You want us to use as much energy as China? Where do I sign?
China also has plenty of unproductive land to use, unlike the UK.
Given the instability of France to look after asylum seekers - it is a human rights issue, according to several organisations, that they be allowed to Be British - France is a failed state.
A former Trump White House lawyer said the evidence against the former president over his handling of classified documents was now “overwhelming” and would “last an antiquity”, after new charges were filed in the case on Thursday.
I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity,” Ty Cobb told CNN. “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”
In June, the special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 counts regarding his handling of classified records after leaving the White House.
On Thursday, in a superseding indictment filed in a Florida court, four more charges were outlined. A second Trump staffer, the Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira, was charged, alongside Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet. Nauta previously pleaded not guilty.
You want us to use as much energy as China? Where do I sign?
China also has plenty of unproductive land to use, unlike the UK.
Caveat caveat caveat. Meanwhile all those green investment dollars are in danger of going to the US with its IRA, the EU members with the GDIP and China with its, well, huge economies of scale.
As I said it's very good news for net zero - China is now adding renewable capacity at a more rapid rate than fossil fuel generation for the first time - and a kick up the backside for UK industrial strategy.
One of the most moving things you see on Ukraine is wartime weddings. They are everywhere. And easy to spot. The wedding will be quite small - presumably because it’s done speedily during leave? The girl will be young slim pretty and nervous. The groom will have a very tight soldierly haircut and a few tatts and maybe bruises, his friends likewise
And then the ceremony is done; back to the frontline he goes
She said something daft in the heat of the moment. Her career is in ruins. She’s never going to the House of Lords
And yet people point and laugh. And point and laugh. And again.
Leave her alone at this point
Sorry, but her (political - not media or writing) career is in ruins from reasons entirely of her own making, and not because of one heat-of-the-moment mistake.
She hasn't spoken in parliament for over a year. Her attendance record is poor. She hasn't held a constituency surgery for _three years_. She had the whip withdrawn because she decided she'd rather spend six weeks on telly trying to get famous rather than be an MP.
All the while, she's continued to draw her salary. If I behaved like that in my job, I'd have been out on my ear ages ago - and rightly so.
I don't have any sympathy for her. I do for her constituents, for whom she has repeatedly shown contempt.
I'm not going to point and laugh. But I'm equally not going to defend her from the repercussions of her arrogance and narcissism. She's made her bed.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
A former Trump White House lawyer said the evidence against the former president over his handling of classified documents was now “overwhelming” and would “last an antiquity”, after new charges were filed in the case on Thursday.
I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity,” Ty Cobb told CNN. “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”
In June, the special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 counts regarding his handling of classified records after leaving the White House.
On Thursday, in a superseding indictment filed in a Florida court, four more charges were outlined. A second Trump staffer, the Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira, was charged, alongside Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet. Nauta previously pleaded not guilty.
She said something daft in the heat of the moment. Her career is in ruins. She’s never going to the House of Lords
And yet people point and laugh. And point and laugh. And again.
Leave her alone at this point
That said, it would be nice for her constituents if Nadine Dorries got back to her day job.
Agreed. I'm one of the more 'Dorries-favourable' posters here, and I'm OK with her changing her mind (I s'pose), but if she's going to continue as a constituency MP, do the work.
She said something daft in the heat of the moment. Her career is in ruins. She’s never going to the House of Lords
And yet people point and laugh. And point and laugh. And again.
Leave her alone at this point
Sorry, but her (political - not media or writing) career is in ruins from reasons entirely of her own making, and not because of one heat-of-the-moment mistake.
She hasn't spoken in parliament for over a year. Her attendance record is poor. She hasn't held a constituency surgery for _three years_. She had the whip withdrawn because she decided she'd rather spend six weeks on telly trying to get famous rather than be an MP.
All the while, she's continued to draw her salary. If I behaved like that in my job, I'd have been out on my ear ages ago - and rightly so.
I don't have any sympathy for her. I do for her constituents, for whom she has repeatedly shown contempt.
I'm not going to point and laugh. But I'm equally not going to defend her from the repercussions of her arrogance and narcissism. She's made her bed.
I wasn’t necessarily saying that her career is in ruins because of saying something daft. They were two stand alone facts.
I’m not trying to defend her actions. But it’s like kicking a wounded animal at this point. Just let her be.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
Newcastle fans have taken to the Saudi flag - I’m guessing it’s because the colours match the team’s away strip as the Saudi government absolutely doesn’t own and control the club.
One of the most moving things you see on Ukraine is wartime weddings. They are everywhere. And easy to spot. The wedding will be quite small - presumably because it’s done speedily during leave? The girl will be young slim pretty and nervous. The groom will have a very tight soldierly haircut and a few tatts and maybe bruises, his friends likewise
And then the ceremony is done; back to the frontline he goes
Hopefully there is time for a quick knee-trembler and some vol au vents too.
