing involving RFK Jr or whatever, Graber and the team would tell him to piss off.
Or is the thought, he doesn't own it now but he could buy it from the people who do? Because that applies to all companies.
He's on the board, and the ownership situation, as explained, is rather opaque - and does not, as far as I can see, stop Dorsey having a big share?
They say it's owned by Graber and the team, not Dorsey. They could be lying, I guess?
Is Dorsey seen as being part of 'the team' ? As a board member, I'd guess so.
He's a techbro; a friend of Musk and other similar peeps. What makes you think he's suddenly gone all altruistic; particularly given his endorsement of RFK Jr.
The bluesky project originated with Twitter in 2019, but the Bluesky PBLLC established this year is an independent company focused on decentralized social network R&D.
Both Twitter and Bluesky realized that our independence is important to the success of the project, which is why we established an independent company to ensure that we serve the broadest possible interests.
The “public benefit” part of our structure gives us the freedom to put our resources towards our mission without an obligation to return money to shareholders. The company is owned by the team itself, without any controlling stake held by Twitter.
Bluesky has received $13 million to ensure we have the freedom and independence to get started on R&D. Former Twitter CEO @Jack is on our board, & a former Twitter security engineer has joined the team.
They'd have to be being extremely mendacious if Dorsey secretly had a controlling interest in the company. These are well-reputed independent people from good projects like Zerocash and IPFS who could make plenty of money on projects with tokens if they chose that route, so I'd be very surprised if they'd all agreed to go along with a massive fib.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
I used to play squash competitively. In the club leagues you never had an umpire, for matches you did. In the club league I can't think of a single instance where I called a let and the opponent didn't offer a let or point appropriately. I can't think of a single instance where I had a let called on me inappropriately, nor my decision to offer a let or point being disputed.
In matches our coach told us never to accept a let, nor offer a point instead of a let, but to leave it up to the umpire to decide. Because of habit none of us followed this instruction and what is more it amused us that the coach never did either.
Only once did we have an opponent who claimed and argued left right and centre. It took all the fun out of it.
I guess that is what makes a professional sportsman, but one wonders what pleasure that person gets out of it. Maybe it is me but I would rather lose an enjoyable game than win one I employed gamesmanship.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
As for the alternatives: I don't trust Dorsey, and hence Bluesky.
The CEO Dorsey hired also didn't trust Dorsey, so she insisted on a separate non-profit corporation independent of Twitter and not controlled by him. He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it as far as I can tell. Graber came from Zerocash, the other board member made Jabber, and the team seem to be the same kind of people, ie they're from the techie, non-hustler end of p2p/crypto.
Dorsey is a techbro. He operates, and thinks, like a techbro.
"He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it."
That means little - see the way Musk has operated in the past.
And if you want the ultimate reason not to go with Bluesky - Dorsey is backing RFK Jr. Before it has even started, BlueSky has gone over to the dark side.
You've lost me. He doesn't own or control the company. That means a lot. It means that if he wanted it to do some shitty thing involving RFK Jr or whatever, Graber and the team would tell him to piss off.
Or is the thought, he doesn't own it now but he could buy it from the people who do? Because that applies to all companies.
He's on the board, and the ownership situation, as explained, is rather opaque - and does not, as far as I can see, stop Dorsey having a big share?
They say it's owned by Graber and the team, not Dorsey. They could be lying, I guess?
Is Dorsey seen as being part of 'the team' ? As a board member, I'd guess so.
He's a techbro; a friend of Musk and other similar peeps. What makes you think he's suddenly gone all altruistic; particularly given his endorsement of RFK Jr.
The bluesky project originated with Twitter in 2019, but the Bluesky PBLLC established this year is an independent company focused on decentralized social network R&D.
Both Twitter and Bluesky realized that our independence is important to the success of the project, which is why we established an independent company to ensure that we serve the broadest possible interests.
The “public benefit” part of our structure gives us the freedom to put our resources towards our mission without an obligation to return money to shareholders. The company is owned by the team itself, without any controlling stake held by Twitter.
Bluesky has received $13 million to ensure we have the freedom and independence to get started on R&D. Former Twitter CEO @Jack is on our board, & a former Twitter security engineer has joined the team.
They'd have to be being extremely mendacious if Dorsey secretly had a controlling interest in the company. These are well-reputed independent people from good projects like Zerocash and IPFS who could make plenty of money on projects with tokens if they chose that route, so I'd be very surprised if they'd all agreed to go along with a massive fib.
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
On topic: quite interested to see Education as the net 4th issue, and 4th for both blue and red.
I feel like this is an area of particular vulnerability for the Tories - you don't have to look to far to see that Govism has failed and in fact caused quite lot of damage. As well as a workforce crisis, a worrying number of schools are falling apart.
It was interesting to finally see some (sadly rather flaccid) policy ideas from Labour last week.
I don't get that feeling about education i.e. things are in a crisis. I am a School Governor and certainly the message at the primary school level is that things are ticking along. Yes, there are the strikes but there is no sense from parents they feel the system is collapsing. My own suspicions is that education is mentioned more because it is a subject people feel is generally important rather than a specific concern driving mention of the topic.
At the danger of opening Pandora’s Box, is concern around education likely to be related to gender stuff?
O/T fascinating charts. The most interesting items are not the ones where they diverge, which are as expected, but those where they are almost identical, and reasonably salient. Therein lie the swing votes.
Economy (of course) Taxation Law and order
James Carville is still right, more than three decades later:
I imagine a lot of changes of government around the world in the coming years, because the past few years havn’t been good, and the ire of the people usually goes to the incumbents.
And so it should. The actual global agenda IS to make people worse off. It's dressed in green clothes, but it's still clearly set out and openly discussed.
One thing the Green movement is less than keen to talk about is that the many of the founders specifically wanted a lower population to help save the planet, and arguably from the 'browner' parts of the Globe. There is still a view in Africa, for example, that the campaign to ban DDT was nothing more than a racist plot:
Long-time lurker here. I was wondering today how English Tories might attempt to facilitate their preferred option out of the top two available in Scotland, which is to say an SNP bounce rather than a Labour landslide. And then I saw this photo... Never saw the Union Jack wrapped like that before. Must have taken some effort to make it look like the flag of St George with a little bit of decoration around the edge. Then another option for English Tories popped into mind: let Scotland go hang, and either push for English independence or else take such a big dump on Scotland that support for independence there rises to over 50% AND manifests as such in BritGE2024 somehow - meaning not necessarily with an SNP bounce but more likely with growing support among ScotLab voters and members. Just leak a phone call where Sunak makes a kilt or sporran joke or summat. Then bring in Penny and maybe someone who's posh and doesn't sound like JRM and they can say together that yes they bloody well are English and do think that England has its own interests... Aka selling Scotland down the river... And the Tories would never do that. Right?
