That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much meat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
Although I can only read the headline, I'll bet that the article from a "private jet travel boss" is entirely objective.
But it's true. You can dispute the detailed numbers on the private jet claim, but pets are REALLY REALLY bad for the environment, and owning one is a monumental act of selfishness. Because you don't NEED a pet
"By owning a pet, you are doing more damage to the environment than you might realise
Truth-telling about pets can be a painful process but cats and dogs, particularly, are having a devastating impact on the planet"
Not defending pets. Just querying whether the contribution of a "private travel jet boss" in the notoriously factual DT is of any more value than the contribution of, say, Arthur the Alsatian in weighing up the environmental cost of private jets vs. pets.
I imagine he is a tad biased, but his central point is good. Any pet owner is in a bad position to point their accusing, poo-covered, multi-parasitised fingers at anyone else, for enviro-negative behaviour
I read that article and his central claim is that a private jet only emits 2.1 tonnes of carbon each year. This would only be possible if it never flew anywhere.
Probably mixed up "year" with "hour". Easy mistake to make...
It is two tonnes of CO2 per hour, yes, so presumably that is what the mistake is.
When he was questioned, the Luxaviation guy admitted he meant a private jet user - renter - who only took one flight a year. He claimed that is the average
So he bent the numbers quite spectacularly and mendaciously. The more surprising thing for me is that just one dog is worse than a big fuming car
In my experience atheists often espouse a religious level of certainty about their political beliefs, it is a common trait. A comment that has also stayed with me was one made by a historian, that contemporary politics is best understood as an episode in the longer history of religion.
There are several areas of the origin of life that are still unexplained, for example how the first single celled organisms came to be, and, indeed, what triggered the big bang. So we certainly cannot rule out, absolutely, the involvement of any divine power. You could also add that the evolution of intelligent life on earth over billions of years, given all the events that happened, into ourselves is vanishing unlikely - even if proofable - and so perhaps something else was involved.
However, what makes me sceptical is that virtually every time in history where there has been a void in our knowledge that faith has filled eventually science has stepped in and provided a convincing and evidence-based answer. So if it's happened 1,000 times before (and it has) then religion starts on the back foot.
I am perfectly willing to postulate that there may be a far more intelligent species than our own - that is beyond our comprehension - that goes around seeding asteroids with bacteria it's cooked up and fires them at habitable worlds, but that's probably just as much of a stretch to be honest.
Personally I am an agnostic, I am sceptical of any definitive explanatory frameworks be this through science or politics or religion. It seems to me that these are all human constructs that simply serve our desire for meaning in a random universe. This perspective may sound unsatisfactory but there is a great freedom and security in it because it can never ultimately be disproved.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
They are regulated businesses that have regulated responsibilities.
If they don't want to take their responsibilities seriously then that should be between them and Ofwat - not people who move into new homes.
Why is it only between those parties when some of those utilities have been failing the public for decades, and the regulator has been asleep at the wheel ?
These are monopoly public services.
Which other parties should it be between?
If Ofwat are asleep at the wheel then that is the government's fault. They're responsible for setting and assigning the regulators responsibilities and should be ensuring that it is done properly.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
In my experience atheists often espouse a religious level of certainty about their political beliefs, it is a common trait. A comment that has also stayed with me was one made by a historian, that contemporary politics is best understood as an episode in the longer history of religion.
There are several areas of the origin of life that are still unexplained, for example how the first single celled organisms came to be, and, indeed, what triggered the big bang. So we certainly cannot rule out, absolutely, the involvement of any divine power. You could also add that the evolution of intelligent life on earth over billions of years, given all the events that happened, into ourselves is vanishing unlikely - even if proofable - and so perhaps something else was involved.
However, what makes me sceptical is that virtually every time in history where there has been a void in our knowledge that faith has filled eventually science has stepped in and provided a convincing and evidence-based answer. So if it's happened 1,000 times before (and it has) then religion starts on the back foot.
I am perfectly willing to postulate that there may be a far more intelligent species than our own - that is beyond our comprehension - that goes around seeding asteroids with bacteria it's cooked up and fires them at habitable worlds, but that's probably just as much of a stretch to be honest.
Personally I am an agnostic, I am sceptical of any definitive explanatory frameworks be this through science or politics or religion. It seems to me that these are all human constructs that simply serve our desire for meaning in a random universe. This perspective may sound unsatisfactory but there is a great freedom and security in it because it can never ultimately be disproved.
Personally I'm an atheist, but I'm not definitive.
I can't rule out the existence of mystical beings whether it be one god or an entire pantheon of gods, or flying spaghetti monsters, or invisible pink unicorns, or that there's China teapots orbitting the sun that are too small to be seen by telescopes.
If there is something, then there is, but without evidence I see no reason to believe in it - and whatever it is, in the absence of evidence, is probably not anything like any of the religions man has invented to date anyway.
The US air force has secured $50m (£39m) funding next year for a project that could pave the way for American nuclear weapons to return to British soil for the first time in 15 years.
In justifying the expenditure on a 144-bed dormitory at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, the USAF told Congress the building was intended to “house the increase in enlisted personnel as the result of the potential surety mission”, which is jargon typically used by the Pentagon to refer to handling of nuclear weapons, according to experts.
Construction of the dormitory is due to begin in June 2024 and last until February 2026, and is the latest in a series of signs that preparations are under way for the possible return of US nuclear weapons to UK territory.
It's quite clear from public policy statements that both the UK and US are upgrading their nuclear defence, and collaborating accordingly.
The threat vector has changed.
Should we be hosting them in the UK though?
And why would they be needed here? What do we have our own deterrent for? I also can't believe the US would put nuclear missiles here unless they had absolute authority for launching them. Russia is a busted flush. This is not the height of the cold war when Soviet troops were in Berlin. I wonder if US nuclear doctrine would consider it safer to launch a nuclear weapon from the UK, believing that any retaliatory strike might then be directed at the UK rather than the US. Also factor in that given Trump the US can no longer be considered a wholly reliable partner long term, this move seems distinctly dubious.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
I've had conversations with people who insist the world is coming to an end because of x, and the moment you convince them that x is unlikely, they immediately say the world is coming to an end anyway because of y.
This is a recurring disposition that humans have. I think it is because we have evolved to look out for threats, and the truth is that there really aren't any existential threats in our day to day life, so it gets replaced by a more abstract belief that the world is going to end. In the absence of religion to provide an explanation, it gets channeled in to fears about climate change, AI etc.
I've got a friend from university who was worried about climate change 20 years ago, he had stockpiles of dry food in his room. He was ahead of his time in some ways. When I met him again last year he was less bothered about climate change but now thought the world is about to run out of energy.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
The only vaguely interesting thing for me is the courts use of inclusive months, so October to January includes all of January. Non-disclosure clauses are relatively well-known though. We even have them here.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
In my experience atheists often espouse a religious level of certainty about their political beliefs, it is a common trait. A comment that has also stayed with me was one made by a historian, that contemporary politics is best understood as an episode in the longer history of religion.
There are several areas of the origin of life that are still unexplained, for example how the first single celled organisms came to be, and, indeed, what triggered the big bang. So we certainly cannot rule out, absolutely, the involvement of any divine power. You could also add that the evolution of intelligent life on earth over billions of years, given all the events that happened, into ourselves is vanishing unlikely - even if proofable - and so perhaps something else was involved.
However, what makes me sceptical is that virtually every time in history where there has been a void in our knowledge that faith has filled eventually science has stepped in and provided a convincing and evidence-based answer. So if it's happened 1,000 times before (and it has) then religion starts on the back foot.
I am perfectly willing to postulate that there may be a far more intelligent species than our own - that is beyond our comprehension - that goes around seeding asteroids with bacteria it's cooked up and fires them at habitable worlds, but that's probably just as much of a stretch to be honest.
I agree that god of the gaps arguments are in general no good - science is good at what it does, but there is no reason why God should not create a universe which is intelligible to empirical enquiry, ie science. Why should that be a problem to belief in God? The laws of physics have no explanatory power beyond themselves.
However it is still worth reflecting on a wider gaps question. We know enough to have an insight into what we don't or don't yet know, and into the mechanisms of the physical universe. This presents challenges. Such as:
Moral objectivity. The laws of physics are neutral about whether torturing children for fun is always wrong. Does that mean it's only wrong in our opinion, not in fact?
Mind and body. Mental events are linked to physical events. But we cannot even imagine a mechanism within the laws of physics by which this can work. No 'How It Works' is available, even in theory.
Freewill. That this exists is obviously true except to the deranged and amoral, but again no 'How It Works' is available, even as an idea.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
Do you live in a cave? November has no colour except for fireworks celebrating Guy Fawkes night and Diwali. December has Christmas (other religious holidays are available). January brings the new year and hogmanay. Three months of human bonding and celebration.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
Light boxes can be quite useful. Also getting outside early in the day, once the sun is up obviously.
One reason I suspect why people hate the idea of maintaining BST in winter. Going to work in the dark and then being inside all day isn't much fun.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
Isn't that already the case?
AFAIK yes it is, as it should be.
Which is why the lack of sufficient treatment plants, or reservoirs, or anything else should not be a barrier to construction.
Those aren't a development's responsibility and nor should they be. An organisation failing to fulfil its duties shouldn't be an excuse to compound problems by resulting in overcrowding.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
But what gives you the faith? How do you get it? Is it as simple as waking up and thinking "I believe in God/Allah/Thor/Yoda"? What makes you believe, and why?
I heartily recommend Ayahuasca. But you need to get the good stuff. Don't fuck about with fake wizards in Iquitos
Wouldn't 10 pints of Carling and a doner kebab have the same effect and be a bit cheaper?
Zero snob appeal, which is key element of quasi-spiritualism.
Ayahuasca definitely has snob appeal - billionaires do it in Ibiza and Belgravia - but it is certainly NOT "quasi" spiritual. It is properly spiritual. The sacred vine. It has been used in divination and shamanism for many centuries
I an also personally vouch that it is an extraordinarily profound drug, and I've done a lot of different drugs
Profound in any way you can communicate ?
Not easily. During a recent conversation with my mystical brother I described meeting the Divine on ayahuasca as akin to “being a daffodil confronted by Beethoven’s 9th”
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
I don't know the dot and tittle on treatment plants, but principle would have the developer paying for extra capacity that they require.
That's normal procedure for everything from road junction capacity, extra capacity in local schools, local parks and all the rest - as part of planning gain taxes.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
Light boxes can be quite useful. Also getting outside early in the day, once the sun is up obviously.