One of the most moving things you see on Ukraine is wartime weddings. They are everywhere. And easy to spot. The wedding will be quite small - presumably because it’s done speedily during leave? The girl will be young slim pretty and nervous. The groom will have a very tight soldierly haircut and a few tatts and maybe bruises, his friends likewise
And then the ceremony is done; back to the frontline he goes
Hopefully there is time for a quick knee-trembler and some vol au vents too.
One would hope so. Especially given the beauty of the women (I’d be less fussed about the vol au vents)
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
I'm not as bothered by the casting as what Baddiel has to say about the storytelling.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
Many Norwegians and Swedes look like they are descended from elves, but Finns are stockier folk. Former dwarves, maybe? Who like (or can afford) to drink a lot more. And who don't have the Scandinavians' paranoia about allergies every time a dog comes indoors.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.
Lol no
I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue
That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Or a bicycle shirt or something. Met a friend sporting the green-white-red in this way just this morning.
Though pointed out, that way he was wearing colors (part of design on sleeve) with stripes horizontal, it was the Hungarian flag. Which in fact was modeled on Italian tricolor.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.
A former Trump White House lawyer said the evidence against the former president over his handling of classified documents was now “overwhelming” and would “last an antiquity”, after new charges were filed in the case on Thursday.
I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity,” Ty Cobb told CNN. “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”
In June, the special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 counts regarding his handling of classified records after leaving the White House.
On Thursday, in a superseding indictment filed in a Florida court, four more charges were outlined. A second Trump staffer, the Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira, was charged, alongside Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet. Nauta previously pleaded not guilty.
Trump's big thing has been guaranteeing to pay for his minions' lawyers in return for their silence. But get them bang to rights - as appears to be the case with De Oliveira (not a bright guy reading his deposition) - and they will probably talk.
What I want to know is what was on the missing CCTV footage - which is presumably even more damning that what's already been revealed.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
Just chatting with someone who has seen it, and they think some of the acting was pretty ropey, too.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.
Lol no
I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue
That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??
IF Bukovina harbors (to extent it still does) Armenian Poles, then why not Tamil Ukrainians?
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.
Norwegian pennants (rather than the full flag with the cross) are very common, not quite up to American on-every-home common, but lots of people fly them. The owner of the hotel I stayed at out in the Norwegian Sea turned out, surprisingly, to be Danish, and was telling me how Danes and Norwegians "are all the same people really". But history suggests the Norwegians didn't see it that way.
Britain has a great record on decarbonising its electricity grid, despite the decline of its nuclear power generation.
That's actually a question it's possible to answer using the very helpful ourworldindate website.
As of 2022 solar made up 2.52% of Chinese electricity generation and 1.79% of UK generation. That's before this year's massive installation (though note they refer to capacity which is not the same as generation - capacity is what they would generate if it were midday and cloudless 24 hours a day).
On total renewables, in China these make up 16% of generation and in the UK 19.3%. Both countries have been decarbonising rapidly although the current pace in China is greater - they have more potential to decarbonise further because they have much more coal in the mix. Coal has already declined from 74% of generation in China in 2007 (the most recent peak) to 55% now.
This is good news. It negates a couple of common arguments: first that there's a trade off between decarbonisation and economic growth and that it's unfair of the West to insist the rest of the world denies itself fossil fuels - China shows it's perfectly possible to grow and decarbonise. Second that there's no point in the UK doing anything because China isn't. That's also not true. It's a bit more true to India frankly. And Russia of course. But they will lose out in the long run if they insist on dirty grids.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.
Lol no
I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue
That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??
Most likely to be Indian students, from India, who are trying to learn the local lingo.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.
Lol no
I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue
That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??
Quite a few Indians and Mid Eastern University students in the USSR, and some of them settled permanently.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.
Lol no
I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue
That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??
Most likely to be Indian students, from India, who are trying to learn the local lingo.
Yes. Just been doing some googling. Chernivtsi has a large university so that must be it
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.
In Seattle neighborhood of Ballard, once an independent city and a major focus of Scandinavian (esp. Norwegian) immigration, Bergen Square features flags of Denmark, Faroes, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
One of the sights/sites to see: Nordic Heritage Museum.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Many Norwegians and Swedes look like they are descended from elves, but Finns are stockier folk. Former dwarves, maybe? Who like (or can afford) to drink a lot more. And who don't have the Scandinavians' paranoia about allergies every time a dog comes indoors.
Years ago, while attending a summer school that had plenty of sons & daughters of Finland in attendance, the word "Finn Party" became legendary.
Loads of good, mostly-clean fun! PROVIDED you made your exit BEFORE the truly party-hearty Finns began breaking the furniture over each others' head and etc.
Britain has a great record on decarbonising its electricity grid, despite the decline of its nuclear power generation.
That's actually a question it's possible to answer using the very helpful ourworldindate website.
As of 2022 solar made up 2.52% of Chinese electricity generation and 1.79% of UK generation. That's before this year's massive installation (though note they refer to capacity which is not the same as generation - capacity is what they would generate if it were midday and cloudless 24 hours a day).
On total renewables, in China these make up 16% of generation and in the UK 19.3%. Both countries have been decarbonising rapidly although the current pace in China is greater - they have more potential to decarbonise further because they have much more coal in the mix. Coal has already declined from 74% of generation in China in 2007 (the most recent peak) to 55% now.