It only takes about a minute of looking on google to see that all the leaders had the same set-up for their press conferences and the flags were all arranged with the centre point pulled outwards. Example here below of Canada, but also found immediately the same with South Korea and Ukraine.
Pesky G7 giving the bird to the Scots.
IIRC the "dressing" of the room for such press conferences is generally done by a local team. So the arrangement of the flags will probably come out of the local diplomatic handbook.
Morning all. If anyone has any strong views on who'd be the best Conservative candidate for Mayor of London (where "best" is defined either as ability to defeat the incumbent, or to actually govern once having done so), then I'm open to suggestions.
I wasn't overly impressed with either candidate's personal statement. Susan Hall comes across as a lifelong activist who probably doesn't have the ability to step up to a role of this magnitude, and Moz Hussain has a nice story but no political experience whatsoever. Neither seems to have much to say on policy beyond the blindingly obvious.
On topic: quite interested to see Education as the net 4th issue, and 4th for both blue and red.
I feel like this is an area of particular vulnerability for the Tories - you don't have to look to far to see that Govism has failed and in fact caused quite lot of damage. As well as a workforce crisis, a worrying number of schools are falling apart.
It was interesting to finally see some (sadly rather flaccid) policy ideas from Labour last week.
I don't get that feeling about education i.e. things are in a crisis. I am a School Governor and certainly the message at the primary school level is that things are ticking along. Yes, there are the strikes but there is no sense from parents they feel the system is collapsing. My own suspicions is that education is mentioned more because it is a subject people feel is generally important rather than a specific concern driving mention of the topic.
At the danger of opening Pandora’s Box, is concern around education likely to be related to gender stuff?
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
That would outlaw stumping where the player is in crease but playing forwards - i.e. momentum carries the back foot out of the crease after the ball passes the stumps. That's entirely legitimate stumping, in my view.
If there was to be a change then it would be better to make explicit the unwritten rule that most of us understood that the delivery is over when the batter grounds bat within crease after the ball has passed the stumps. The latter would make more sense, as batters tend to do that anyway before going for a wander.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
He threw the ball whilst Bairstow was in his crease !
Only because Bairstow had taken the time to mark his spot to indicate he considered it to be dead ball. The umpires were on the move too.
Balbirnie wasn't in his crease, which is kind of the point of a stumping.
The biggest crime is that Cameron Green got a wicket from it.
The Keeper throws the ball instantly, it never settled, which means it was never dead. The batsman can't consider the ball dead while it's still moving.
Bairstow screwed up.
If it had happened against, say, West Indies, New Zealand or India, it would have been accepted as a mistake by Bairstow. As the Aussies are widely seen as cheats, however ….
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
If this is for a regulator to determine whether there is anti-competitive behaviour, then that's a good idea.
I only heard the announcement in passing so I had the impression it was for consumers, which wouldn't gain a lot.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
Because stumpings should be making batting out of your ground risky
Bairstow wasn't batting in front of the crease
I know it's Bairstow's mistake - have I not made that clear enough? - but the law shouldn't be used to punish Bairstow's carelessness; it should make risk taking risky
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
Because stumpings should be making batting out of your ground risky
Bairstow wasn't batting in front of the crease
I know it's Bairstow's mistake - have I not made that clear enough? - but the law shouldn't be used to punish Bairstow's carelessness; it should make risk taking risky
Stumpings happen very often when a batsman is batting within the crease but momentum takes them out of it at an inopportune moment.
That it was carelessness rather than momentum that took him out was the only unusual thing here. That's not a matter for the umpire or the laws of the sport though.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
It's clear the whole pricing system for fuel is far lower tech than certainly I thought previously. I assumed the prices would have been uploaded to some sort of cloud anyway. Obviously as retailers have never had to do this noone is going to start voluntarily. So the requirement to do it - and I presume get the data uploaded to the big map apps that everyone uses these days is a good idea. Hopefully the Gov't is talking to Google and Apple about this.
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
I don't trust Dorsey. Like I say I don't think their CEO trusts him either, that's why she maneuvered him out, made a design that fails to deliver any of his hobby-horses (decentralized tech but no blockchain, no bitcoins) and he went off to do Nostr instead.
I kind of trust the other people on the team, because they come from the most reputable crypto/p2p projects. Crypto is full of hustles but conversely that makes it easy to pick out people who aren't shady, because they could have taken more lucrative openings and didn't. If the theory is that *those* people are after power rather than money, it doesn't make sense that they'd incinerate their reputations to be underlings of Jack Dorsey.
As for the alternatives: I don't trust Dorsey, and hence Bluesky.
The CEO Dorsey hired also didn't trust Dorsey, so she insisted on a separate non-profit corporation independent of Twitter and not controlled by him. He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it as far as I can tell. Graber came from Zerocash, the other board member made Jabber, and the team seem to be the same kind of people, ie they're from the techie, non-hustler end of p2p/crypto.
Dorsey is a techbro. He operates, and thinks, like a techbro.
"He still has a seat on the board, but beyond that no power over it."
That means little - see the way Musk has operated in the past.
And if you want the ultimate reason not to go with Bluesky - Dorsey is backing RFK Jr. Before it has even started, BlueSky has gone over to the dark side.
You've lost me. He doesn't own or control the company. That means a lot. It means that if he wanted it to do some shitty thing involving RFK Jr or whatever, Graber and the team would tell him to piss off.
Or is the thought, he doesn't own it now but he could buy it from the people who do? Because that applies to all companies.
He's on the board, and the ownership situation, as explained, is rather opaque - and does not, as far as I can see, stop Dorsey having a big share?
They say it's owned by Graber and the team, not Dorsey. They could be lying, I guess?
Is Dorsey seen as being part of 'the team' ? As a board member, I'd guess so.
He's a techbro; a friend of Musk and other similar peeps. What makes you think he's suddenly gone all altruistic; particularly given his endorsement of RFK Jr.
The bluesky project originated with Twitter in 2019, but the Bluesky PBLLC established this year is an independent company focused on decentralized social network R&D.
Both Twitter and Bluesky realized that our independence is important to the success of the project, which is why we established an independent company to ensure that we serve the broadest possible interests.
The “public benefit” part of our structure gives us the freedom to put our resources towards our mission without an obligation to return money to shareholders. The company is owned by the team itself, without any controlling stake held by Twitter.
Bluesky has received $13 million to ensure we have the freedom and independence to get started on R&D. Former Twitter CEO @Jack is on our board, & a former Twitter security engineer has joined the team.
They'd have to be being extremely mendacious if Dorsey secretly had a controlling interest in the company. These are well-reputed independent people from good projects like Zerocash and IPFS who could make plenty of money on projects with tokens if they chose that route, so I'd be very surprised if they'd all agreed to go along with a massive fib.