One reason I suspect why people hate the idea of maintaining BST in winter. Going to work in the dark and then being inside all day isn't much fun.
When there is as little daylight, either clocks or working and school hours should ensure that people can get home to enjoy some daylight, and try to get some time outside in it.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
Do you live in a cave? November has no colour except for fireworks celebrating Guy Fawkes night and Diwali. December has Christmas (other religious holidays are available). January brings the new year and hogmanay. Three months of human bonding and celebration.
I call it my sacred season - and no I am not religious though I am a bit of a pagan at heart
So many events that I like and that form part of the turning year occur for me in the Autumn and winter.
Harvest, 4 family birthdays, Halloween, Bonfire Night, Yule, Christmas and New Year and then the early year traditions of wassailing and plough plays. All cause for celebration. Plus as I said my work rate goes through the roof and I feel so much more alive.
I do absolutely sympathise with Leon and others. My Dad used to get SADs very badly so it is not something I dismiss at all.
All I can say is for me personally autumn and winter are the very best times of the year.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
Seasons are unequal to my mind, and this enables me to cope. Summer: June to September Autumn: October to mid December Winter: Mid December to January Spring: February (aconites, snowdrops, first crocus) to May.
Also: Start Christmas on the evening of 24th December and run it to 2nd February (Candlemas); the fatal mistake is to pay attention to it to early. There is a lovely gap in people's calendars from early January to do Christmas season things; no-one minds getting local invitations to do something festive in January; and it restores the old ways of doing things, which is to take you up to Lent with good stuff.
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
Yep I agree with this.
I seem to be doing alot of agreeing with people today. Not sure what is wrong with me
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
Isn't that already the case?
AFAIK yes it is, as it should be.
Which is why the lack of sufficient treatment plants, or reservoirs, or anything else should not be a barrier to construction.
Those aren't a development's responsibility and nor should they be. An organisation failing to fulfil its duties shouldn't be an excuse to compound problems by resulting in overcrowding.
I don't really understand why you've been talking about it all day then?
The Lords Amendment is around runoff from construction sites, nutrient mitigation and stuff like that. All this policy does is remove the responsbility for mitigating that from the developer. This might be a net positive if it has a huge impact on housebuilding, but abandons the "polluter pays" principle.
Given the current focus on water quality, it's a brave decision from the government.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case.
There is a wider commercial element in a lot of decisions on how companies fight or settle legal cases. Say you're a waste company working for a lot of local authorities, with whom you occasionally get into legal disputes. It might (though won't necessarily) be worth it to fight one or two hopeless cases just to make the point to everyone else that you don't roll over and you'd better be prepared for a lot of pain and risk if you litigate. This improves your negotiating position even if it costs a few quid in a couple of cases.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
Do you live in a cave? November has no colour except for fireworks celebrating Guy Fawkes night and Diwali. December has Christmas (other religious holidays are available). January brings the new year and hogmanay. Three months of human bonding and celebration.
I call it my sacred season - and no I am not religious though I am a bit of a pagan at heart
So many events that I like and that form part of the turning year occur for me in the Autumn and winter.
Harvest, 4 family birthdays, Halloween, Bonfire Night, Yule, Christmas and New Year and then the early year traditions of wassailing and plough plays. All cause for celebration. Plus as I said my work rate goes through the roof and I feel so much more alive.
I do absolutely sympathise with Leon and others. My Dad used to get SADs very badly so it is not something I dismiss at all.
All I can say is for me personally autumn and winter are the very best times of the year.
All SAD sufferers are different but for me, use of Vitamin D + spend time sitting outside even on the greyest of days and conscientiously look at the sky, the moving clouds and so on. Even on such days the direct light from an unpromising sky can have healing power.
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
Seasons are unequal to my mind, and this enables me to cope. Summer: June to September Autumn: October to mid December Winter: Mid December to January Spring: February (aconites, snowdrops, first crocus) to May.
Also: Start Christmas on the evening of 24th December and run it to 2nd February (Candlemas); the fatal mistake is to pay attention to it to early. There is a lovely gap in people's calendars from early January to do Christmas season things; no-one minds getting local invitations to do something festive in January; and it restores the old ways of doing things, which is to take you up to Lent with good stuff.
Like Leon, I hate February. The only good thing about it is that it only last 28 days, although the bastards do stick an extra day on every now and again.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
A good theory… except this wasn’t a high profile case. It was all done in secret, because that’s the point of the non-disclosure order. It was only revealed later, and it wasn’t revealed by Twitter doing a big press release to show off how they’ll fight for your data. I believe they’ve not commented on it.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Assuming the big bang even happened. You can't get something from nothing.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
A good theory… except this wasn’t a high profile case. It was all done in secret, because that’s the point of the non-disclosure order. It was only revealed later, and it wasn’t revealed by Twitter doing a big press release to show off how they’ll fight for your data. I believe they’ve not commented on it.
Because there's every chance that juicy information about a case involving the witch hunt against Donald J Trump was going to remain under wraps. Nobody is that interested, and your favourite President is bigly discreet - the most discreetest in the history of the world.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Assuming the big bang even happened. You can't get something from nothing.
I think quantum physics says you can. One theory is that a tiny particle leapt backwards in spacetime, before the Big Bang, kicking off the Big Bang
I'm conflicted about the ULEZ expansion; I can see the arguments for both sides. But I don't drive or live in London, so I don't really care. I think the answer might be to make the charge much lower, maybe 50%, in the newly charged area
I DO want my town to be a ULEZ. In fact, I want it to be a ULSNEZ (Speed and Noise) that's strictly enforced
I found out today that a street on one of my rounds, Herd Street, is the third worst polluted street in Wiltshire. It's more polluted than any street in Swindon or Salisbury (I read this in the Marlborough Gazette and Herald while I was waiting in a queue at Tescos to buy my lunch, so have no idea where the numbers are from)
People drive through that street, and mine, like Counts of Minuso. The pollution, danger and noise from living or working on one of these streets is massively increased by these dicks
Watching Star Trek: Those Old Scientists again. James T Kirk is written like a shit space version of James Bond. Constantly trying to get his end away with a variety of bizarrely nubile young ladies who appear from nowhere to be seduced and disposed of. A series of baddies trying to find creative ways to do him in lure him into dangerous and often bizarre locations which his base manly manliness gets him out of.
There are so many ways this series was ground-breaking and society upsetting. Japanese and Russian officers, a black woman in a position of authority. War should be avoided. That kiss. But how much society needed to move on...
Those interested in theology and politics should read Michael Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never". In chapter 12, he says: "Environmentalism today is the dominant secular relgion of the eudcated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it legitimacy." (p. 263)
It combines a nature worship with similarities to some pagan religions with apocalyptic ideas from "Judeo-Christian beliefs".
For an example of the first, consider the worship -- and that is not too strong a word in this area -- of killer whales. For an example of the second, consider the odd beliefs of, for example, Extinction Rebellion.
The belief that the sky is falling in seems almost universal: people believe it of global warming, of woke, of Trump and/or of Biden.
Humans seem programmed to believe that the world is coming to an end.
Of course one day they will be correct!
What makes you think people will be there to witness it?
Meanwhile, in other "apocalyptic destruction of pre-existing life forms" news, have we done the latest Blue Wall poll?
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1) Conservative 32% (-1) Liberal Democrat 25% (–) Reform UK 5% (–) Green 4% (-1) Other 1% (+1)
Still no sign of tactical voters showing us a hint of bosom.
There wouldn't be, as the R&W Blue Wall poll includes both Tory/Labour and Tory/Lib Dem seats. R&W define as "For the purposes of our tracker polling, we have limited ourselves to studying constituencies which meet five criteria: 1) The constituency is in the South of England 2) The constituency elected a Conservative MP at the 2015, 2017, and 2019 General Elections 3) At least 25% of adults in the constituency have a degree 4) The Remain vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum in the constituency was greater than 42.5% 5) The Conservatives hold the constituency on a majority of less than 10,000 over Labour OR less than 15,000 over the Liberal Democrats."
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
A good theory… except this wasn’t a high profile case. It was all done in secret, because that’s the point of the non-disclosure order. It was only revealed later, and it wasn’t revealed by Twitter doing a big press release to show off how they’ll fight for your data. I believe they’ve not commented on it.
Because there's every chance that juicy information about a case involving the witch hunt against Donald J Trump was going to remain under wraps. Nobody is that interested, and your favourite President is bigly discreet - the most discreetest in the history of the world.
It doesn’t matter how indiscreet Trump is. That’s the point of the non-disclosure order: Trump wasn’t told. It’s all come to light now because the time limit ran out. Trump knew no sooner than anyone else.
If they were doing it to show how they’ll defend your data, they’d trumpet what they had done, not court nerds dig it out. Stop digging yourself a deeper hole and accept your theory doesn’t work.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
And yet many of the great Christian mystics deliberately sought out altered states - via fasting, prayer, isolation, even self harm - so as to achieve spiritual insights
And there is a long, noble tradition of proper entheogenic spirituality beyond Christianity
You, a provincial quack, get your theophanic kicks in some boring church in Leicester. Each to their own. There are many stairways to heaven
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
And yet many of the great Christian mystics deliberately sought out altered states - via fasting, prayer, isolation, even self harm - so as to achieve spiritual insights
And there is a long, noble tradition of proper entheogenic spirituality beyond Christianity
You, a provincial quack, get your theophanic kicks in some boring church in Leicester. Each to their own. There are many stairways to heaven
Also note the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed by Christianity over the years...
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
A good theory… except this wasn’t a high profile case. It was all done in secret, because that’s the point of the non-disclosure order. It was only revealed later, and it wasn’t revealed by Twitter doing a big press release to show off how they’ll fight for your data. I believe they’ve not commented on it.
Because there's every chance that juicy information about a case involving the witch hunt against Donald J Trump was going to remain under wraps. Nobody is that interested, and your favourite President is bigly discreet - the most discreetest in the history of the world.
It doesn’t matter how indiscreet Trump is. That’s the point of the non-disclosure order: Trump wasn’t told. It’s all come to light now because the time limit ran out. Trump knew no sooner than anyone else.
If they were doing it to show how they’ll defend your data, they’d trumpet what they had done, not court nerds dig it out. Stop digging yourself a deeper hole and accept your theory doesn’t work.
The story has in fact come out so my theory works perfectly well, thank you!
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
Yes. $50k for the first day, $100k for the second, $200k for the third, thus $350k for 3 days delay.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Assuming the big bang even happened. You can't get something from nothing.