This is good news. It negates a couple of common arguments: first that there's a trade off between decarbonisation and economic growth and that it's unfair of the West to insist the rest of the world denies itself fossil fuels - China shows it's perfectly possible to grow and decarbonise. Second that there's no point in the UK doing anything because China isn't. That's also not true. It's a bit more true to India frankly. And Russia of course. But they will lose out in the long run if they insist on dirty grids.
There was only one question in my post and all your data didn't answer it. How big was the Chinese 2023 H1 installation of solar as a percentage of their total grid?
Will it take that 2.52% up to 2.54%, or 2.72%, or 4.52% (assuming the same weather, and consequently capacity factor for the new solar capacity)?
That's the relevant factor when deciding whether or not it is a good step forward for net zero, or a case of too little too slow.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.
In Seattle neighborhood of Ballard, once an independent city and a major focus of Scandinavian (esp. Norwegian) immigration, Bergen Square features flags of Denmark, Faroes, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
One of the sights/sites to see: Nordic Heritage Museum.
Uff da!
I believe a lot of Scandinavians settled in the Mid Western states?
Some of the Norwegian music on the local radio sounded quite country, perhaps they are responsible for spreading bad musical taste across the Atlantic?
And Norwegian wooden homes could almost be American; in Norway they don't have hurricanes or tornadoes to worry about, so they last longer.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
I think disabled actors are increasingly getting parts now. That wasn't the case 5, 10, 15 years ago. Will you get a disable actor playing Jason Bourne? No reason why not. It is very much audience-driven and as audiences increasingly embrace diversity on film then the jobs will follow. I also think that the film industry could or should lead the way in pushing back those boundaries.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
You have indeed, in the same breath as saying you have no clue what the "rules" should be and hence your opinion on it all is moot.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
Many Norwegians and Swedes look like they are descended from elves, but Finns are stockier folk. Former dwarves, maybe? Who like (or can afford) to drink a lot more. And who don't have the Scandinavians' paranoia about allergies every time a dog comes indoors.
Years ago, while attending a summer school that had plenty of sons & daughters of Finland in attendance, the word "Finn Party" became legendary.
Loads of good, mostly-clean fun! PROVIDED you made your exit BEFORE the truly party-hearty Finns began breaking the furniture over each others' head and etc.
I'll be back in bed before this town reaches that stage, hopefully; many of the locals started mid-afternoon. This industrial town where the Sweden ferry comes in has a war memorial in the central square that would do Soviet Russia proud, and I suspect a drinking culture to match.
Indeed with the almost-Hungarian sounding riddle of a language this could be Budapest in the 1980s.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
Yep. And even for biopics. I went to see The Lehman Trilogy the other day. It was amazing (Nigel Lindsay my hero from Four Lions knocking it out of the park. Again.) The story is about the Lehman Brothers and one of them was played by Michael Balogun, equally amazing. A black actor. Playing a mittel European Jew. Couldn't have mattered less.
Bairstow apparently knocked the bail off too early.
BFWHDT.
That was seriously close and Bairstow certainly complicated it but the closer you looked the more out it looked.
Bluntly, I think it was out. I think the umpire got it wrong.
But - it makes no difference what I think. The scorecard shows him still in.
The Aussies got away with one there. A very important one at that.
It happens. England have had the benefit of dodgy decisions in the past. If your whole match revolves around one wrong umpire decision that goes against you then as a team you are clearly doing something wrong.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
As per my post to @Richard_Tyndall where do you stand on Michael Balogun playing a white Jewish Lehman brother?
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
Yep, and even with the latter it's not *just* about acting ability. Eg Hugh Grant was great as Jeremy Thorpe but you couldn't cast him as Golda Meir. Or rather you could - there's no law against it - but expect a backlash if you do and it'd be wholly merited imo.
Let me count the number of female Hamlets. Zillions. Can't move for them.
This gem (for which I previously did not know source) from "Rosebery: Statesman in Turmoil" by Leo McKistry;
One evening at a party . . . [Lord] Rosebery delivered - apparently off the cuff - a wonderful classical epigram, at which a youth of seventeen piped up from the other end of the table, "Did I not see you studying Marcus Aurelius in the library just before dinner?
Rosebery looked down at him with his coldest of fish-like stares and said, "All my life I have loved a womanly woman, admired a manly man, but I never could stand a boily boy."
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.
In Seattle neighborhood of Ballard, once an independent city and a major focus of Scandinavian (esp. Norwegian) immigration, Bergen Square features flags of Denmark, Faroes, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
One of the sights/sites to see: Nordic Heritage Museum.
Uff da!
I believe a lot of Scandinavians settled in the Mid Western states?
Some of the Norwegian music on the local radio sounded quite country, perhaps they are responsible for spreading bad musical taste across the Atlantic?
And Norwegian wooden homes could almost be American; in Norway they don't have hurricanes or tornadoes to worry about, so they last longer.