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
The only group who are at the first steps of being trustworthy are the governance of Signal. https://signal.org/en/
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
It's clear the whole pricing system for fuel is far lower tech than certainly I thought previously. I assumed the prices would have been uploaded to some sort of cloud anyway. Obviously as retailers have never had to do this noone is going to start voluntarily. So the requirement to do it - and I presume get the data uploaded to the big map apps that everyone uses these days is a good idea. Hopefully the Gov't is talking to Google and Apple about this.
A lot of stock control & pricing is ancient. John Lewis, for example, uses a stock control system that broadcasts the updates as of midnight last night. So when they say they have something in stock (on the website or on the phone) - that is actually the situation yesterday
OT. A friend directed me to this. A long and not too recent interview with Keir Starmer. For anyone with the time who wants to understand the probable next PM better it's well worth listening to. Sunak has a lot to fear and BJO really doesn't
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
Yes, had it been first slip who'd taken the bails off it would have been run out instead of stumping but still out.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
Because stumpings should be making batting out of your ground risky
Bairstow wasn't batting in front of the crease
I know it's Bairstow's mistake - have I not made that clear enough? - but the law shouldn't be used to punish Bairstow's carelessness; it should make risk taking risky
Stumpings happen very often when a batsman is batting within the crease but momentum takes them out of it at an inopportune moment.
That it was carelessness rather than momentum that took him out was the only unusual thing here. That's not a matter for the umpire or the laws of the sport though.
Then make the rule "if the batsman is out of his ground as part of his batting movement"
Stumpings shouldn't be able to happen to a batsman who faced the ball entirely within his crease
But they can. And Bairstow should have bloody known that - he's a wicket keeper FFS
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
It's clear the whole pricing system for fuel is far lower tech than certainly I thought previously. I assumed the prices would have been uploaded to some sort of cloud anyway. Obviously as retailers have never had to do this noone is going to start voluntarily. So the requirement to do it - and I presume get the data uploaded to the big map apps that everyone uses these days is a good idea. Hopefully the Gov't is talking to Google and Apple about this.
Doesn't work like that.
The requirement is to make the actual price available online. This will probably be a webpage for each location - trivial to do. A webpage is pretty much a REST call - they might expose that separately, as well, though.
Either way, third party apps will be able to harvest the data and build the map. Given that there are several such apps already, they will probably just add the new data into the stuff they scrape from the internet.
So apart from telling the companies to put the price & location online, the government doesn't need to do anything else.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
Yes, had it been first slip who'd taken the bails off it would have been run out instead of stumping but still out.
The ball wouldn't have been dead in the slip's hand; it would have to be returned to the keeper or bowler first
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
Not sure what would have happened if it had been a no ball, not out I presume because it was a "stumping" and not a run out (Though run out if it was a fielder ex Wickie). Which feels a bit odd.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
It's clear the whole pricing system for fuel is far lower tech than certainly I thought previously. I assumed the prices would have been uploaded to some sort of cloud anyway. Obviously as retailers have never had to do this noone is going to start voluntarily. So the requirement to do it - and I presume get the data uploaded to the big map apps that everyone uses these days is a good idea. Hopefully the Gov't is talking to Google and Apple about this.
A lot of stock control & pricing is ancient. John Lewis, for example, uses a stock control system that broadcasts the updates as of midnight last night. So when they say they have something in stock (on the website or on the phone) - that is actually the situation yesterday
Overnight polling, a legacy of systems designed for telephone lines, rather than broadband connections between the stores and the centre. Still surprisingly common in retail. I bet it sends online orders back to the store overnight too, as pert of the end-of-day process, rather than trying to work in real-time. They probably have three different suppliers for the point-of-sale in the stores, the stock control, and the website back end.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
You know, having watched this again from a different angle (in the light of arguments on here) I've changed my mind. Bairstow wasn't really settled in the crease, the ball was thrown before Bairstow really started wandering off, when it looked instead as if he was careless and didn't have his back foot properly grounded. Had it not been clear Bairstow was walking down the wicket when the ball struck (as opposed to when it was thrown) then there would have been no complaints (idiot didn't have his back foot grounded). It was Bairstow's carelessness and I've no criticism of the keeper having reconsidered.
It is quite different to the example I recounted from a match I played, where the ball was thrown after the batter had left the crease to have a word with his partner.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
You know, having watched this again from a different angle (in the light of arguments on here) I've changed my mind. Bairstow wasn't really settled in the crease, the ball was thrown before Bairstow really started wandering off, when it looked instead as if he was careless and didn't have his back foot properly grounded. Had it not been clear Bairstow was walking down the wicket when the ball struck (as opposed to when it was thrown) then there would have been no complaints (idiot didn't have his back foot grounded). It was Bairstow's carelessness and I've no criticism of the keeper having reconsidered.
It is quite different to the example I recounted from a match I played, where the ball was thrown after the batter had left the crease to have a word with his partner.
This is how the incident seems to be being treated by Piers Morgan et al !
Each to their own and all that, but it’s bonkers you’re all still so riled up about a bloody cricket match.
Well as I say I no longer am. I look at it this way now: Imagine it was a spin bowler, the ball goes to the keeper, standing up, and he whips the bails off speculatively, just as the batsman, thinking all is well, lifts his back foot off the ground. Out stumped.
This was kind of the 'faster ball, standing back' equivalent of that. It's not quite right - because Bairstow specifically indicated with his foot that the ball was dead to him (the cricket equivalent of 'calling for the mark' at rugby) - but it's close enough for me to come to terms with it.
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
I don't trust Dorsey. Like I say I don't think their CEO trusts him either, that's why she maneuvered him out, made a design that fails to deliver any of his hobby-horses (decentralized tech but no blockchain, no bitcoins) and he went off to do Nostr instead.
I kind of trust the other people on the team, because they come from the most reputable crypto/p2p projects. Crypto is full of hustles but conversely that makes it easy to pick out people who aren't shady, because they could have taken more lucrative openings and didn't. If the theory is that *those* people are after power rather than money, it doesn't make sense that they'd incinerate their reputations to be underlings of Jack Dorsey.
I think that's one place where we differ: I don't think *anyone* in crypto has much of a reputation. I'll admit that some are better than others, but the whole area is too darned shady.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
You don't have to be attempting a run to be run out, unless it's a no ball.
There are often run outs where the batsman hits it to a close fielder, the close fielder throws the ball at the stumps, and the batsman is out of their ground despite not attempting a run, and it's out. As I said, the only time this isn't out is if it's a no ball and the striking batsman is not running. (Doesn't apply to the non-striking batsman).
In the Bairstow case, however, stumped was the right decision, not run out. If it had been a no ball, it couldn't have been out, either stumped or run out. That's why I hoped they checked the no ball for that delivery.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
Yes, had it been first slip who'd taken the bails off it would have been run out instead of stumping but still out.