The rules increasingly break down the nearer you get to the Big Bang. Including that one.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
A good theory… except this wasn’t a high profile case. It was all done in secret, because that’s the point of the non-disclosure order. It was only revealed later, and it wasn’t revealed by Twitter doing a big press release to show off how they’ll fight for your data. I believe they’ve not commented on it.
Because there's every chance that juicy information about a case involving the witch hunt against Donald J Trump was going to remain under wraps. Nobody is that interested, and your favourite President is bigly discreet - the most discreetest in the history of the world.
It doesn’t matter how indiscreet Trump is. That’s the point of the non-disclosure order: Trump wasn’t told. It’s all come to light now because the time limit ran out. Trump knew no sooner than anyone else.
If they were doing it to show how they’ll defend your data, they’d trumpet what they had done, not court nerds dig it out. Stop digging yourself a deeper hole and accept your theory doesn’t work.
The story has in fact come out so my theory works perfectly well, thank you!
Your theory is that Twitter did this as a PR stunt, so everyone would think “Look how Twitter will defend my data”. Everyone on hearing the story is saying “Look how Elon wanted to suck up to Trump and ended up wasting $$$”. So, not the most successful PR strategy…
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
And unknown legal costs.
That’s a lot of money to get a news story that makes you look bad!
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
I don't know the dot and tittle on treatment plants, but principle would have the developer paying for extra capacity that they require.
That's normal procedure for everything from road junction capacity, extra capacity in local schools, local parks and all the rest - as part of planning gain taxes.
Raises towards £10bn a year in England.
Robert Colville and Sam Dimitry have written about this on twitter. It looks like a malign consequence of well intended legislation that the government can fix now we're outside the EU. It doesn't change my view that we'd be better off in the EU but not all legislation that arises from it is necessarily good. Robert Colbille implies we've gold plated the legislation too to include phosphates alongside nitrates and that we've overzealously applied this to housebuilders rather than farmers as in the Netherlands. Tbh we could probably still fix this within the EU, but yes it seems it's the classic combination of an EU directive followed by an ECJ ruling followed by a gold old bit of British gold plating.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
And yet many of the great Christian mystics deliberately sought out altered states - via fasting, prayer, isolation, even self harm - so as to achieve spiritual insights
And there is a long, noble tradition of proper entheogenic spirituality beyond Christianity
You, a provincial quack, get your theophanic kicks in some boring church in Leicester. Each to their own. There are many stairways to heaven
Also note the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed by Christianity over the years...
It is a bit of a blemish on the faith
I dislike organised religion in general. It feels like an oxymoron. Like industrialised love
However I do see the divine largely through the prism of Christianity. My literary references are biblical in the main. And I revere the greatness of Christian art. Michelangelo’s pieta. Mozart’s vespers. The poems of St John of the cross
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
When they are sacking people left, right and centre because they have no money, then maybe don't treat $350k as peanuts.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
I worked in Norway for a couple of years. Spring, May and June. Summer, July and August. Autumn, September and October. Winter, November through April.
The Insect Trust: Hoboken Saturday Night (Atco, 1970) Thomas Pynchon, Louis "Moondog" Hardin, and an unidentified child (who else would say "busketty" for "spaghetti"?) are among the guest composers, Elvin Jones and an unidentified child among the guest musicians. Former president James Garfield makes a cameo appearance. Vocalist Nancy Jeffries applies her tobacco voice to a feminist lyric called "Trip on Me" that I recommend to Janis Joplin. The blues scholars in the group have been listening to a lot of Arabic and Eastern European music lately, but this doesn't stop Elvin Jones from sounding just like Elvin Jones. In short, these passionate humanists also sound friendly and have come up with a charming, joyous, irrepressibly experimental record. And every experiment works. A
Furthermore, we’re all going to pay for it: Taxpayers will pick up the bill for pollution by housebuilders, government officials have admitted, as rules on chemical releases into waterways are scrapped.
If an amendment in the House of Lords tabled on Tuesday passes, developers will no longer have to offset the nutrient pollution caused by sewage from new homes. The government has said it will double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m in order to show it is trying to meet the requirements of its legally binding Environment Act.
This extra £140m will come from the public purse, the government confirmed. When asked by the Guardian whether this meant the taxpayer was now picking up the bill for pollution caused by developers, a government official responded “yes”, adding that while “the polluter pays principle is very important”, it was having too many adverse impacts on small- and medium-sized housebuilders
Brexit - delivered through lies, shovelling money to wealthy Tory donors, degrading the world you live in and charging you for the privilege.
This is extremely good news, bypassing an absurd piece of legislation.
The law afaik doesn't concern 'housebuilders' pollution', but the fact that they have to account for the prospective residents' shit entering the waterways. Given that their shit is already entering the waterways, and that therefore there is no environmental benefit in new houses being held up this way, all it was doing was contributing to the ongoing housing crisis. It will indeed massively benefit small housebuilders who can't afford to wait years before building, and will be welcomed by anyone with half a brain cell.
Without disagreeing with your broader point, isn’t the issue that their shit will be entering the waterways in a different place? Sewage systems may have a capacity where the people currently live, but a new housing estate will overwhelm the capacity in that area. Sewage capacity is not fungible.
No, because without sufficient housing people just live in overcrowded housing instead. That's no better and their shit still needs processing.
If you don't want people living "here" then where exactly should they be living instead? Markovia? Azeroth? Narnia? Or somewhere even less credible and more fantastical - like a part of the UK with an overabundance of housing and local services?
I agree with you that we should build more housing and if there aren’t suitable sewage systems locally, then we should build those a.s.a.p. I’m just saying that just because people living where they currently are have adequate sewerage doesn’t mean that there’s automatically adequate sewerage if they all move to a new estate. There can be a need for new local infrastructure, which we should obviously provide.
That's a function of population growth, yes. If the population is growing so demand grows, then the supply of services needs to too.
That is NOT an excuse to block housing or construction though.
If you want to prevent population growth then encourage net emigration as we have positive population growth anyway even without immigration.
If you don't want net emigration, then we need to grow services. Blocking houses and forcing people to live in overcrowded HMOs instead is not an alternative solution.
So are you suggesting that all the infrastructure that supports a new estate is paid out of general taxation? Or would you pass the charge onto to the homeowners with factors fees or something?
General taxation expenditure should come out of general taxation, absolutely, of course it should. All public infrastructure for all homes are paid out of general taxation, yes.
New or old, doesn't make a difference, you still have to pay income tax, still pay council tax.
If you don't want to invest in new infrastructure, don't have population growth.
Why should young people pay more tax for having infrastructure to their home, just because its newer, when older homes infrastructure is maintained out of their taxes too?
Eh?! Water and shite industry in England is privatised. So is electricity, and so is gas. And their transmission is via a private company.
Yes, my water is supplied via United Utilities.
If United Utilities need to invest in infrastructure, then that is their responsibility, not mine.
They should charge all their customers accordingly to account for any infrastructure they need to invest in.
The question was about taxes - any infrastructure paid for out of taxes (eg the cycle path to my estate, or road to it etc - absolutely should be paid for out of taxation, same as any other public infrastructure should be.
I believe the relevant water company will be consulted about any development as to whether they are able to supply water and water treatment for a particular site. If they say they cannot then the development cannot proceed.
Water companies pretty much always say yes because it means more revenue.
What should then happen is that they are held to this agreement by being properly regulated.
The development should proceed either way.
United Utilities are responsible for the region. If new homes are built in the region, they need to be able to handle them, as they've taken responsibility for the region.
If they're not able to, then they should disband and someone else who can do the job should take over.
They cannot be held infinitely responsible.
If a development plan is submitted for somewhere without sufficient supply or 20 miles from anywhere then you can't force the water company to put in a connection.
A development could in theory go ahead anyway with a private supply and septic tanks but that's not really a thing for bulk housing.
If they agree to any development, though, they absolutely should be held to discharge regulations.
Funnily enough, under the current legislation yes you can hold the water company responsible. I don't know if there is a minimum number of houses but any development that is passed by planning has to be provided with a water supply by the water company. It has been a complaint from Anglian water for many years given the number of houses being built in East Anglia and around Peterborough. (A friend works for them doing future usage planning which is a thankless task)
They are limited companies - often in foreign ownership, and carrying heaps if debt. The extent to which they can be ‘held responsible’ for anything significant, in any meaningful manner, is extremely constrained.
Barty’s (autocorrupt insists he’s called Barry) airy pronouncements are empty rhetoric.
So if we don't charge the builders the new *privately owned* infrastructure doesn't get done? Unless we pay for it out of taxes?
Why should the builders pay for it?
If its United Utilities infrastructure, then United Utilities should pay for it.
It has always been the case that developers pay for the new mains supply connections to their developments. This was the case under public ownevrship and remains the case under private companies. Developers will usually use their own contractors to build the mains supply network on the estate and then the water company will do the connection into the mains supply. Once it has been added to the system it then becomes the responsibilty of the Water company for maintainance.
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Yes, paying for a connection is entirely reasonable.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
Isn't that already the case?
AFAIK yes it is, as it should be.
Which is why the lack of sufficient treatment plants, or reservoirs, or anything else should not be a barrier to construction.
Those aren't a development's responsibility and nor should they be. An organisation failing to fulfil its duties shouldn't be an excuse to compound problems by resulting in overcrowding.
I don't really understand why you've been talking about it all day then?
The Lords Amendment is around runoff from construction sites, nutrient mitigation and stuff like that. All this policy does is remove the responsbility for mitigating that from the developer. This might be a net positive if it has a huge impact on housebuilding, but abandons the "polluter pays" principle.
Given the current focus on water quality, it's a brave decision from the government.
This one needed addressing, as a large number of homes have been delayed for several years.
I am far from convinced that this washed up Govt has the nouse or the brain cells to do it effectively, however.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
And yet many of the great Christian mystics deliberately sought out altered states - via fasting, prayer, isolation, even self harm - so as to achieve spiritual insights
And there is a long, noble tradition of proper entheogenic spirituality beyond Christianity
You, a provincial quack, get your theophanic kicks in some boring church in Leicester. Each to their own. There are many stairways to heaven
Also note the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed by Christianity over the years...
Deus Vult is indeed a very powerful motive to kill.
The Church could motivate people to kill (as per the various Crusades) or else act as a very big moderating influence (through Truces of God, banning fighting on Saints’ days, distinguishing combatants from non-combatants, making religious buildings places of sanctuary.
The 16th and 17th centuries produced the perfect storm, of an end to centralised Church influence, a massive growth in State-controlled military might, and plenty of factions able to claim that God was on their side.