Minnesota has the highest percentage of Scandinavians IIRC, and Wisconsin is mainly German immigrants.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
Bless. You sound like someone walking down Brick Lane in the '70s marvelling at all these foreigners with cockney accents.
Lol no
I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue
That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??
It's a university town, no? Universities attract folk from all over. It's also possible that given the subcontinent's linguistic diversity, Ukrainian is their language in common (probably as well as English, but you'd want to keep your local lingo polished I guess).
Alternatively, they could just be 2nd or 3rd gen. It's entirely possible.
Not comparable. Personal account of a PEP, and political party account. Both hassles to have, is th eonly connection.
Even the DT is publishing articles feelign sorry for the poor banks and demanding they be left alone (or so it looks from the bit I can see), as I remarked a little earlier.
I think it is comparable. Banks are a vital utility, not a trade and they should not be permitted to bar or remove customers except for very specific legal reasons.
Point taken. But political parties don't have human rights. So the basic legislation and rationale will be inherently different. It is, for instance, reasonable for Rich Capitalist Bank to deny an account to the CPGB(M-L) in a way that denying an account to a member is not.
Edzit: though it may well be unreasonable, overall.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
A former Trump White House lawyer said the evidence against the former president over his handling of classified documents was now “overwhelming” and would “last an antiquity”, after new charges were filed in the case on Thursday.
I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity,” Ty Cobb told CNN. “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”
In June, the special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 counts regarding his handling of classified records after leaving the White House.
On Thursday, in a superseding indictment filed in a Florida court, four more charges were outlined. A second Trump staffer, the Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira, was charged, alongside Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet. Nauta previously pleaded not guilty.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
I think disabled actors are increasingly getting parts now. That wasn't the case 5, 10, 15 years ago. Will you get a disable actor playing Jason Bourne? No reason why not. It is very much audience-driven and as audiences increasingly embrace diversity on film then the jobs will follow. I also think that the film industry could or should lead the way in pushing back those boundaries.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
"Very much audience-driven"
Do you have any figures to back that up, or is it very much wishful thinking?
Intderesting simile. Not that I disagree (being familiar with it and having spent half a day on it in my younger days, when they still allowed you on to commune with the gannets. But why pick it? The gent isn't from East Lothian is he?
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
I think disabled actors are increasingly getting parts now. That wasn't the case 5, 10, 15 years ago. Will you get a disable actor playing Jason Bourne? No reason why not. It is very much audience-driven and as audiences increasingly embrace diversity on film then the jobs will follow. I also think that the film industry could or should lead the way in pushing back those boundaries.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
"Very much audience-driven"
Do you have any figures to back that up, or is it very much wishful thinking?
Basic economics. Studios make films that they think will make money. No wishful thinking about it.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.
In Seattle neighborhood of Ballard, once an independent city and a major focus of Scandinavian (esp. Norwegian) immigration, Bergen Square features flags of Denmark, Faroes, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
One of the sights/sites to see: Nordic Heritage Museum.
Uff da!
I believe a lot of Scandinavians settled in the Mid Western states?
Some of the Norwegian music on the local radio sounded quite country, perhaps they are responsible for spreading bad musical taste across the Atlantic?
And Norwegian wooden homes could almost be American; in Norway they don't have hurricanes or tornadoes to worry about, so they last longer.
Plenty of Scandinavians immigrated to Northern USA, with major concentrations in Upper Midwest including Dakotas. Also in Pacific Northwest, including folks who came directly there plus others of Nordic heritage who left Minnesota and Great Plains for better opportunities . . . and weather!
As for Norski country music, the spread was from west to east across Atlantic NOT other way around. Roots of country being predominately Scotch Irish, English and African American, with bit of French and Spanish influence for seasoning.
Note that places as far-flung as Ireland and Southeast Asia show significant impact of US country music. So hardly surprising that it has appeal also for some Scandinavians? Esp. in rural areas & subcultures.
Re: wooden homes, both USA and Scandinavia feature(d) massive forests, making wood a natural, practical, economic choice for home building and other construction.
Intderesting simile. Not that I disagree (being familiar with it and having spent half a day on it in my younger days, when they still allowed you on to commune with the gannets. But why pick it? The gent isn't from East Lothian is he?
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
That is the problem with the trend of authenticity, which is bollocks. It often starts from a real issue - lack of representation for certain groups, or stereotypical roles only - but the solution to that cannot be authenticity, because then that locks the same groups out from other roles, and will inevitably severely limit every actor's ability to be flexible in a role.
The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
That is the problem with the trend of authenticity, which is bollocks. It often starts from a real issue - lack of representation for certain groups, or stereotypical roles only - but the solution to that cannot be authenticity, because then that locks the same groups out from other roles, and will inevitably severely limit every actor's ability to be flexible in a role.
The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.
I liked his book but that was politics. This is something different. No reason why you can't have Cush Jumbo playing Hamlet, Hugh Grant playing Golda Meir, or Michael Balogun playing Emanuel Lehman.
Britain has a great record on decarbonising its electricity grid, despite the decline of its nuclear power generation.
That's actually a question it's possible to answer using the very helpful ourworldindate website.