The ball wouldn't have been dead in the slip's hand; it would have to be returned to the keeper or bowler first
Each to their own and all that, but it’s bonkers you’re all still so riled up about a bloody cricket match.
Riled? Riled, you say? No sir, just a gentlemanpersonly discussion of the finer points of the written and unwritten rules of cricket. Getting riled, now that would not be cricket
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
I don't trust Dorsey. Like I say I don't think their CEO trusts him either, that's why she maneuvered him out, made a design that fails to deliver any of his hobby-horses (decentralized tech but no blockchain, no bitcoins) and he went off to do Nostr instead.
I kind of trust the other people on the team, because they come from the most reputable crypto/p2p projects. Crypto is full of hustles but conversely that makes it easy to pick out people who aren't shady, because they could have taken more lucrative openings and didn't. If the theory is that *those* people are after power rather than money, it doesn't make sense that they'd incinerate their reputations to be underlings of Jack Dorsey.
I think that's one place where we differ: I don't think *anyone* in crypto has much of a reputation. I'll admit that some are better than others, but the whole area is too darned shady.
My favourite description of the crypto industry, was “speed-running through the last century-and-a-half of financial legislation, one law at a time”.
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
I don't trust Dorsey. Like I say I don't think their CEO trusts him either, that's why she maneuvered him out, made a design that fails to deliver any of his hobby-horses (decentralized tech but no blockchain, no bitcoins) and he went off to do Nostr instead.
I kind of trust the other people on the team, because they come from the most reputable crypto/p2p projects. Crypto is full of hustles but conversely that makes it easy to pick out people who aren't shady, because they could have taken more lucrative openings and didn't. If the theory is that *those* people are after power rather than money, it doesn't make sense that they'd incinerate their reputations to be underlings of Jack Dorsey.
I think that's one place where we differ: I don't think *anyone* in crypto has much of a reputation. I'll admit that some are better than others, but the whole area is too darned shady.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
You know, having watched this again from a different angle (in the light of arguments on here) I've changed my mind. Bairstow wasn't really settled in the crease, the ball was thrown before Bairstow really started wandering off, when it looked instead as if he was careless and didn't have his back foot properly grounded. Had it not been clear Bairstow was walking down the wicket when the ball struck (as opposed to when it was thrown) then there would have been no complaints (idiot didn't have his back foot grounded). It was Bairstow's carelessness and I've no criticism of the keeper having reconsidered.
It is quite different to the example I recounted from a match I played, where the ball was thrown after the batter had left the crease to have a word with his partner.
Yep. This is the closest on here to the finishing point of my tortuous journey on this one.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
Yes, had it been first slip who'd taken the bails off it would have been run out instead of stumping but still out.
The ball wouldn't have been dead in the slip's hand; it would have to be returned to the keeper or bowler first
The ball was never dead though.
I know. But Bairstow foolishly thought it was
It would have been even more foolish if the ball was in the slip's hand
On topic: quite interested to see Education as the net 4th issue, and 4th for both blue and red.
I feel like this is an area of particular vulnerability for the Tories - you don't have to look to far to see that Govism has failed and in fact caused quite lot of damage. As well as a workforce crisis, a worrying number of schools are falling apart.
It was interesting to finally see some (sadly rather flaccid) policy ideas from Labour last week.
I don't get that feeling about education i.e. things are in a crisis. I am a School Governor and certainly the message at the primary school level is that things are ticking along. Yes, there are the strikes but there is no sense from parents they feel the system is collapsing. My own suspicions is that education is mentioned more because it is a subject people feel is generally important rather than a specific concern driving mention of the topic.
I think the crisis is more acute at secondary level. I have one child in primary, one in secondary and one at sixth form college. The sixth form seems to be doing okay - it is highly selective and so can probably attract motivated teachers quite easily, and is favoured by the government so I imagine has access to opaque pots of cash. The primary is more or less okay, it has a supportive body of parents who raise plenty of money for extracurricular stuff, but it is clear that financial constraints have become more binding recently, eg it has lost some of its arts provision with more stuff done as paid for after school clubs, locking out those on lower incomes. The secondary though is struggling to retain staff, and it is definitely affecting the quality of education on offer. Then of course you have the strikes, which are taking their toll. For me education would be absolutely my number one priority. My blood boils thinking about how ministers send their own kids private and leave those of us in the state sector to suffer from their utter indifference. They really don't care, it is obvious.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
Yes, had it been first slip who'd taken the bails off it would have been run out instead of stumping but still out.
The ball wouldn't have been dead in the slip's hand; it would have to be returned to the keeper or bowler first
The ball was never dead though.
I know. But Bairstow foolishly thought it was
It would have been even more foolish if the ball was in the slip's hand
Probably doesn’t happen in that scenario. Assume keeper fumbles, non-striker looks for a run. I know Bairstow is a dopey so and so, but he took his cue from his partner, the umpire and the crowd.
I think it comes down to whether you think it’s fair for the keeper to anticipate the batsman going to speak to his partner at the end of the over. That’s why Carey through it, he didn’t think Bairstow was about to fall over or anything. Personally I don’t like it, but appreciate that it’s up to each individual.
But don’t complain if play is quite slow with Bairstow taking the bails off at every opportunity.
Each to their own and all that, but it’s bonkers you’re all still so riled up about a bloody cricket match.
Well as I say I no longer am. I look at it this way now: Imagine it was a spin bowler, the ball goes to the keeper, standing up, and he whips the bails off speculatively, just as the batsman, thinking all is well, lifts his back foot off the ground. Out stumped.
This was kind of the 'faster ball, standing back' equivalent of that. It's not quite right - because Bairstow specifically indicated with his foot that the ball was dead to him (the cricket equivalent of 'calling for the mark' at rugby) - but it's close enough for me to come to terms with it.
For me the clincher is that the keeper threw immediately. If we say this shouldn't be allowed, it's the same thing as saying a keeper standing back should never be able to stump or run out a batsman, and that this should be reserved for when he's standing up to the stumps.
abundantly illustrates the laziness of medical politicking and journalism.
Six comments:
a) Destroying the NHS is on no-one's agenda b) Vast amounts of our money are spent on it - similarly to other developed countries health expenditure c) A colossal (and far too late) new development over about 15 years has just been announced, supported by Labour d) The BMA has no suggestion as to how much money as a % of GDP should be spent e) Instead of taking nonsense about abolition the BMA should discuss how to spend vast amounts of money better and more wisely f) This level of discussion and reporting from the BMA and Guardian - both right at the top of the tree in their respective fields - is pathetically bad.