In the ancient world, though, no one needed God to justify mass slaughter. It’s just what you did, glorious even.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Assuming the big bang even happened. You can't get something from nothing.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
When they are sacking people left, right and centre because they have no money, then maybe don't treat $350k as peanuts.
I'm not saying I'd particularly like to own Twitter with it's continuing losses and problems. But $350k on this for a $4 billion turnover company is in the noise and well worth it.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love. That is a pretty powerful statement. I always get a lump in my throat when I hear or read it. And I'm an atheist!
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
When they are sacking people left, right and centre because they have no money, then maybe don't treat $350k as peanuts.
I'm not saying I'd particularly like to own Twitter with it's continuing losses and problems. But $350k on this for a $4 billion turnover company is in the noise and well worth it.
I disagree completely. A third of a million dollars isn't noise, especially when most or all of your turnover is being taken in fixed or unavoidable costs.
Spending a third of a million dollars that you don't have to is money straight from the bottom line. A very broken bottom line currently.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
And yet many of the great Christian mystics deliberately sought out altered states - via fasting, prayer, isolation, even self harm - so as to achieve spiritual insights
And there is a long, noble tradition of proper entheogenic spirituality beyond Christianity
You, a provincial quack, get your theophanic kicks in some boring church in Leicester. Each to their own. There are many stairways to heaven
Also note the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed by Christianity over the years...
It is a bit of a blemish on the faith
I dislike organised religion in general. It feels like an oxymoron. Like industrialised love
However I do see the divine largely through the prism of Christianity. My literary references are biblical in the main. And I revere the greatness of Christian art. Michelangelo’s pieta. Mozart’s vespers. The poems of St John of the cross
All touched by the ineffable
It's a bit odd to dislike 'organised religion' as so many claim, while of course appreciating the greatness of so many aspects of the religious traditions.
Charlie Brown somewhere says 'I love the human race, it's people I can't stand'. This is the opposite. I love leaves but dislike trees.
All individual greatness, including spiritual, stands in relation to a wider context and world. The world is a complexly self organising place. So is religion. Christianity is numerically the largest identifiable organisation on the planet. Dislike of the fact it is 'organised' is not so much radical as meaningless. Without it, which ceiling would Michelangelo have adorned?
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
All the social media/tech companies go to court on such demands. As you say, it is about showing the customers they don't just roll over at the first demand. Among other things, it is about demonstrating that they protected the customers data as much as they legally can, to avoid lawsuits from the customers.
Apple went a long, long way with the FBI on accessing phones, not long ago.
It's not a big problem for law enforcement - unless you come from the belief that people should provide whatever the police ask for, on point of demand.
If you examine what happened, Twatter were a day or two late getting the data to the court. Which was why the fine was only $350K.
I'm conflicted about the ULEZ expansion; I can see the arguments for both sides. But I don't drive or live in London, so I don't really care. I think the answer might be to make the charge much lower, maybe 50%, in the newly charged area
I DO want my town to be a ULEZ. In fact, I want it to be a ULSNEZ (Speed and Noise) that's strictly enforced
I found out today that a street on one of my rounds, Herd Street, is the third worst polluted street in Wiltshire. It's more polluted than any street in Swindon or Salisbury (I read this in the Marlborough Gazette and Herald while I was waiting in a queue at Tescos to buy my lunch, so have no idea where the numbers are from)
People drive through that street, and mine, like Counts of Minuso. The pollution, danger and noise from living or working on one of these streets is massively increased by these dicks
ULSNEZ for Marlborough!
OIive branch to @BartholomewRoberts. I've had a quick look at the streetview for the aforementioned Herd Street and there is a prime example of an A road running through a pretty little town and preventing it from developing into a walking/cycling nirvana. For Marlborough - a bypass please (tricky as in a AONB).
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
All the social media/tech companies go to court on such demands. As you say, it is about showing the customers they don't just roll over at the first demand. Among other things, it is about demonstrating that they protected the customers data as much as they legally can, to avoid lawsuits from the customers.
Apple went a long, long way with the FBI on accessing phones, not long ago.
It's not a big problem for law enforcement - unless you come from the belief that people should provide whatever the police ask for, on point of demand.
If you examine what happened, Twatter were a day or two late getting the data to the court. Which was why the fine was only $350K.
As above, Twitter had never protested a non-disclosure order for any other customer before and could find no evidence of any social media company having done so before. So, no, it is not the case that all social media go to court on such demands.
Watch the actual video I linked to: it goes into all of this stuff.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
A good theory… except this wasn’t a high profile case. It was all done in secret, because that’s the point of the non-disclosure order. It was only revealed later, and it wasn’t revealed by Twitter doing a big press release to show off how they’ll fight for your data. I believe they’ve not commented on it.
Because there's every chance that juicy information about a case involving the witch hunt against Donald J Trump was going to remain under wraps. Nobody is that interested, and your favourite President is bigly discreet - the most discreetest in the history of the world.
It doesn’t matter how indiscreet Trump is. That’s the point of the non-disclosure order: Trump wasn’t told. It’s all come to light now because the time limit ran out. Trump knew no sooner than anyone else.
If they were doing it to show how they’ll defend your data, they’d trumpet what they had done, not court nerds dig it out. Stop digging yourself a deeper hole and accept your theory doesn’t work.
The story has in fact come out so my theory works perfectly well, thank you!
Your theory is that Twitter did this as a PR stunt, so everyone would think “Look how Twitter will defend my data”. Everyone on hearing the story is saying “Look how Elon wanted to suck up to Trump and ended up wasting $$$”. So, not the most successful PR strategy…
Defending data matters to people in a way that liking the CEO doesn't. Hence why almost all the liberals (me included) are still on Twitter and Mastodon is the success it isn't.
I also didn't call it a PR stunt - those are your words. As a company, part of building a reputation over time (and losing it) is in how aggressive you are or are not in litigation strategy. There really is little downside in aggressively defending customer data - in this case a good proportion of your customers like it because they like the principle AND they like the man. A good proportion hate the man, so they are more conflicted... but if the past six months have taught us anything, it's that they are going nowhere.
I'm critical of Musk's Twitter in many respects. He's endangering the tech and scaring off advertisers. But on this one, I simply think a non-Musk Twitter would do the same.
I love Autumn. Ah, the freshness crispness and colour. But yes. A tad on the gloomy side today. First day since May I've not worn shorts. Turning into a very pleasant evening here, though.
"September kills me with its sadness" - Byron
Even worse when September apparently arrives in late August!
I don't mind Autumn, I thoroughly enjoy aspects of it, the first crispy days, native oyster season!, long country walks ending in fire-warmed pubs, oysters!, beautifully melancholy Cambridge evenings, the mysterious dampness, Frieze Art fair, oysters!, Bloomsbury squares in sinister fog.... it's the transition which is painful. The end of another summer. How many summers left? Etc
For that reason I prefer October to September, October is proper autumn, no mistake, September is the killer, which sometimes pretends to be summer, but generally isn't, and it;s when you REALLY notice the shorter days, ugh
November is generally vile apart from Halloween and Guy Fawkes, December is fun and bacchanalian, January is a c*nt, February is worse than January, but runtier, March is a slow crawl out of the pit of despair, April is nice
Ooh, you gloomy bugger.
The end of summer is sad. For me, it ends on August bank holiday Monday. Which was yesterday. I traditionally lament it's end by listening to 'David's Last Summer' by Pulp (about which I could write reams, but this is hardly the time or place). I remember in 2013, I think, at the end of a brilliant summer in which my wife and I worked, on average, four days out of 10 and in which every Friday was a beach day, crying genuine tears at summer's end. But this summer departed with just a shrug. Anyway, I love September and October and particularly November, which is now full of ritual: making the Christmas cake; Fireworks party, watching the sunset from Arnside Knott. And by February the worat of the winter dark is over and the year starts afresh. Only January is truly bleak.
I have actual SAD, I now believe, so it is a lot bleaker for me (I wish it wasn't)
Realising that I could simply skip the British winter and eff off to sunnier climes was a massive YAY. And also my job sometimes sends me to the sun, which is even nicer
For me the two best meteorological moments of the year are the first really sunny warm picnic day in England (usually late May/early June). I actually have a picnic. The other is when I land in Bangkok, often on New Year's Day, after a month of stygian darkness and cold British ugh, and I step out into the perfect sunny warmth of Thailand in January, and all my muscles relax and I just think, Aaaaaaahhhh
That's why Lockdown sent me close to madness. The inability to escape
ALSO you are being FAR too generous to February. An absolute fucker of a month
To me, November is the worst month. Gloom and darkness, with no prospect of warmth and brightness for months. No colour, just grey. Nothing but Christmas musak in the shops. December is nearly as bad. By January, the days are getting longer. By February, there is sometimes a little warmth in the sun, and summer seems on the horizon.
Do you live in a cave? November has no colour except for fireworks celebrating Guy Fawkes night and Diwali. December has Christmas (other religious holidays are available). January brings the new year and hogmanay. Three months of human bonding and celebration.
Yes, my birthday is in November, I love December with all the Christmas music on the radio and trees lit up in windows and the time off work, and Strictly and other good telly, time with the kids, and then Hogmanay and a bit of the buzz lingers through January with Burns night. The month I can't stand is February - winter dragging on seemingly without end, back in the work grind, and not much going on to take your mind off it. The only upside is it's short, and then by March the sun is making an occasional appearance and everything is okay again.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
I recall a story, possibly apocryphal.
Some psychiatrists, as an experiment, persuaded some conspiracy theorists that their theories were not true, using rational argument and evidence. The conspiracy theorists developed mental health symptoms - up to and including violence. Their conspiracy theories had given them an explanation for the world. A hope that it could be fixed. Without the ZOG or whatever, it was just chaos.
After a quiet spell, a bit more polling to either get your teeth into or to treat with utter disdain or somewhere inbetween.
R&W and Deltapoll both had 16 point Labour leads while We Think (Omnisis as was) has a 21-point Labour advantage. The R&W Blue Wall polling shows little change overall. Deltapoll has the first 30% Conservative share since Savanta in early July but with Labour in the mid 40s, all three pollsters continue to show Starmer in a strong position with the LDs in double figures and close to their 2019 numbers.
Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question - obviously, more DKs with We Think amd I also note overall DKs just 10% with R&W (8% among men, 12% among women) so perhaps we are seeing more minds being made up in advance of an election campaign which will effectively begin with the Party Conferences next month and into October.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love. That is a pretty powerful statement. I always get a lump in my throat when I hear or read it. And I'm an atheist!