As of 2022 solar made up 2.52% of Chinese electricity generation and 1.79% of UK generation. That's before this year's massive installation (though note they refer to capacity which is not the same as generation - capacity is what they would generate if it were midday and cloudless 24 hours a day).
On total renewables, in China these make up 16% of generation and in the UK 19.3%. Both countries have been decarbonising rapidly although the current pace in China is greater - they have more potential to decarbonise further because they have much more coal in the mix. Coal has already declined from 74% of generation in China in 2007 (the most recent peak) to 55% now.
This is good news. It negates a couple of common arguments: first that there's a trade off between decarbonisation and economic growth and that it's unfair of the West to insist the rest of the world denies itself fossil fuels - China shows it's perfectly possible to grow and decarbonise. Second that there's no point in the UK doing anything because China isn't. That's also not true. It's a bit more true to India frankly. And Russia of course. But they will lose out in the long run if they insist on dirty grids.
There was only one question in my post and all your data didn't answer it. How big was the Chinese 2023 H1 installation of solar as a percentage of their total grid?
Will it take that 2.52% up to 2.54%, or 2.72%, or 4.52% (assuming the same weather, and consequently capacity factor for the new solar capacity)?
That's the relevant factor when deciding whether or not it is a good step forward for net zero, or a case of too little too slow.
I’m not sure why you’re wanting to argue about this Twitter-style.
It’s not as easy to do the maths here because the new installations are in GW while total generation is by TwH per year, so you have to divide it (around 40,000 TwH) by the number of hours in the year (8,760 apparently) so that’s 4,566 GW generation on average.
The new installations in terms of capacity are therefore about 1.6%. Which would be huge. Almost doubling in 6 months. Except it’s not because that’s capacity. So you have to adjust for output vs capacity. Which ourworldindata helpfully suggests is about 1/8. So more like 0.2% added in half a year or 0.4% annualised. So it takes that 2.5 up to 2.9 in a year.
Pretty good I think. That’s a lot of panels. The UK also brings significant offshore wind onstream in chunks at a time. In the record year of 2021 around 2GW which is about 3% of capacity (again before adjusting for efficiency).
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
You have indeed, in the same breath as saying you have no clue what the "rules" should be and hence your opinion on it all is moot.
I'm saying there shouldn't be 'rules' since it depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. Are you opining that it doesn't?
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Indeed. I'd suggest it rarely will be fundamental, outside of biopics and attempts at intense historical accuracy (which most films are not attempting).
The Othello example was probably a good one, because it seems fundamental and a complete random mix in the casting would presumably undermine part of the point, whereas a reversal of the regular approach still allows for the role to be appropriate in context.
I just saw a group of very dark south Asians walk last. Possibly Tamil or South Indian. Really dark
They were speaking pure Ukrainian
I saw a massive Union Jack beach towel draped across one of the sunloungers here at the resort swimming pool, and naturally assumed it was a British family on hols.
A middle-aged Ukrainian lady sat down on it with her daughter, next to her Ukrainian friend.
The union jack is a proper global fashion icon - you see it in all sorts of random places like on French handbags or cushions in Italian sitting rooms, things that have no actual meaningful connection with Britain. I like that about it and it's why it's so much better than the cross of St George which just evokes England losing heroically in football tournaments.
Other flags with the same iconic impact only loosely connected with the actual country? The stars and stripes obviously, but then what? Jamaica arguably. Cuba at a push. But everything else is getting much more nationally-focused e.g. if you see an Italian flag it's going to be on a sports car or ice cream vendor.
Random Norwegian flags on outdoor wear to make it look a bit more outdoorsy might be another.
The Norwegians are a bit weird on this. They put their flags everywhere. They even decorate their Chrismas trees with them. Often strings of Norwegian flags are the main decoration on their festive trees. I kind of understand it as they are only just over 100 years old as a nation but it still seems a bit strange to me.
In Seattle neighborhood of Ballard, once an independent city and a major focus of Scandinavian (esp. Norwegian) immigration, Bergen Square features flags of Denmark, Faroes, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
One of the sights/sites to see: Nordic Heritage Museum.
Uff da!
I believe a lot of Scandinavians settled in the Mid Western states?
Some of the Norwegian music on the local radio sounded quite country, perhaps they are responsible for spreading bad musical taste across the Atlantic?
And Norwegian wooden homes could almost be American; in Norway they don't have hurricanes or tornadoes to worry about, so they last longer.
Minnesota has the highest percentage of Scandinavians IIRC, and Wisconsin is mainly German immigrants.
True in general terms, but all of the Midwest is characterized by patchwork of ethnicities.
Especially true in northern Great Plains where different counties were settled by different groups of immigrants from different countries. So even today you have Czech (or "Bohemian") counties check-by-jowl with German (Catholic and Protestant), Norwegian, Swedish, Irish (Catholic), Belgian (mostly Walloon), Dutch, etc., etc.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
Nah, this is as daft in its way as those who claim that James Bond can't be a black man or that the utterly brilliant David Copperfield wasn't proper Dickens because of its multi-cultural cast. What matters is the direction and the acting, not the physical or racial characteristics of the actors, unless they are fundemental to the story itself. And even then it is possible to do great things. Patrick Stewart's white Othello in an otherwise all black cast was amazing and gave a really good new perspective to the play. .