There was a rumour that Twitter were changing their infrastructure (away from AWS and Google Cloud, towards their own, to reduce ruinous hosting costs), this week is when the changeover happened, and their infrastructure people need time to fix scaling issues at data centres.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
In this case there is no such thing as the ball being 'actually dead'. It is only 'the opinion of the umpire' at the time which determines it. The umpire should have decided it was dead, on the simple basis that the batter had left his crease after marking it but without any attempt at a run.
The umpire decides but not arbitrarily or solely on the grounds of what the batter does. The umpire makes the decision based on both teams stopping any action.
If the batsman has indicated they are not going to take a run, has completed any attempt to hit the ball whilst standing in their crease and is in full control of their limbs, what legitimate action can take place?
The batsman can watch the ball settle in the keeper's gloves
You don't need to watch. You can hear the thud perfectly well.
If Bairstow had watched he'd have seen the Keeper throw the ball before he'd left the crease and wouldn't have been stumped ...
That's the puzzle, that he was judged out stumped. That's just complete nonsense.
I could have understood (if still deprecated) a verdict of run out.
You have to be attempting a run to be given run out. Bairstow wasn't attempting a run. If first slip had taken a similar delivery and performed the exact same actions it'd have to be given not out. Only the wicketkeeper can effect a dismissal in the manner in which this one transpired.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
I don’t know for sure, but I think you’re wrong about this. I think the decision process is:
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out. Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes Was the batsman attempting a run? Yes, run out No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
Yes, had it been first slip who'd taken the bails off it would have been run out instead of stumping but still out.
The ball wouldn't have been dead in the slip's hand; it would have to be returned to the keeper or bowler first
The ball was never dead though.
I know. But Bairstow foolishly thought it was
It would have been even more foolish if the ball was in the slip's hand
I like the ‘making a mark’ analogy. The batsman had, in his own mind anyway, indicated that the ball was dead, but the keeper had other ideas and slowly tossed it back towards the wickets, anticipating him walking down the pitch.
It’s out to the letter of the law, if not the spirit. As someone else noted, he’s a blooming ‘keeper himself, so should know very well that one can be out if not careful.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
Not just an unctuous, greasy pole climbing ****, also an evil ****. He'll go far.
Tories back in the Early Jurassic: "How dare that dinosaur paint its cave wall pink and blue! What a waste!"
Tories still mentally in the Jurassic: "How dare that human thingy there have a pink and blue cave wall! Let's waste lots of money ordering it to be painted over!"
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
Surely an England player would never induge in such (checks overwrought bloviating of last couple of days) unsporting behaviour that verges on cheating and is not within the spirit of cricket? I believe yer actual England captain has piously said he would not want to win a test match that way.
There was a rumour that Twitter were changing their infrastructure (away from AWS and Google Cloud, towards their own, to reduce ruinous hosting costs), this week is when the changeover happened, and their infrastructure people need time to fix scaling issues at data centres.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
There was a rumour that Twitter were changing their infrastructure (away from AWS and Google Cloud, towards their own, to reduce ruinous hosting costs), this week is when the changeover happened, and their infrastructure people need time to fix scaling issues at data centres.
I did see that one thanks. The comments underneath didn’t suggest it was a brilliant source, hence my saying it was a rumour. The author seems rather upset with Twitter and Mr Musk in general.
1) he isn't as wealthy as he thinks he is (doesn't qualify for a Coutts account) and 2) he's too much trouble for anyone outside of his existing bank to want him... Rather different to the original story...
Simon Jack @BBCSimonJack Nigel Farage fell below the financial threshold required to hold an account at Coutts, the prestigious private bank for wealthy customers the BBC has been told.
It also understood that he was offered a normal account at Natwest which owns Coutts.
PBers, please note close-to-final comment on previous thread by Peck, new poster but long lurker.
Thanks for the reference. I hope Peck carries on commenting. His post is interesting, novel and testable by the effluxion of time. There are at least 47 different ways of opposing the suggestion and the photo looks like the PM has wandered into a BNP rally and is hoping to escape without being noticed. In every respect a perfect contribution. Welcome.
One suggestion: does it really matter to the Tories whether a Scottish constituency is a SNP or Labour seat? The latter is if anything more likely to cooperate with the Tory Party as shown very well by recent history and various deals at local government level.
Edit: so removing Scotland means a permanent addition to the Tory numbers, either way.
The Conservatives propped up the SNP minority government of Salmond at Holyrood from 2007-2011 but the Tories have never propped up a UK Labour government at Westminster or Scottish Labour government at Holyrood
Confusing radically different systems there.
2007-2011 was on specific bargaining on specific issues to pass the budgets, like the Scottish Greens or LDs (before the recent semi-coalition of the [edit] SGs with SNP, though). Quite normal in proportionally elected parliaments with minority governments. The only anomaly was that Slab generally refused to take part at all even to the extent of voting against its own proposals on occasion where the SNP had recognised their merit and incorporated them into the bill.
Edit: an example was when the SCUP got - or claimed credit for - an increase in police numbers at the same time as the Tory government in London was reducing police numbers in English (and possibly Welsh - I forget) forces.
Yet it shows the Tories and SNP occasionally can work together.
If Kate Forbes ever won the SNP leadership, the SNP and Scottish Conservatives would frequently work together at Holyrood and indeed Westminster as Forbes is ideologically closer to the Conservatives than Labour, the main difference with the Tories she is not a Unionist
Missing the point. The Westminster system is radically different.
My favourite description of the crypto industry, was “speed-running through the last century-and-a-half of financial legislation, one law at a time”.
Something I learned the other day (via Paul Sztorc who learned about it from prediction market guru Robin Hanson) is that AMM mechanism that powers all the decentralized exchanges is derived from parimutuel betting, which was invented by Joseph Oller, cofounder of the Moulin Rouge.
They should change the stumping law so that you can only be stumped if you're out of your crease when the ball passes the stumps and haven't returned to the crease before the keeper gets the ball back to the stumps
Why?
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
You know, having watched this again from a different angle (in the light of arguments on here) I've changed my mind. Bairstow wasn't really settled in the crease, the ball was thrown before Bairstow really started wandering off, when it looked instead as if he was careless and didn't have his back foot properly grounded. Had it not been clear Bairstow was walking down the wicket when the ball struck (as opposed to when it was thrown) then there would have been no complaints (idiot didn't have his back foot grounded). It was Bairstow's carelessness and I've no criticism of the keeper having reconsidered.
It is quite different to the example I recounted from a match I played, where the ball was thrown after the batter had left the crease to have a word with his partner.
Yep. This is the closest on here to the finishing point of my tortuous journey on this one.
You might think it's the finishing point, but you'd better wait until the umpires have indicated the argument is dead
My favourite description of the crypto industry, was “speed-running through the last century-and-a-half of financial legislation, one law at a time”.
Something I learned the other day (via Paul Sztorc who learned about it from prediction market guru Robin Hanson) is that AMM mechanism that powers all the decentralized exchanges is derived from parimutuel betting, which was invented by Joseph Oller, cofounder of the Moulin Rouge.