Many Christians (including this one) believe that in order to remain 'unsaved' you have to fail completely and entirely in the virtue of love. To achieve this you have to be so consumed by its opposite that you are wholly demonic. The world is a tough old place and I don't like Hitler, Ian Brady or Lucy Letby or Putin, but there's a crack in everything. That's where the light gets in.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case.
There is a wider commercial element in a lot of decisions on how companies fight or settle legal cases. Say you're a waste company working for a lot of local authorities, with whom you occasionally get into legal disputes. It might (though won't necessarily) be worth it to fight one or two hopeless cases just to make the point to everyone else that you don't roll over and you'd better be prepared for a lot of pain and risk if you litigate. This improves your negotiating position even if it costs a few quid in a couple of cases.
There's no way X/Twitter could hold out on a contempt of court order. Its officers, including potentially Musk would end up in jail in short order. It would never get there.
My understanding is that the $350k fine was more due to disorganisation on the part of Twitter than grandstanding. When the judge imposed a deadline on delivering the data, they weren't able to get it together in time. If they had taken it more seriously in the first place they could have avoided the fine.
That just sounds exhausting. I am increasingly less enthralled with planes. I haven’t been on one since before Covid.
I don't understand this. I agree air travel can be exhausting and annoying. Indeed, it is this most of the time
But the travel! Just the sense of sitting in an airport, with all the world (or at least half of it) merely a plane flight away. We forget how lucky we are in Britain, location wise. Right in the "middle"
A travel writer friend of mine, a Brit based in New Orleans, mentioned this the other day, enviously. In the UK (esp London and SE England)) you are only an hour or two in flying time from a trillion amazing destinations. For him in Nawlins he is two hours from Cleveland Ohio
I have become comfortable being uncomfortable flying. Helps that Aberdeen is a fantastic little airport. Into that London is a choice of Luton or Gatwick. Luton is much quicker to get through but I no longer care which.
Flying internally in the UK is something I will happily defend. I can't get to and from where I need to be on land without it taking hours. So I fly.
If someone starts banging on at you about your "carbon footprint", ask them if they have any pets
Because pet ownership (I've been researching it) is catastrophic for the environment
"Having three dogs is as bad for the environment as taking a private jet"
When you add in all the damage pets do, from cats eating birds to dogs fouling waterways, to disturbing wildlife to farting methane to eating too much eat, and on and on, keeping pets is pretty much the worst thing a normal person can do, ecologically
The only type and number of pets people should be allowed to have is one cat.
Nope, not even cats. They kill 150-300 million wild creatures, every year, in the UK alone. It is an abomination. No wonder birdlife is collapsing
Get rid of your fucking pets, you selfish pet-keeping twats
If the periodic appearances of Misty the ghost cat are anything to go by, cats will stick around near to human slaves even after they depart this realm.
Ghost cat now is it? I am sincerely jealous
I've talked about this before. A black cat-shaped thing which is never entirely there. With the exception of my 15 year old son (who has seen and heard nothing at all) everyone in the family and (very much scoffing at the idea before) house guests have all seen it.
That I have a living black cat just adds to the confusion. He likes to yowl when hungry / upset. Was making a right old racket one morning in the doorway of my daughter's room (where he spends a lot of time). Tell him to shush then hear another yowl and realise my cat is off to my left on the stairs, not in the doorway ahead. Ah.
My other cat (they are siblings) seems determined to rescue Misty from being trapped in the antique wardrobe we inherited with the house. Scratches at one of the doors and gives a specific warning yowl. Usually at 4am. I say specific because when the other cat has gotten himself stuck somewhere she does the same yowl to alert us to his predicament whilst she scratches as the offending door...
Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else.
I know many people who say I don't have ghosts because they don't exist. Once said so at my house. The night before seeing one of them.
I don't have a problem with sceptics - I was one until I lived here. But its hard to discount the evidence of my eyes and ears, nor the various items which have been dropped for us to find.
Has anyone who has seen the ghosts not known that there are supposedly ghosts there? That could be affecting whether people are seeing them IMHO.
Yes. Me. The previous owner said nothing, so I had zero expectations and a pretty healthy "Just as an fyi, you don't have a ghost cat. It is something else" attitude to people who claimed to have seen a ghost.
Also got the interesting thing where I've had a room full of people sat downstairs and multiple people hear the same thing and react simultaneously. If its an auditory hallucination, its either one that happens to multiple brains in one go, or I'm lying and we just organised the shittiest flash mob ever.
Derren Brown is good at this. Suggesting things to people that they then are surprised to discover they subsequently replay.
I remember listening to an episode of whatever that ghosts/poltergeist podcast is on BBC Sounds and the guy relating the story said, at the outset, "we approached the house and something looked very strange, it didn't look right" and then subsequently went on to experience I think it was a poltergeist.
Well the clue was that he was already expecting something to be amiss.
Sadly or happily or wonderfully there is no supernatural. No ghosts, gods, or goblins. It all starts and ends with us. As it does with your ghost cat and the lights in your house.
I for one am glad that "@TOPPING off of PB" has finally sorted out the grandest mysteries of the universe - death, God, the teleology of Creation - which have intrigued, compelled and vexed the finest philosophers, and indeed all of humanity, for the last 500,000 years
Religion and ghosts and the supernatural. As someone once noted:
“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”
And ghosts are simply a manifestation of our existential dread.
Not rocket science. Or paleoarcheology.
And there was me thinking it was a quiet day on PB, focused mainly on ULEZ, and you've just gone and destroyed the basis of all human religion, with a mere cut and paste
Where are you on the mind/body problem? Perhaps we could get that sorted as well, before I go to Argos?
I think you'll find that's all part of it. Unless you are a shaman in which case you will have a different view of what happens to the soul.
"the soul" LOL.
I thought you were trolling a moment ago, but I now suspect you're actually quite sincere in this bombastic "certainty". So this is you projecting again, isn't it?
Herewith is your diagnosis: you personally have an intense fear of death. But you have a certain view of yourself as strong and logical so you refuse to give into "illogical" beliefs, however enticing, that might mitigate this fear: ghosts, God, the supernatural
But it is not enough that you don't believe, others must not believe either, or your worldview is menaced, hence your ridiculously stern insructions to @RochdalePioneers
You should be kinder to yourself. Ghosts might exist. God certainly exists. Give yourself a break
wtf are you talking about? I don't give a flying fuckerooney if you believe in god or @Rochdale sees phalanxes of flying kittens circling his kitchen. Good luck to you all. I'm jealous, of course I am, because what I do know, what is a cast iron certainty, is that there is no god, no ghosts, not goblins or fairies or elfs.
I wish there were but there are not. So good luck with it all. Is that "intense fear of death"? Perhaps, but like everyone, I prefer not to dwell on it. Makes no difference to what I know, and what you belive.
Meanwhile, my "projection" is simply to agree with Bertrand Russell that it is all based on fear which, if you look at religions down the years, from Zeus to Odin to God the Father, is imo incontrovertible.
Oooh, a hint of anger, as well
I'm so right. You're dead easy to diagnose
No anger at all, just frustration at your classic Leon ploy (I know I should know better) which is to throw out a "you're projecting" at people who flummox and befuddle you with logical argument and discussion.
Let me lay it out very simply. There is no god, no ghosts, no elves or goblins. Aliens? Yes there could be, as you note, it seems ridiculous to think that in the entire universe there are no other life forms. Call me an agnostic on aliens. Looking forward to seeing and meeting them. Not happened yet, which also seems strange seeing as why wouldn't they be trillions of years more advanced than us but there you go. Life is strange.
As for religion, as I said, I go with Russell. It is a response to fear. To acknowledge that is not to be scared oneself. That is for those who actually believe in god.
If you're gonna Appeal to Authority, I counter your stupid Bertrand Russell with the far superior Ludwig Wittgenstein - a religious believer - who famously wrote:
Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent
I appreciate that if this maxim was rigorously applied to PB, vitually all comments would disappear. Especially mine. But it is a useful truth to observe, when discussing religion, the supernatural, matters spiritual
You do not have faith, you do not understand it, you cannot therefore speak to it, or of it, so it's best to say nothing
I'm happy not commenting upon faith, if the religious would do the same and stop ramming it down my throat.
I have faith but I don't believe I have ever been the first to bring religion into a thread...just saying
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
When they are sacking people left, right and centre because they have no money, then maybe don't treat $350k as peanuts.
I'm not saying I'd particularly like to own Twitter with it's continuing losses and problems. But $350k on this for a $4 billion turnover company is in the noise and well worth it.
I disagree completely. A third of a million dollars isn't noise, especially when most or all of your turnover is being taken in fixed or unavoidable costs.
Spending a third of a million dollars that you don't have to is money straight from the bottom line. A very broken bottom line currently.
Whether they are in profit or not makes no difference to whether the return is worth the investment.
You might not make an investment that was otherwise worth it if your problem was cashflow. But Twitter's problem isn't cash but profit, which is quite different.
You can argue it isn't worth $350k (as Bondegezou has - I disagree but fine) but it's really hard to argue it'd be worth doing if they were in profit but isn't because of the bottom line, in circumstances where cash isn't an issue.
I'm conflicted about the ULEZ expansion; I can see the arguments for both sides. But I don't drive or live in London, so I don't really care. I think the answer might be to make the charge much lower, maybe 50%, in the newly charged area
I DO want my town to be a ULEZ. In fact, I want it to be a ULSNEZ (Speed and Noise) that's strictly enforced
I found out today that a street on one of my rounds, Herd Street, is the third worst polluted street in Wiltshire. It's more polluted than any street in Swindon or Salisbury (I read this in the Marlborough Gazette and Herald while I was waiting in a queue at Tescos to buy my lunch, so have no idea where the numbers are from)
People drive through that street, and mine, like Counts of Minuso. The pollution, danger and noise from living or working on one of these streets is massively increased by these dicks
ULSNEZ for Marlborough!
OIive branch to @BartholomewRoberts. I've had a quick look at the streetview for the aforementioned Herd Street and there is a prime example of an A road running through a pretty little town and preventing it from developing into a walking/cycling nirvana. For Marlborough - a bypass please (tricky as in a AONB).
Kudos.
Incidentally after a few weeks off, I'll be starting a new commute tomorrow to new location, so won't have s much time on PB as last few weeks (don't all celebrate at once).
Just checked my route, 23 mile commute. According to Google Maps it'll be a 28 minute drive, 98 minutes by public transport, an hour and 53 minutes by cycling. Guess which I'll be taking?