You put your finger on it ... if they are fundamental to the story itself
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
LOL
Bond is an outsider, a middle class social climber and a crashing snob. With all the snobberies of a travelling expense account man.
Casting a black man in the role would work just fine - partially accepted outsider pushing his way in
Meanwhile, one of the most important sporting events of the year takes place tomorrow (Sunday actually).
Spence vs Crawford.
I am reluctant to back either because I just want to enjoy it without thinking about my wallet. The money is with Crawford, however, and I think Spence has shown enough vulnerability, especially since his smash, while Crawford has shown none, that I would go with the betting. Crawford to win.
But forget that, what an amazing show. A bottle of GlenGoyne, 1am undercard (nothing special) and then 4am ring walk.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
Just chatting with someone who has seen it, and they think some of the acting was pretty ropey, too.
I'm thinking of seeing it but the 3 hours is putting me off a bit. You can't hit 'pause' at the cinema in order to ... well you know.
Incidentally, for all those of you who are discussing Oppenheimer, please note that Barbie and Oppenheimer are now grossing so hard they're squeezing MI:7pt1 out. Having lost the IMAX screens to Oppenheimer and now losing the multiplexes to B/O, Mission Impossible will end up losing a considerable chunk of its profits. Its like those old films where they stop oil fires with explosives.
There is also a small amount of American country music in Africa, as I learned from a NYT article some years ago. A young Kenyan woman was aspiring to be the Dolly Parton of her hill country. (She looked quite fetching on the horse she was riding. And, as has often happened with US country singers, she got her start singing in a church choir.)
Intderesting simile. Not that I disagree (being familiar with it and having spent half a day on it in my younger days, when they still allowed you on to commune with the gannets. But why pick it? The gent isn't from East Lothian is he?
Because I was reading Catriona!
I'd been wondering if you were reading a Covenanter prison novel (by James Robertson, for instance) but RLS and the Jacobites will do very well!
The ruins of the prison were/are still there, next to the lighthouse.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
No, I'm saying the idea it's just 'acting dear boy' is facile and outdated.
Look, I've said it again.
You have indeed, in the same breath as saying you have no clue what the "rules" should be and hence your opinion on it all is moot.
I'm saying there shouldn't be 'rules' since it depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. Are you opining that it doesn't?
So let's look at some examples. Hugh Grant as Golda Meir and Michael Balogun as Emanuel Lehman.
Intderesting simile. Not that I disagree (being familiar with it and having spent half a day on it in my younger days, when they still allowed you on to commune with the gannets. But why pick it? The gent isn't from East Lothian is he?
Because I was reading Catriona!
I'd been wondering if you were reading a Covenanter prison novel (by James Robertson, for instance) but RLS will do very well!
There is also a small amount of American country music in Africa, as I learned from a NYT article some years ago. A young Kenyan woman was aspiring to be the Dolly Parton of her hill country. (She looked quite fetching on the horse she was riding. And, as has often happened with US country singers, she got her start singing in a church choir.)
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Cook-at-home meal deals ‘should be banned to tackle obesity’ A cross-party committee of MPs has recommended the move as part of a broader crackdown on junk food promotions'
'Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, said in June: “I firmly believe in people’s right to choose – and at a time when household budgets are under continuing pressure from the global rise in food prices, it is not fair for government to restrict the options available to consumers on their weekly shop.”
That is truly bonkers. What they describe as "meal deals" are a starter, a main and a side. Perhaps they should ban people having multiple courses in a restaurant as well.
However, there's soemthing odd going on with those meal deals anyway in terms of inflation, as @kinabalu (I think) was remarking the other day, quite coincidentally.
One other way of superkarkets dealing with inflation is to reduce product quality so I wonder if there is a bit of that going on here.
Superkarket is genius branding for the co-op funeral service
Or the mass market version of Dignitas.
Checkout at the checkouts.
Don't knock it - the local Co-op funerals branch does a good job.
Well, he's got a point about ethnic casting although whether Baddiel is best placed to make it in light of his Fantasy Football exploits is another question. But in this particular instance, Baddiel is in danger of arguing they should have made a quite different film focussing on Oppenheimer's Jewish background, in which case a Jewish actor might have been more important, perhaps an atheist too. The reason Oppenheimer was (arguably) persecuted was because of his politics and humanity, not his religion or ethnicity.
Teller was also an agnostic of Jewish origins - and was decidedly not persecuted in the same way. The greatest intellect of them all - von Neumann - ditto.
But I do think Baddiel has a point, not just about the casting but possibly the movie too, if it ignores the cultural background of the protagonists. (I have yet to watch it.)
Honestly, representation on stage and screen is a difficult issue full of grey areas. Do I think, as Michael Sheen suggested the other day, that Welsh parts should go to Welsh actors only? No.