As I understand it, it will just be a text based version of Instagram, using the same accounts. If that's the case it's hard to see it replicating the USP of Twitter.
One interesting fact from that excellent article is that WC Grace did exactly the same thing in 1882. His response to complaints, "I taught the lad a lesson". Which sounds right for Bairstow too.
I once heard it said of football that rules (e.g. away goals) are local and laws (e.g. offside) are universal. So there's some logic to the terminology.
What's different about cricket is that the game is on and then off again without a clear demarcation. Michael Atherton always says you only have to be switched on for those few moments each delivery. It wasn't a lapse in concentration like a defender in football who is caught ball watching. Being able to assume that ball is no longer live is part of how the game is played. The Aussies took advantage of that. You can argue that it's fair enough, but I'm sure it's the best way to go about winning a game of cricket.
Bairstow didn't even look behind to Carey (Unlike Balbirnie's dismissal to Foakes though)
I think there are a number of differences. Firstly, the batsman reached out of his crease to gain an advantage. I think the wicket keeper is entitled to wait and see if the batsman loses his balance. I think this case is more akin to Starc grounding that catch. Obviously, Starc could have caught it cleanly. And Balbirnie could have made sure he didn't lift his foot. But they didn't and I'm not sure what the opposition is supposed to do. You say that Balbirnie looked. Well he should have seen that Foakes was waiting to see if he was going to lift his foot.
Carey was looking to take advantage of an opponent believing that the ball was dead. The two cases are not comparable.
It doesn't matter if Bairstow believed the ball was dead if it wasn't actually dead and it wasn't.
No one is arguing about whether it was out or not. It's whether it's fair dinkum to do that to an opponent.
If it is, then all's fair.
But what are these nefarious things which will suddenly become 'all fair' ?
Not walking when you've edged a catch ? Appealing for something you don't think is out ?
Is this another irregular verb:
I follow the spirit of cricket You follow the laws He cheats
Bairstow will be tempted to chuck the ball at the stumps after every ball in the next test. It will become tedious, but very much within the laws of the game.
Surely an England player would never induge in such (checks overwrought bloviating of last couple of days) unsporting behaviour that verges on cheating and is not within the spirit of cricket? I believe yer actual England captain has piously said he would not want to win a test match that way.
Why the sudden interest in cricket?
Why do you care?
Since you've appointed yourself gatekeeper of who can comment on what, I like watching cricket. I also enjoy the rollercoaster nature of the support in the Ashes. Outside the Old Firm, England fans are the quickest to jump from overweening triumphalism to self-pitying, enraged victimhood and back again, which is always entertaining.
There was a rumour that Twitter were changing their infrastructure (away from AWS and Google Cloud, towards their own, to reduce ruinous hosting costs), this week is when the changeover happened, and their infrastructure people need time to fix scaling issues at data centres.
I did see that one thanks. The comments underneath didn’t suggest it was a brilliant source, hence my saying it was a rumour. The author seems rather upset with Twitter and Mr Musk in general.
Ah I see, thank you. It explains the known facts but is not well sourced and other explanations are available. Will bear in mind.
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
I don't trust Dorsey. Like I say I don't think their CEO trusts him either, that's why she maneuvered him out, made a design that fails to deliver any of his hobby-horses (decentralized tech but no blockchain, no bitcoins) and he went off to do Nostr instead.
I kind of trust the other people on the team, because they come from the most reputable crypto/p2p projects. Crypto is full of hustles but conversely that makes it easy to pick out people who aren't shady, because they could have taken more lucrative openings and didn't. If the theory is that *those* people are after power rather than money, it doesn't make sense that they'd incinerate their reputations to be underlings of Jack Dorsey.
I think that's one place where we differ: I don't think *anyone* in crypto has much of a reputation. I'll admit that some are better than others, but the whole area is too darned shady.
* Hastily concealing my crypto project *
Real Crypto - such as RSA - is just fine.
Using a subset of mathematical functions to create alleged "digital currencies", has a reputation lower than that of the carbon fibre hulled DSVs.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
[rude Day Today shouty voice (clearly pastiche of Paxman)] “Rip Off Britain! Greedflation! We are all being taken for mugs! You’re the minister! What are you doing about it!”
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
It's clear the whole pricing system for fuel is far lower tech than certainly I thought previously. I assumed the prices would have been uploaded to some sort of cloud anyway. Obviously as retailers have never had to do this noone is going to start voluntarily. So the requirement to do it - and I presume get the data uploaded to the big map apps that everyone uses these days is a good idea. Hopefully the Gov't is talking to Google and Apple about this.
Doesn't work like that.
The requirement is to make the actual price available online. This will probably be a webpage for each location - trivial to do. A webpage is pretty much a REST call - they might expose that separately, as well, though.
Either way, third party apps will be able to harvest the data and build the map. Given that there are several such apps already, they will probably just add the new data into the stuff they scrape from the internet.
So apart from telling the companies to put the price & location online, the government doesn't need to do anything else.
Surely petrol prices are online already on various price comparison or mapping apps, iirc pb from the Brexit petrol shortage? The devil must be in the detail of this new requirement.
No, they are not. They subscribe to a system of beliefs orthogonal to yours. Also to reality.
To understand, try reading some 16th debates on heresy. The reason they seem so completely fucked in the head is that the everyone involved bought into the belief system - victims and persecutors alike. Which in turn mandated thought processes and actions.
The replacement of religion by religious style belief in other things is not an improvement.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
It's clear the whole pricing system for fuel is far lower tech than certainly I thought previously. I assumed the prices would have been uploaded to some sort of cloud anyway. Obviously as retailers have never had to do this noone is going to start voluntarily. So the requirement to do it - and I presume get the data uploaded to the big map apps that everyone uses these days is a good idea. Hopefully the Gov't is talking to Google and Apple about this.
Doesn't work like that.
The requirement is to make the actual price available online. This will probably be a webpage for each location - trivial to do. A webpage is pretty much a REST call - they might expose that separately, as well, though.
Either way, third party apps will be able to harvest the data and build the map. Given that there are several such apps already, they will probably just add the new data into the stuff they scrape from the internet.
So apart from telling the companies to put the price & location online, the government doesn't need to do anything else.
Surely petrol prices are online already on various price comparison or mapping apps, iirc pb from the Brexit petrol shortage? The devil must be in the detail of this new requirement.
Getting everyone to post online timely, accurate prices. *With* location.
As in "The price must be the price actually paid at the pump. No extras, or special offers. The price must be no more than 120 seconds old. The location must be to within 10m"
Not just an unctuous, greasy pole climbing ****, also an evil ****. He'll go far.
I do wonder whether, to be like him, you have to work at hollowing yourself. Or are these people just born damaged?