Cars are pretty necessary in this part of the country, and I'm classed as urban. Thankfully I can get on the motorway almost straight from my house due to a new expressway, I love it. Very fortunate to be in a position to have a brand new road near us, if only more people were so lucky.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Protetestantism is not generally very big on mysticism, though charismatic worship does have some common features.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
I agree with Tom Holland that possibly one of the strangest features of Christianity is the belief that pity and mercy are, in and of themselves, virtuous. That’s quite unnatural, really.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Of the many horrible things about Nietzsche his assaults on Christianity on account of its belief in mercy and pity are among the most grotesque to our modern minds. Jesus (with help from other traditions) has moved human nature along. Hooray.
I find it very curious that there is such an overlap between those who believe in God, and those who believe in aliens.
Because if aliens exist, it pretty much guarantees that all established religions are bokum. (Making man in God's image, etc.)
People who believe, and those who don't?
I think it's more simple than that.
It's about answers.
If you ask: "Why does the sun rise in the morning, and disappear at night?" It's very complex to answer: "The Earth is a globe, that revolves once in roughly every 24 hours. As the sun is in a (relatively) fixed position, the side of the Earth that points towards the Sun changes during the course of roughly 24 hours." (Or summit similar).
It's much easier to answer: "It's the way God made it. Don't ask such stupid questions again or we'll send the inquisition after you."
Likewise, evolution is messy and complex. It's much easier to say: "God created everything as you find it. If you doubt this, you will be ostracised as a naughty boy."
IMV much (not all) of religion is trying to solve complex questions such as "Why do we die?" with easier answers: "Coz God wills it."
There's a relaxing simplicity that there is an omniscient power controlling everything, that you do not get from chaotic reality. Which can be quite frightening.
The above does not actually exclude God existing, either...
That also explains the enormous comfort people take from conspiracy theories. Much easier to believe the Jews control everything than to admit that no-one is in charge.
Yep, and that's much of the way I see conspiracy theorists - and why they're often not very willing to go deep on their conspiracies.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
Even if we had a single, Stephen Hawking style "Mind of God" equation, printable on a T Shirt and all, could we work out how to get from there to here? I'm not sure.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
This is an actual conversation with my brother. Describing meeting god on ayahuasca
People telling you of their drug experiences are consistently the most boring people on earth.
And yet many of the great Christian mystics deliberately sought out altered states - via fasting, prayer, isolation, even self harm - so as to achieve spiritual insights
And there is a long, noble tradition of proper entheogenic spirituality beyond Christianity
You, a provincial quack, get your theophanic kicks in some boring church in Leicester. Each to their own. There are many stairways to heaven
Also note the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed by Christianity over the years...
It is a bit of a blemish on the faith
I dislike organised religion in general. It feels like an oxymoron. Like industrialised love
However I do see the divine largely through the prism of Christianity. My literary references are biblical in the main. And I revere the greatness of Christian art. Michelangelo’s pieta. Mozart’s vespers. The poems of St John of the cross
All touched by the ineffable
It's a bit odd to dislike 'organised religion' as so many claim, while of course appreciating the greatness of so many aspects of the religious traditions.
Charlie Brown somewhere says 'I love the human race, it's people I can't stand'. This is the opposite. I love leaves but dislike trees.
All individual greatness, including spiritual, stands in relation to a wider context and world. The world is a complexly self organising place. So is religion. Christianity is numerically the largest identifiable organisation on the planet. Dislike of the fact it is 'organised' is not so much radical as meaningless. Without it, which ceiling would Michelangelo have adorned?
Precisely because “organised religion” has done so many terrible things: that’s why I dislike it. Islam, Christianity, even militant Buddhism. Unspeakable crimes
Individual faith is the way to go. For me
But if the church rocks your coracle? - good for you. I don’t seek to prescribe acceptable or unacceptable ways to God. Unlike the good petit bourgeois Doc @Foxy
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
When they are sacking people left, right and centre because they have no money, then maybe don't treat $350k as peanuts.
I'm not saying I'd particularly like to own Twitter with it's continuing losses and problems. But $350k on this for a $4 billion turnover company is in the noise and well worth it.
I disagree completely. A third of a million dollars isn't noise, especially when most or all of your turnover is being taken in fixed or unavoidable costs.
Spending a third of a million dollars that you don't have to is money straight from the bottom line. A very broken bottom line currently.
Whether they are in profit or not makes no difference to whether the return is worth the investment.
You might not make an investment that was otherwise worth it if your problem was cashflow. But Twitter's problem isn't cash but profit, which is quite different.
You can argue it isn't worth $350k (as Bondegezou has - I disagree but fine) but it's really hard to argue it'd be worth doing if they were in profit but isn't because of the bottom line, in circumstances where cash isn't an issue.
Not really, because if you're claiming this is worthwhile as a matter of principle, then presumably this is not a one-off but would be worthwhile in other cases too. In which case it needs budgetting for, and absolutely is an issue with profitability.
How often will "worthwhile" $350k fines occur? Once a month? Ten times a year? Lets say that's $3.5 million dollars to budget for off your profitability - at a time you're not profitable. Saving $millions by not getting fined is absolutely a way to boost profitability.
And who knows, perhaps if some of those who were sacked hadn't been, they'd have been able to be more organised, and avoid the fine in the first place. In which case the fine is a cost from having sacked people too, in which case - was it really all worthwhile?
It needs to be looked at in the round, not just dismissed as "noise".
The Insect Trust: Hoboken Saturday Night (Atco, 1970) Thomas Pynchon, Louis "Moondog" Hardin, and an unidentified child (who else would say "busketty" for "spaghetti"?) are among the guest composers, Elvin Jones and an unidentified child among the guest musicians. Former president James Garfield makes a cameo appearance. Vocalist Nancy Jeffries applies her tobacco voice to a feminist lyric called "Trip on Me" that I recommend to Janis Joplin. The blues scholars in the group have been listening to a lot of Arabic and Eastern European music lately, but this doesn't stop Elvin Jones from sounding just like Elvin Jones. In short, these passionate humanists also sound friendly and have come up with a charming, joyous, irrepressibly experimental record. And every experiment works. A
I'm conflicted about the ULEZ expansion; I can see the arguments for both sides. But I don't drive or live in London, so I don't really care. I think the answer might be to make the charge much lower, maybe 50%, in the newly charged area
I DO want my town to be a ULEZ. In fact, I want it to be a ULSNEZ (Speed and Noise) that's strictly enforced
I found out today that a street on one of my rounds, Herd Street, is the third worst polluted street in Wiltshire. It's more polluted than any street in Swindon or Salisbury (I read this in the Marlborough Gazette and Herald while I was waiting in a queue at Tescos to buy my lunch, so have no idea where the numbers are from)
People drive through that street, and mine, like Counts of Minuso. The pollution, danger and noise from living or working on one of these streets is massively increased by these dicks
ULSNEZ for Marlborough!
OIive branch to @BartholomewRoberts. I've had a quick look at the streetview for the aforementioned Herd Street and there is a prime example of an A road running through a pretty little town and preventing it from developing into a walking/cycling nirvana. For Marlborough - a bypass please (tricky as in a AONB).
Kudos.
Incidentally after a few weeks off, I'll be starting a new commute tomorrow to new location, so won't have s much time on PB as last few weeks (don't all celebrate at once).
Just checked my route, 23 mile commute. According to Google Maps it'll be a 28 minute drive, 98 minutes by public transport, an hour and 53 minutes by cycling. Guess which I'll be taking?
Cars are pretty necessary in this part of the country, and I'm classed as urban. Thankfully I can get on the motorway almost straight from my house due to a new expressway, I love it. Very fortunate to be in a position to have a brand new road near us, if only more people were so lucky.
After a quiet spell, a bit more polling to either get your teeth into or to treat with utter disdain or somewhere inbetween.
R&W and Deltapoll both had 16 point Labour leads while We Think (Omnisis as was) has a 21-point Labour advantage. The R&W Blue Wall polling shows little change overall. Deltapoll has the first 30% Conservative share since Savanta in early July but with Labour in the mid 40s, all three pollsters continue to show Starmer in a strong position with the LDs in double figures and close to their 2019 numbers.
Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question - obviously, more DKs with We Think amd I also note overall DKs just 10% with R&W (8% among men, 12% among women) so perhaps we are seeing more minds being made up in advance of an election campaign which will effectively begin with the Party Conferences next month and into October.
“Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question”
If we believe there’s incumbency bonus on this measure, the figures are huge. The widening gap doesn’t reflect Starmer’s performance, but how Sunak is increasingly held in poor regard by voters.
This summer the political narratives been difficult for the Conservatives, and there is no reason to suspect next summer won’t be difficult either. If Sunak and the team around him actually had the Conservative Party to heart, had leaving the seat total in a place to help a future comeback as their aim, then there is no doubt they should go to the country in April or May.
Twitter got a search warrant about Trump and Jan 6. They refused to comply and went to court, coz Elon. They lost, had to hand over the requested data and were fined $350,000 for contempt. Here’s a nice video on the details: https://youtu.be/P6VMe0Y1K4g?si=-9Tw8hcOEzX6oDO1
I'd suggest $350,000 is incredibly cheap for Twitter and they'd probably have gone there, Musk or no Musk.
In a high profile case like this, it is potentially far more damaging for Twitter to be seen NOT to push back on a search warrant as it is in the interests of customers (albeit probably not wider society) for them to be seen as over-zealous rather than weak in protection of customer data.
This is quite a big problem for law enforcement, and you'd need penalties for non-compliance to be much, much more robust to make a difference to conduct of social media companies.
To try, as a non-lawyer, to summarise the video (but do go watch it yourself)…
Twitter pushed back specifically on the non-disclosure order attached to the search warrant: they couldn’t tell Trump. They said they’d release information if they were allowed to tell Trump. They said this was because telling their customers what’s happening with their data is really important. The judge asked whether this was actually because Musk wanted to cosy up to Trump and the Twitter lawyers said no.
The judge then asked if the angle they were pursuing, had they ever done that for any other Twitter customer, given they get 1000s of warrants a year. Twitter checked. They had not. The judge asked and no-one knew of a case were any social media company had tried this argument ever.
Draw your own conclusion!
They were therefore over-zealous in defending customer data in an extremely high profile case, and the $350k price-tag for burnishing their reputation as a guardian of customer data was probably well worth it.
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
Defending your companies data and saying you won't hand it over without warrant is entirely reasonable.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
Legally and morally, yes. Commercially, no. As I say, $350k is just peanuts in terms of the benefit of being seen to take it all the way rather than caving in an extremely high profile case…
Weren’t they set penalties which escalated every day they remained in noncompliance ?