Do I think that actors with actual disabilities should have as much chance to play characters with disabilities? Yes, I do. Equally, do I think movies and TV would put a little more thought in casting non-white people to non-white roles (Hollywood has a long track record of casting people as 'generic brown' to represent a whole gamut of ethnicities)? Yes, also.
It's hard to deal in absolutes here. I think it comes down to a couple of things: representation and authenticity, and is not (or should not be) about essentialism. Can a cisgender person authentically play a trans character? Yes, I think so - but is it fair that all that trans roles go to non-trans actors? No. Ditto Jewish characters. So he does have a point, but I don't agree entirely.
Yes, I've tried to formulate 'rules' (for myself) on this but failed. It all depends on the role and the context of the role in the story. I do think it's good that it's thought about now rather than just saying 'it's acting dear boy'.
It's acting dear boy because as you have discovered, there are no rules so think away to no fruitful end, not that such endeavour would be a huge change for you, that said. Cracking Wimbledon tips, on the other hand, you're great at sports analysis.
There are two distinct arguments. The fairness in job opportunities one (most obviously with disabled actors playing disabled parts), and the question of realistic representation. The latter is more about acting dear boy. The former is I think important in certain parts of the film and theatre world and less so in others.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
That is the problem with the trend of authenticity, which is bollocks. It often starts from a real issue - lack of representation for certain groups, or stereotypical roles only - but the solution to that cannot be authenticity, because then that locks the same groups out from other roles, and will inevitably severely limit every actor's ability to be flexible in a role.
The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.
Comments
Plus there is the matter of the treaty of Paris.
Plus they have oil.
Plus I need a bigger living room.
I say we do what we always (used to) do….
A former Trump White House lawyer said the evidence against the former president over his handling of classified documents was now “overwhelming” and would “last an antiquity”, after new charges were filed in the case on Thursday.
I think this original indictment was engineered to last a thousand years and now this superseding indictment will last an antiquity,” Ty Cobb told CNN. “This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming.”
In June, the special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 counts regarding his handling of classified records after leaving the White House.
On Thursday, in a superseding indictment filed in a Florida court, four more charges were outlined. A second Trump staffer, the Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira, was charged, alongside Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet. Nauta previously pleaded not guilty.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/28/trump-lawyer-charges-1000-years-mar-a-lago
As I said it's very good news for net zero - China is now adding renewable capacity at a more rapid rate than fossil fuel generation for the first time - and a kick up the backside for UK industrial strategy.
And then the ceremony is done; back to the frontline he goes
She hasn't spoken in parliament for over a year. Her attendance record is poor. She hasn't held a constituency surgery for _three years_. She had the whip withdrawn because she decided she'd rather spend six weeks on telly trying to get famous rather than be an MP.
All the while, she's continued to draw her salary. If I behaved like that in my job, I'd have been out on my ear ages ago - and rightly so.
I don't have any sympathy for her. I do for her constituents, for whom she has repeatedly shown contempt.
I'm not going to point and laugh. But I'm equally not going to defend her from the repercussions of her arrogance and narcissism. She's made her bed.
She’s done, toast, has the political lifespan of a Norwegian blue. She’s utterly irrelevant to anything.
Continually mocking her doesn’t achieve any political gain. It’s just cruelty.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Meanwhile...
"Almost a third of Britain’s electricity, some 32.4% came from wind farms in the first quarter of the year compared with 31.7% from gas-fired power plants, marking the first quarter where wind power output was higher"
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/british-wind-power-overtakes-gas-first-time-q1-2023-report-2023-05-10/
Britain has a great record on decarbonising its electricity grid, despite the decline of its nuclear power generation.
I’m not trying to defend her actions. But it’s like kicking a wounded animal at this point. Just let her be.
https://twitter.com/MergeNewsletter/status/1684742051617796097
I’m just surprised that Ukraine has attracted immigrants from South Asia that are so assimilated they’ve learned Ukrainian to the extent - it seems - that they use it with each other as a native tongue
That means they must surely be 2nd or 3rd generation. When did they move here?! During communism??
Though pointed out, that way he was wearing colors (part of design on sleeve) with stripes horizontal, it was the Hungarian flag. Which in fact was modeled on Italian tricolor.
Trump's big thing has been guaranteeing to pay for his minions' lawyers in return for their silence. But get them bang to rights - as appears to be the case with De Oliveira (not a bright guy reading his deposition) - and they will probably talk.
What I want to know is what was on the missing CCTV footage - which is presumably even more damning that what's already been revealed.
And this technical director is just very stupid. Seems incapable of following the simplest instruction.
Or (maybe) Dravidian Ruthenians?
As of 2022 solar made up 2.52% of Chinese electricity generation and 1.79% of UK generation. That's before this year's massive installation (though note they refer to capacity which is not the same as generation - capacity is what they would generate if it were midday and cloudless 24 hours a day).
On total renewables, in China these make up 16% of generation and in the UK 19.3%. Both countries have been decarbonising rapidly although the current pace in China is greater - they have more potential to decarbonise further because they have much more coal in the mix. Coal has already declined from 74% of generation in China in 2007 (the most recent peak) to 55% now.