I think there is a mental process - and we all do it, to a greater or lesser degree - where you empty the mind of empathy for a group when you've convinced yourself they are standing in the way of progress and your grand utopian vision. It's what has triggered purges, forced collectivisation, pogroms, gulags and their modern counterparts, kids in cages in Texas and terrorist attacks throughout the ages. And as we can see here, at a less dramatic level it also triggers little shows of gratuitous meanness like painting over walls in a reception centre or delighting in toughened-up benefits sanctions.
I see the New Conservative Group were yesterday claiming that immigration is a threat to “cultural security”. At least they’re not even pretending it’s about housing and the impact on public services.
I see the New Conservative Group were yesterday claiming that immigration is a threat to “cultural security”. At least they’re not even pretending it’s about housing and the impact on public services.
There seems to be something quite nasty brewing with these people.
No, they are not. They subscribe to a system of beliefs orthogonal to yours. Also to reality.
To understand, try reading some 16th debates on heresy. The reason they seem so completely fucked in the head is that the everyone involved bought into the belief system - victims and persecutors alike. Which in turn mandated thought processes and actions.
The replacement of religion by religious style belief in other things is not an improvement.
It seems to me that for most people the religious impulse is a more or less ineradicable aspect of human nature. There are about three things that can be done with it. The intolerant sectarian exclusive thing - God likes me but not you - (found in all religions). The liberal universalist thing - God likes you as well as me - (found in all religions). The transfer the impulse elsewhere thing - onto sport, the politics of irrational belief, eco mysticism, militant atheism, arts, popular culture and declaring war on other large countries on irrational grounds. Religion but no worthy God. All winter but no Christmas.
I like the liberal universalist one. It is being given a hard time by both the other sorts at the moment.
I suspect we are going to see a fair bit about fuel prices again today
Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford · 1h Fuel retailers swallowed up the Govt’s 5p cut in fuel duty -intended to help people with cost of living - for their profit margins
Harriet Baldwin, head of Treasury select: ‘That whole £2.4bn cost to the Exchequer has gone straight to the bottom line of the retailers’
People old enough to remember when the Tory party actually stood for a few basic philosophical principles might wonder about this.
What is happening is that in a tightly contested free market for fuel the supermarket entrants, and the cheapest, are being told by Conservatives that their prices should be regulated because of the opinion that they are charging Xp a litre more than they should, and that there is something wicked and wrong about making profits - the amount of which should be for the state to decide.
No-one seems to regard this as weird. The BBC headlines it. The Overton window is all over the place.
Supermarket margins are being squeezed so they have less money to subsidise fuel prices with. Which makes smaller filling stations more competitive and secures their future.
If a single petrol station can sell fuel at £1.359 for diesel why can't a supermarket sell it for a similar price.
The accusation is that the supermarkets have pocketed / stolen all the £2.4bn that the 5p cut cost the Government.
The electronic real time data requirement upload is a good thing, as are the papers making a noise about it all. One thing, we all have a duty to seek and find and fuel at the lowest possible price - inflation will never come down if everyone just accepts higher prices. To this regard the papers creating a bit of furore should change collective behaviour.
Will that data requirement make much difference?
I don't normally find petrolprices.com (fake email address required) significantly out of date.
The various retailers have been playing games with the data.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
With that information being in the public domain by definition, surely the Government's role in this should be more to name and shame the profiteers using its public profile.
Regulating accurate, clear and up to date pricing on goods has been a government responsibility since the early Middle Ages.
It's clear the whole pricing system for fuel is far lower tech than certainly I thought previously. I assumed the prices would have been uploaded to some sort of cloud anyway. Obviously as retailers have never had to do this noone is going to start voluntarily. So the requirement to do it - and I presume get the data uploaded to the big map apps that everyone uses these days is a good idea. Hopefully the Gov't is talking to Google and Apple about this.
Doesn't work like that.
The requirement is to make the actual price available online. This will probably be a webpage for each location - trivial to do. A webpage is pretty much a REST call - they might expose that separately, as well, though.
Either way, third party apps will be able to harvest the data and build the map. Given that there are several such apps already, they will probably just add the new data into the stuff they scrape from the internet.
So apart from telling the companies to put the price & location online, the government doesn't need to do anything else.
Surely petrol prices are online already on various price comparison or mapping apps, iirc pb from the Brexit petrol shortage? The devil must be in the detail of this new requirement.
Yep but the data is often hours / days old sourced from the last time a member bought from that station..
Comments
This was just a fairly egregious mistake by Bairstow.
The Aussies never held onto the ball, that means the action was never over. Quite often the keeper takes a swipe at the stumps for a stumping but the batsman is at his crease so the bails are just put back on and play goes on. This is just a bizarre instance where Bairstow decided to leave the crease after the Keeper had already thrown at the stumps. That's not the Keeper's mistake.
I can't remember Erasmus checking for a no-ball but they tend to be given instantly these days.
Hope to see you at our next gathering. Thursday 2 pm and it's Hugo's turn to host. Come and have a cuppa and a chinwag.
He wasn't attempting a run and was out of the crease when the Keeper took the bails off. How is that anything but a stumping?
If England had won, it would have been forgotten about soon enough. It is the sting of defeat that is making this an issue.
https://blueskyweb.xyz/blog/2-31-2022-initial-bluesky-team
Here's what they say about it: They'd have to be being extremely mendacious if Dorsey secretly had a controlling interest in the company. These are well-reputed independent people from good projects like Zerocash and IPFS who could make plenty of money on projects with tokens if they chose that route, so I'd be very surprised if they'd all agreed to go along with a massive fib.
If you're one foot behind the crease but lift your foot off the ground at the moment the bails come off you're out stumped. That happens quite often and nobody would deny that's legitimate.
Had the Aussies held the ball and thrown only after Bairstow went down the crease that'd be dodgy. They didn't. It's entirely Bairstow's mistake.
In matches our coach told us never to accept a let, nor offer a point instead of a let, but to leave it up to the umpire to decide. Because of habit none of us followed this instruction and what is more it amused us that the coach never did either.
Only once did we have an opponent who claimed and argued left right and centre. It took all the fun out of it.
I guess that is what makes a professional sportsman, but one wonders what pleasure that person gets out of it. Maybe it is me but I would rather lose an enjoyable game than win one I employed gamesmanship.
Forcing them to provide timely, accurate data is the kind of sensible measure to regulate markets that should have been taken long ago.
It's not just about money, is it? It's about power. Control the media.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
https://savingafricafromliesthatkill.com/2019/07/23/the-truth-about-ddt-and-population-control/
I wasn't overly impressed with either candidate's personal statement. Susan Hall comes across as a lifelong activist who probably doesn't have the ability to step up to a role of this magnitude, and Moz Hussain has a nice story but no political experience whatsoever. Neither seems to have much to say on policy beyond the blindingly obvious.