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
But it didn't- it cost them $350k which is peanuts.
When they are sacking people left, right and centre because they have no money, then maybe don't treat $350k as peanuts.
I'm not saying I'd particularly like to own Twitter with it's continuing losses and problems. But $350k on this for a $4 billion turnover company is in the noise and well worth it.
I disagree completely. A third of a million dollars isn't noise, especially when most or all of your turnover is being taken in fixed or unavoidable costs.
Spending a third of a million dollars that you don't have to is money straight from the bottom line. A very broken bottom line currently.
Whether they are in profit or not makes no difference to whether the return is worth the investment.
You might not make an investment that was otherwise worth it if your problem was cashflow. But Twitter's problem isn't cash but profit, which is quite different.
You can argue it isn't worth $350k (as Bondegezou has - I disagree but fine) but it's really hard to argue it'd be worth doing if they were in profit but isn't because of the bottom line, in circumstances where cash isn't an issue.
Not really, because if you're claiming this is worthwhile as a matter of principle, then presumably this is not a one-off but would be worthwhile in other cases too. In which case it needs budgetting for, and absolutely is an issue with profitability.
How often will "worthwhile" $350k fines occur? Once a month? Ten times a year? Lets say that's $3.5 million dollars to budget for off your profitability - at a time you're not profitable. Saving $millions by not getting fined is absolutely a way to boost profitability.
And who knows, perhaps if some of those who were sacked hadn't been, they'd have been able to be more organised, and avoid the fine in the first place. In which case the fine is a cost from having sacked people too, in which case - was it really all worthwhile?
It needs to be looked at in the round, not just dismissed as "noise".
How often is there as high profile a case as this? I don't know the detail of Twitter's interactions with law enforcement, but I'd hazard a guess that it's pretty rare. Low profile ones, sure. I've said earlier that Twitter are unlikely to pull out all the stops for nobodies.
In terms of sacked people, maybe one of the ex-employees whose sacking equates to the $350k saving (n.b. that is a tiny proportion of the cull) would've saved them some of it. But probably not. And I'm not defending Musk over the staff cull or even saying it was wise - I think he's damaged their reputation and risked their platform. But it's a red herring on this.
I'm conflicted about the ULEZ expansion; I can see the arguments for both sides. But I don't drive or live in London, so I don't really care. I think the answer might be to make the charge much lower, maybe 50%, in the newly charged area
I DO want my town to be a ULEZ. In fact, I want it to be a ULSNEZ (Speed and Noise) that's strictly enforced
I found out today that a street on one of my rounds, Herd Street, is the third worst polluted street in Wiltshire. It's more polluted than any street in Swindon or Salisbury (I read this in the Marlborough Gazette and Herald while I was waiting in a queue at Tescos to buy my lunch, so have no idea where the numbers are from)
People drive through that street, and mine, like Counts of Minuso. The pollution, danger and noise from living or working on one of these streets is massively increased by these dicks
ULSNEZ for Marlborough!
OIive branch to @BartholomewRoberts. I've had a quick look at the streetview for the aforementioned Herd Street and there is a prime example of an A road running through a pretty little town and preventing it from developing into a walking/cycling nirvana. For Marlborough - a bypass please (tricky as in a AONB).
Kudos.
Incidentally after a few weeks off, I'll be starting a new commute tomorrow to new location, so won't have s much time on PB as last few weeks (don't all celebrate at once).
Just checked my route, 23 mile commute. According to Google Maps it'll be a 28 minute drive, 98 minutes by public transport, an hour and 53 minutes by cycling. Guess which I'll be taking?
Cars are pretty necessary in this part of the country, and I'm classed as urban. Thankfully I can get on the motorway almost straight from my house due to a new expressway, I love it. Very fortunate to be in a position to have a brand new road near us, if only more people were so lucky.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
What is needed is a more gradual and progressive system - combined with the congestion charging system. With larger payments for the highest polluters and largest vehicles.
Something that will smoothly transition to the world of ZEVs that is coming.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
The anti-ULEZ campaign has been a triumph and it's worth noting the role of Nick Ferrari and others on the anti-Khan side of the broadcast media in London and elsewhere. Something originally introduced or proposed by a Conservative Mayor and backed by Conservatives in Government has been turned into the brainchild of money grabbing Sadiq Khan, the evil Labour Mayor who will come next for your children and your pets (apparently).
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
The fact that many proponents of ULEZ quite clearly can't hide their contempt for private vehicles and would prefer no cars on the road, not even Tesla's, feeds into it too.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
All true; also, ULEZ has a terrible name. An 'Ultra Low' emission zone. Sure, my car is relatively clean. But does it have an ultra low emissions? I wouldn't have thought it did. It's no surprise people assume they are going to get stung by it. If 90% of cars on the road are compliant, the bar for 'ultra' isn't set terribly low. As ever, language matters.
Comments
The same applies to drains and sewerage. In that instance it is covered by a Section 104 agreement.
Ofwat would be asleep at the tap.
On the other hand, there's always room for God, because we don't (and never will) have full answers. Even with evolution, you could argue that God set it in motion, or had his hand in setting the 'rules' or extinctions (the flood).
Or going to the very beginning, who can not say that God set off the Big Bang with the intent it would create what we have today?
God hides in the dark corners of science.
I can't rule out the existence of mystical beings whether it be one god or an entire pantheon of gods, or flying spaghetti monsters, or invisible pink unicorns, or that there's China teapots orbitting the sun that are too small to be seen by telescopes.
If there is something, then there is, but without evidence I see no reason to believe in it - and whatever it is, in the absence of evidence, is probably not anything like any of the religions man has invented to date anyway.
And why would they be needed here? What do we have our own deterrent for? I also can't believe the US would put nuclear missiles here unless they had absolute authority for launching them. Russia is a busted flush. This is not the height of the cold war when Soviet troops were in Berlin. I wonder if US nuclear doctrine would consider it safer to launch a nuclear weapon from the UK, believing that any retaliatory strike might then be directed at the UK rather than the US. Also factor in that given Trump the US can no longer be considered a wholly reliable partner long term, this move seems distinctly dubious.
@Carnyx was suggesting that developers should pay for new waste treatment plants as the old capacity has been reached for them.
If extra treatment plants are required to treat waste, then that should be the responsibility of all billpayers, not just new buildings.
I've got a friend from university who was worried about climate change 20 years ago, he had stockpiles of dry food in his room. He was ahead of his time in some ways. When I met him again last year he was less bothered about climate change but now thought the world is about to run out of energy.
However it is still worth reflecting on a wider gaps question. We know enough to have an insight into what we don't or don't yet know, and into the mechanisms of the physical universe. This presents challenges. Such as:
Moral objectivity. The laws of physics are neutral about whether torturing children for fun is always wrong. Does that mean it's only wrong in our opinion, not in fact?
Mind and body. Mental events are linked to physical events. But we cannot even imagine a mechanism within the laws of physics by which this can work. No 'How It Works' is available, even in theory.
Freewill. That this exists is obviously true except to the deranged and amoral, but again no 'How It Works' is available, even as an idea.
One reason I suspect why people hate the idea of maintaining BST in winter. Going to work in the dark and then being inside all day isn't much fun.
The trickier bit is the mystical stuff- the claimed experience of people who have gone a long way with God. There's a mixture of soothing and disturbance about them which is very distinctive. It doesn't have to be conventionally religious, but often is. And doesn't fit anywhere in equations.
Which is why the lack of sufficient treatment plants, or reservoirs, or anything else should not be a barrier to construction.
Those aren't a development's responsibility and nor should they be. An organisation failing to fulfil its duties shouldn't be an excuse to compound problems by resulting in overcrowding.
Best I can do
It's probably true they'd not spend $350k to defend my data or your data, but that's because nobody really gives that much of a crap about us so it doesn't have the profile.
Whilst I dislike Musk, and he is Trump-adjacent, I just don't think that's needed to explain Twitter's decision. I'd have done the same, purely on commercial grounds - cheap at 10 times the price.
That's normal procedure for everything from road junction capacity, extra capacity in local schools, local parks and all the rest - as part of planning gain taxes.
Raises towards £10bn a year in England.
However wasn't all this messing around after a warrant had been served? Once a warrant has been issued, then surely it should be complied with?
So many events that I like and that form part of the turning year occur for me in the Autumn and winter.
Harvest, 4 family birthdays, Halloween, Bonfire Night, Yule, Christmas and New Year and then the early year traditions of wassailing and plough plays. All cause for celebration. Plus as I said my work rate goes through the roof and I feel so much more alive.
I do absolutely sympathise with Leon and others. My Dad used to get SADs very badly so it is not something I dismiss at all.
All I can say is for me personally autumn and winter are the very best times of the year.
Summer: June to September
Autumn: October to mid December
Winter: Mid December to January
Spring: February (aconites, snowdrops, first crocus) to May.
Also: Start Christmas on the evening of 24th December and run it to 2nd February (Candlemas); the fatal mistake is to pay attention to it to early. There is a lovely gap in people's calendars from early January to do Christmas season things; no-one minds getting local invitations to do something festive in January; and it restores the old ways of doing things, which is to take you up to Lent with good stuff.
I seem to be doing alot of agreeing with people today. Not sure what is wrong with me
Labour lead the Conservatives by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall VI (26-27 August):
Labour 33% (+1)
Conservative 32% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 25% (–)
Reform UK 5% (–)
Green 4% (-1)
Other 1% (+1)
Changes +/- 12-13 August
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1696553302077440451
The Lords Amendment is around runoff from construction sites, nutrient mitigation and stuff like that. All this policy does is remove the responsbility for mitigating that from the developer. This might be a net positive if it has a huge impact on housebuilding, but abandons the "polluter pays" principle.
Given the current focus on water quality, it's a brave decision from the government.
That contact with God is pretty mind blowing when it happens. Intoxication is a passport substitute, and without the cultural hinterland of the shamen often positively misleading.
There is a wider commercial element in a lot of decisions on how companies fight or settle legal cases. Say you're a waste company working for a lot of local authorities, with whom you occasionally get into legal disputes. It might (though won't necessarily) be worth it to fight one or two hopeless cases just to make the point to everyone else that you don't roll over and you'd better be prepared for a lot of pain and risk if you litigate. This improves your negotiating position even if it costs a few quid in a couple of cases.
Jesus Christ made few concessions to human nature.
Could have got very expensive quite quickly.