This is good news. It negates a couple of common arguments: first that there's a trade off between decarbonisation and economic growth and that it's unfair of the West to insist the rest of the world denies itself fossil fuels - China shows it's perfectly possible to grow and decarbonise. Second that there's no point in the UK doing anything because China isn't. That's also not true. It's a bit more true to India frankly. And Russia of course. But they will lose out in the long run if they insist on dirty grids.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-64973574
Their Ukrainian was absolutely fluent. Bravo to them
One of the sights/sites to see: Nordic Heritage Museum.
Uff da!
The tail is dangerous.
Look, I've said it again.
Loads of good, mostly-clean fun! PROVIDED you made your exit BEFORE the truly party-hearty Finns began breaking the furniture over each others' head and etc.
Will it take that 2.52% up to 2.54%, or 2.72%, or 4.52% (assuming the same weather, and consequently capacity factor for the new solar capacity)?
That's the relevant factor when deciding whether or not it is a good step forward for net zero, or a case of too little too slow.
Some of the Norwegian music on the local radio sounded quite country, perhaps they are responsible for spreading bad musical taste across the Atlantic?
And Norwegian wooden homes could almost be American; in Norway they don't have hurricanes or tornadoes to worry about, so they last longer.
Looking as immovable as Bass Rock here.
But I don't think disabled character = disabled actor because that might run the risk of typecasting disabled actors as only being able to play disabled roles.
Indeed with the almost-Hungarian sounding riddle of a language this could be Budapest in the 1980s.
But - it makes no difference what I think. The scorecard shows him still in.
One evening at a party . . . [Lord] Rosebery delivered - apparently off the cuff - a wonderful classical epigram, at which a youth of seventeen piped up from the other end of the table, "Did I not see you studying Marcus Aurelius in the library just before dinner?
Rosebery looked down at him with his coldest of fish-like stares and said, "All my life I have loved a womanly woman, admired a manly man, but I never could stand a boily boy."
Alternatively, they could just be 2nd or 3rd gen. It's entirely possible.
Edzit: though it may well be unreasonable, overall.
Even to when the umpire gives them they can't get a bloody wicket!
That's what I'm saying. It's about exactly that. The role and the context of the role in the story. Which requires a judgement each time. Therefore no Rules, case by case. Same as so many things really.
Do you have any figures to back that up, or is it very much wishful thinking?
As for Norski country music, the spread was from west to east across Atlantic NOT other way around. Roots of country being predominately Scotch Irish, English and African American, with bit of French and Spanish influence for seasoning.
Note that places as far-flung as Ireland and Southeast Asia show significant impact of US country music. So hardly surprising that it has appeal also for some Scandinavians? Esp. in rural areas & subcultures.
Re: wooden homes, both USA and Scandinavia feature(d) massive forests, making wood a natural, practical, economic choice for home building and other construction.
The issue of representation of groups has already improved, even with more to do the Sheen approach is just counter productive. Baddiel highlights a reasonable point when he notes people applying that kind of approach often seem to have made an exception for jews, but his solution of extending that approach rather than ending it is wrong, in my view. I wasn't convinced by it in his book and am not now.
It’s not as easy to do the maths here because the new installations are in GW while total generation is by TwH per year, so you have to divide it (around 40,000 TwH) by the number of hours in the year (8,760 apparently) so that’s 4,566 GW generation on average.
The new installations in terms of capacity are therefore about 1.6%. Which would be huge. Almost doubling in 6 months. Except it’s not because that’s capacity. So you have to adjust for output vs capacity. Which ourworldindata helpfully suggests is about 1/8. So more like 0.2% added in half a year or 0.4% annualised. So it takes that 2.5 up to 2.9 in a year.
Pretty good I think. That’s a lot of panels.
The UK also brings significant offshore wind onstream in chunks at a time. In the record year of 2021 around 2GW which is about 3% of capacity (again before adjusting for efficiency).
The Othello example was probably a good one, because it seems fundamental and a complete random mix in the casting would presumably undermine part of the point, whereas a reversal of the regular approach still allows for the role to be appropriate in context.
Especially true in northern Great Plains where different counties were settled by different groups of immigrants from different countries. So even today you have Czech (or "Bohemian") counties check-by-jowl with German (Catholic and Protestant), Norwegian, Swedish, Irish (Catholic), Belgian (mostly Walloon), Dutch, etc., etc.
Casting a black man in the role would work just fine - partially accepted outsider pushing his way in
Spence vs Crawford.
I am reluctant to back either because I just want to enjoy it without thinking about my wallet. The money is with Crawford, however, and I think Spence has shown enough vulnerability, especially since his smash, while Crawford has shown none, that I would go with the betting. Crawford to win.
But forget that, what an amazing show. A bottle of GlenGoyne, 1am undercard (nothing special) and then 4am ring walk.
Going to be fantastic.
If he'd won from 16th I don't think Mr Eagles could have endured it.
There are worse role models.
The ruins of the prison were/are still there, next to the lighthouse.
Both good/bad/indifferent?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VVkckxYfh0