If there was to be a change then it would be better to make explicit the unwritten rule that most of us understood that the delivery is over when the batter grounds bat within crease after the ball has passed the stumps. The latter would make more sense, as batters tend to do that anyway before going for a wander.
I only heard the announcement in passing so I had the impression it was for consumers, which wouldn't gain a lot.
Bairstow wasn't batting in front of the crease
I know it's Bairstow's mistake - have I not made that clear enough? - but the law shouldn't be used to punish Bairstow's carelessness; it should make risk taking risky
That it was carelessness rather than momentum that took him out was the only unusual thing here. That's not a matter for the umpire or the laws of the sport though.
I kind of trust the other people on the team, because they come from the most reputable crypto/p2p projects. Crypto is full of hustles but conversely that makes it easy to pick out people who aren't shady, because they could have taken more lucrative openings and didn't. If the theory is that *those* people are after power rather than money, it doesn't make sense that they'd incinerate their reputations to be underlings of Jack Dorsey.
As I say, why do you trust Dorsey? Or, in fact, any of them?
The only group who are at the first steps of being trustworthy are the governance of Signal. https://signal.org/en/
It is noteworthy that they got their own attack column in the NYT from one of the usual suspects in "We must think of the children" clown crowd - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/opinion/jack-dorseys-twitter-signal-privacy.html
Is the ball in play? Yes, then it’s out.
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? Yes
Was the batsman attempting a run?
Yes, run out
No, stumping
Was the dismissal effected by the keeper? No, run out
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuaG9zdGluZy50aGlzaXNkYXguY29tLzk1MTU4Y2ZiLWY3NGYtNGY5Yy04ZjQ3LTAwYmQ5NzZhYjAxZA/episode/YzQxNjVjOGYtZTQ2Zi00YmZjLTljZTEtMWJlOTkyYWMwOWMx?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiQveqG2vT_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAQ
Stumpings shouldn't be able to happen to a batsman who faced the ball entirely within his crease
But they can. And Bairstow should have bloody known that - he's a wicket keeper FFS
The requirement is to make the actual price available online. This will probably be a webpage for each location - trivial to do. A webpage is pretty much a REST call - they might expose that separately, as well, though.
Either way, third party apps will be able to harvest the data and build the map. Given that there are several such apps already, they will probably just add the new data into the stuff they scrape from the internet.
So apart from telling the companies to put the price & location online, the government doesn't need to do anything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq5d1jJW2G4 Cronje vs Shane Thompson.
Not sure what would have happened if it had been a no ball, not out I presume because it was a "stumping" and not a run out (Though run out if it was a fielder ex Wickie). Which feels a bit odd.
It is quite different to the example I recounted from a match I played, where the ball was thrown after the batter had left the crease to have a word with his partner.
This was kind of the 'faster ball, standing back' equivalent of that. It's not quite right - because Bairstow specifically indicated with his foot that the ball was dead to him (the cricket equivalent of 'calling for the mark' at rugby) - but it's close enough for me to come to terms with it.
There are often run outs where the batsman hits it to a close fielder, the close fielder throws the ball at the stumps, and the batsman is out of their ground despite not attempting a run, and it's out. As I said, the only time this isn't out is if it's a no ball and the striking batsman is not running. (Doesn't apply to the non-striking batsman).
In the Bairstow case, however, stumped was the right decision, not run out. If it had been a no ball, it couldn't have been out, either stumped or run out. That's why I hoped they checked the no ball for that delivery.
It would have been even more foolish if the ball was in the slip's hand
For me education would be absolutely my number one priority. My blood boils thinking about how ministers send their own kids private and leave those of us in the state sector to suffer from their utter indifference. They really don't care, it is obvious.
I think it comes down to whether you think it’s fair for the keeper to anticipate the batsman going to speak to his partner at the end of the over. That’s why Carey through it, he didn’t think Bairstow was about to fall over or anything. Personally I don’t like it, but appreciate that it’s up to each individual.
But don’t complain if play is quite slow with Bairstow taking the bails off at every opportunity.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jul/04/most-doctors-think-ministers-want-to-destroy-nhs-bma-boss-says
abundantly illustrates the laziness of medical politicking and journalism.
Six comments:
a) Destroying the NHS is on no-one's agenda
b) Vast amounts of our money are spent on it - similarly to other developed countries health expenditure
c) A colossal (and far too late) new development over about 15 years has just been announced, supported by Labour
d) The BMA has no suggestion as to how much money as a % of GDP should be spent
e) Instead of taking nonsense about abolition the BMA should discuss how to spend vast amounts of money better and more wisely
f) This level of discussion and reporting from the BMA and Guardian - both right at the top of the tree in their respective fields - is pathetically bad.
It’s out to the letter of the law, if not the spirit. As someone else noted, he’s a blooming ‘keeper himself, so should know very well that one can be out if not careful.
Tories still mentally in the Jurassic: "How dare that human thingy there have a pink and blue cave wall! Let's waste lots of money ordering it to be painted over!"
1) he isn't as wealthy as he thinks he is (doesn't qualify for a Coutts account) and
2) he's too much trouble for anyone outside of his existing bank to want him... Rather different to the original story...
https://twitter.com/BBCSimonJack/status/1676161715526836225
Simon Jack
@BBCSimonJack
Nigel Farage fell below the financial threshold required to hold an account at Coutts, the prestigious private bank for wealthy customers the BBC has been told.
It also understood that he was offered a normal account at Natwest which owns Coutts.
People familiar....
Since you've appointed yourself gatekeeper of who can comment on what, I like watching cricket. I also enjoy the rollercoaster nature of the support in the Ashes. Outside the Old Firm, England fans are the quickest to jump from overweening triumphalism to self-pitying, enraged victimhood and back again, which is always entertaining.
https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/devolution-and-economic-growth/devolution-map-where-are-deals-progressing-03-07-2023/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Using a subset of mathematical functions to create alleged "digital currencies", has a reputation lower than that of the carbon fibre hulled DSVs.
To understand, try reading some 16th debates on heresy. The reason they seem so completely fucked in the head is that the everyone involved bought into the belief system - victims and persecutors alike. Which in turn mandated thought processes and actions.
The replacement of religion by religious style belief in other things is not an improvement.
See also the world's bonkersest headmistress and curate.
As in "The price must be the price actually paid at the pump. No extras, or special offers. The price must be no more than 120 seconds old. The location must be to within 10m"
I'll bet the current situation is a mess.
Honest.
I like the liberal universalist one. It is being given a hard time by both the other sorts at the moment.
East Mids (Combined)-> Nottinghamshire (County) -> Bassetlaw (District) -> Parish
Or
East Mids (Combined) -> Bassetlaw (District) -> Parish
The second might not be too bad but the first - looks like another layer of local gov't to me...