Nope, me neither
I DO want my town to be a ULEZ. In fact, I want it to be a ULSNEZ (Speed and Noise) that's strictly enforced
I found out today that a street on one of my rounds, Herd Street, is the third worst polluted street in Wiltshire. It's more polluted than any street in Swindon or Salisbury (I read this in the Marlborough Gazette and Herald while I was waiting in a queue at Tescos to buy my lunch, so have no idea where the numbers are from)
People drive through that street, and mine, like Counts of Minuso. The pollution, danger and noise from living or working on one of these streets is massively increased by these dicks
ULSNEZ for Marlborough!
There are so many ways this series was ground-breaking and society upsetting. Japanese and Russian officers, a black woman in a position of authority. War should be avoided. That kiss. But how much society needed to move on...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66645602
So it includes Chingford, Totnes, Uxbridge and Hitchin - very different seats where tactical voting means different things.
The results could therefore conceal a very split opposition vote or one where the Lib Dems are doing well where they need to, and Labour where they need to.
They do, though, explicitly ask about tactical voting. 55% v 30% of 2019 Labour say they could see themselves voting tactically, and 65% v 14% of 2019 Lib Dems.
If they were doing it to show how they’ll defend your data, they’d trumpet what they had done, not court nerds dig it out. Stop digging yourself a deeper hole and accept your theory doesn’t work.
And there is a long, noble tradition of proper entheogenic spirituality beyond Christianity
You, a provincial quack, get your theophanic kicks in some boring church in Leicester. Each to their own. There are many stairways to heaven
That’s a lot of money to get a news story that makes you look bad!
It doesn't change my view that we'd be better off in the EU but not all legislation that arises from it is necessarily good. Robert Colbille implies we've gold plated the legislation too to include phosphates alongside nitrates and that we've overzealously applied this to housebuilders rather than farmers as in the Netherlands.
Tbh we could probably still fix this within the EU, but yes it seems it's the classic combination of an EU directive followed by an ECJ ruling followed by a gold old bit of British gold plating.
I dislike organised religion in general. It feels like an oxymoron. Like industrialised love
However I do see the divine largely through the prism of Christianity. My literary references are biblical in the main. And I revere the greatness of Christian art. Michelangelo’s pieta. Mozart’s vespers. The poems of St John of the cross
All touched by the ineffable
A band that released two albums, that I just found from reading Robert Christgau reviews
Their second, and last, album from 1970 - Hoboken Saturday Night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-HlknPHMtQ
I'm loving it
This is Christgau's report:
The Insect Trust: Hoboken Saturday Night (Atco, 1970) Thomas Pynchon, Louis "Moondog" Hardin, and an unidentified child (who else would say "busketty" for "spaghetti"?) are among the guest composers, Elvin Jones and an unidentified child among the guest musicians. Former president James Garfield makes a cameo appearance. Vocalist Nancy Jeffries applies her tobacco voice to a feminist lyric called "Trip on Me" that I recommend to Janis Joplin. The blues scholars in the group have been listening to a lot of Arabic and Eastern European music lately, but this doesn't stop Elvin Jones from sounding just like Elvin Jones. In short, these passionate humanists also sound friendly and have come up with a charming, joyous, irrepressibly experimental record. And every experiment works. A
@Nigelb - VM for you.
I am far from convinced that this washed up Govt has the nouse or the brain cells to do it effectively, however.
The Church could motivate people to kill (as per the various Crusades) or else act as a very big moderating influence (through Truces of God, banning fighting on Saints’ days, distinguishing combatants from non-combatants, making religious buildings places of sanctuary.
The 16th and 17th centuries produced the perfect storm, of an end to centralised Church influence, a massive growth in State-controlled military might, and plenty of factions able to claim that God was on their side.
In the ancient world, though, no one needed God to justify mass slaughter. It’s just what you did, glorious even.
Spending a third of a million dollars that you don't have to is money straight from the bottom line. A very broken bottom line currently.
Charlie Brown somewhere says 'I love the human race, it's people I can't stand'. This is the opposite. I love leaves but dislike trees.
All individual greatness, including spiritual, stands in relation to a wider context and world. The world is a complexly self organising place. So is religion. Christianity is numerically the largest identifiable organisation on the planet. Dislike of the fact it is 'organised' is not so much radical as meaningless. Without it, which ceiling would Michelangelo have adorned?
Apple went a long, long way with the FBI on accessing phones, not long ago.
It's not a big problem for law enforcement - unless you come from the belief that people should provide whatever the police ask for, on point of demand.
If you examine what happened, Twatter were a day or two late getting the data to the court. Which was why the fine was only $350K.
Watch the actual video I linked to: it goes into all of this stuff.
I also didn't call it a PR stunt - those are your words. As a company, part of building a reputation over time (and losing it) is in how aggressive you are or are not in litigation strategy. There really is little downside in aggressively defending customer data - in this case a good proportion of your customers like it because they like the principle AND they like the man. A good proportion hate the man, so they are more conflicted... but if the past six months have taught us anything, it's that they are going nowhere.
I'm critical of Musk's Twitter in many respects. He's endangering the tech and scaring off advertisers. But on this one, I simply think a non-Musk Twitter would do the same.
Some psychiatrists, as an experiment, persuaded some conspiracy theorists that their theories were not true, using rational argument and evidence. The conspiracy theorists developed mental health symptoms - up to and including violence. Their conspiracy theories had given them an explanation for the world. A hope that it could be fixed. Without the ZOG or whatever, it was just chaos.
After a quiet spell, a bit more polling to either get your teeth into or to treat with utter disdain or somewhere inbetween.
R&W and Deltapoll both had 16 point Labour leads while We Think (Omnisis as was) has a 21-point Labour advantage. The R&W Blue Wall polling shows little change overall. Deltapoll has the first 30% Conservative share since Savanta in early July but with Labour in the mid 40s, all three pollsters continue to show Starmer in a strong position with the LDs in double figures and close to their 2019 numbers.
Starmer leads Sunak 44-34 (R&W) and 37-28 (We Think) on the "better PM" question - obviously, more DKs with We Think amd I also note overall DKs just 10% with R&W (8% among men, 12% among women) so perhaps we are seeing more minds being made up in advance of an election campaign which will effectively begin with the Party Conferences next month and into October.
My understanding is that the $350k fine was more due to disorganisation on the part of Twitter than grandstanding. When the judge imposed a deadline on delivering the data, they weren't able to get it together in time. If they had taken it more seriously in the first place they could have avoided the fine.
You might not make an investment that was otherwise worth it if your problem was cashflow. But Twitter's problem isn't cash but profit, which is quite different.
You can argue it isn't worth $350k (as Bondegezou has - I disagree but fine) but it's really hard to argue it'd be worth doing if they were in profit but isn't because of the bottom line, in circumstances where cash isn't an issue.
Incidentally after a few weeks off, I'll be starting a new commute tomorrow to new location, so won't have s much time on PB as last few weeks (don't all celebrate at once).
Just checked my route, 23 mile commute. According to Google Maps it'll be a 28 minute drive, 98 minutes by public transport, an hour and 53 minutes by cycling. Guess which I'll be taking?
Cars are pretty necessary in this part of the country, and I'm classed as urban. Thankfully I can get on the motorway almost straight from my house due to a new expressway, I love it. Very fortunate to be in a position to have a brand new road near us, if only more people were so lucky.
Individual faith is the way to go. For me
But if the church rocks your coracle? - good for you. I don’t seek to prescribe acceptable or unacceptable ways to God. Unlike the good petit bourgeois Doc @Foxy
How often will "worthwhile" $350k fines occur? Once a month? Ten times a year? Lets say that's $3.5 million dollars to budget for off your profitability - at a time you're not profitable. Saving $millions by not getting fined is absolutely a way to boost profitability.
And who knows, perhaps if some of those who were sacked hadn't been, they'd have been able to be more organised, and avoid the fine in the first place. In which case the fine is a cost from having sacked people too, in which case - was it really all worthwhile?
It needs to be looked at in the round, not just dismissed as "noise".
Mister Garfield - Ramblin' Jack Elliott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E6Q7ewS8PQ
Mister Garfield - Johnny Cash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuucpkMEFVM
Now Sweet Man & Mr Garfield - The Insect Trust
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUuiSk3GxJc&list=PLMs2Uj4QbbeZVzwf6faWifDVG-fv61htF&index=9
If we believe there’s incumbency bonus on this measure, the figures are huge. The widening gap doesn’t reflect Starmer’s performance, but how Sunak is increasingly held in poor regard by voters.
This summer the political narratives been difficult for the Conservatives, and there is no reason to suspect next summer won’t be difficult either. If Sunak and the team around him actually had the Conservative Party to heart, had leaving the seat total in a place to help a future comeback as their aim, then there is no doubt they should go to the country in April or May.
In terms of sacked people, maybe one of the ex-employees whose sacking equates to the $350k saving (n.b. that is a tiny proportion of the cull) would've saved them some of it. But probably not. And I'm not defending Musk over the staff cull or even saying it was wise - I think he's damaged their reputation and risked their platform. But it's a red herring on this.
It just goes to show the power of media to hammer home a message if repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam - Fox News does this - the presenter may change but the topic doesn't and the commentary doesn't either - and the ability of a distorted message to resonate.
By any standards, the anti-ULEZ campaign is a masterpiece of misinformation and disinformation as well as character assassination but it undoubtedly saved the Conservatives in Uxbridge. When Tesla drivers think they are going to be caught by ULEZ, you know the campaign has been successful. The weaponising of statistics both on the number of cars involved and the actual impact in terms of cleaner air are also masterpieces of media manipulation by repetition and emphasis.
Trying to get anywhere near the truth on any of this is almost impossible - the wood may be there but the trees are dense and numerous.
As always, the losers shout loudest but for small businesses and key workers whose livelihoods depend on vehicles and who don't have the money to upgrade even with the scrappage scheme, there needs to be targeted help to ensure they can continue doing what they do. Khan's mistake has been too much stick and not enough carrot - he may not have the carrots he needs to make this work of course.
Something that will smoothly transition to the world of ZEVs that is coming.
When Boris introduced ULEZ into Central London it was done quite differently, because (A) Central London is quite different anyway, and (B) there was no obvious hatred of cars or drivers.
That's not the case this time.
Its a bit like the story of the Spanish FA guy, had he apologised at the start that story would have become a non-story. Had Khan treated this as a "with regret we have to do this, but here is the way we can help and you can drive these vehicles without paying the charge" line rather than his outriders being "good riddance, go get a bike/tube anyway". then people wouldn't feel so defensive.
As ever, language matters.