When you go abroad, you will be able to hold your phonecamera up to people talking foreign languages, and the phone will show you a video of them talking credibly and authentically in English, as they talk
There really is no need to learn foreign languages, ever again, unless you like pointless academic tasks
It's great for practical tasks like ordering a meal on holiday or communicating with people on a work trip, but isn't one of the benefits of learning a language that it allows you to immerse yourself in a different culture and understand the world from their point of view? I've never learned a language well enough to do that myself, being a monoglot ignoramus, but I've got close enough to see that that's the point of it. Pointing your phone at someone and having them talk to you in a Midwestern accent probably isn't the best way to do that.
But it will start on phone cameras then eventually move to augmented reality contact lenses, so you can just look at someone talking French and you will instead see their lips move as they talk “English” - probably near perfect English (in any accent you like, even Brummie)
This is a chain reaction of intertwining technologies, several of which are apparently culminating at once, chain reactions lead to explosions
“Mojo Vision raises $45M for AR contact lenses with sports applications
venturebeat.com/2022/01/04/moj… via @VentureBeat by @deantak #digitalhealth #wearables #CES2022 #medtech”
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
Yes it's amazing. And I heard they are not far off releasing a contraption whereby you have one and your friend has one and you punch some numbers into it and then you can speak to your friend even though they are in another town and can't actually hear you without the contraption.
It's bonkers. The end of people speaking to each other in the same room.
isn’t that just a phone? What am I missing?
EDIT: Ah, well done
I think there will be amazing advances in everything including AI. I don't happen to think that people will be as transfixed by, for example, watching Titanic with all AI characters because imo a key ingredient in film and all the arts is the human input even if they're pretending to be someone else but there's no doubt that AI will transform our lives.
Someone on TwitterX just pointed out that the first paper describing “transformer” tech was published in 2018, and now we have GPT4, a few years later
The speed of progress is bewilderingly fast, and AI is getting terrifyingly good at multiple things, simultaneously
It is so big, so intense, I believe it is sui generis and almost outwith comprehension. Impossible to guess where we will be in 10-20 years. Maybe all dead. Maybe all ludicrously happy as the bots feed us Soma
Think of how far we've come already wrt Encabulators.
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
Yes it's amazing. And I heard they are not far off releasing a contraption whereby you have one and your friend has one and you punch some numbers into it and then you can speak to your friend even though they are in another town and can't actually hear you without the contraption.
It's bonkers. The end of people speaking to each other in the same room.
isn’t that just a phone? What am I missing?
EDIT: Ah, well done
I think there will be amazing advances in everything including AI. I don't happen to think that people will be as transfixed by, for example, watching Titanic with all AI characters because imo a key ingredient in film and all the arts is the human input even if they're pretending to be someone else but there's no doubt that AI will transform our lives.
Someone on TwitterX just pointed out that the first paper describing “transformer” tech was published in 2018, and now we have GPT4, a few years later
The speed of progress is bewilderingly fast, and AI is getting terrifyingly good at multiple things, simultaneously
It is so big, so intense, I believe it is sui generis and almost outwith comprehension. Impossible to guess where we will be in 10-20 years. Maybe all dead. Maybe all ludicrously happy as the bots feed us Soma
Think of how far we've come already wrt Encabulators.
That awful cyclist death which was much discussed on here - as said by (I think) @JosiasJessop - and contrary to the judge's summing up for the jury - it was not a shared path:
"A new report from Cambridgeshire County Council said the path where the incident happened had never been shown as a cycle route, or a shared use path. The report said: “The footway on the north side of Nursery Road has never been signed as shared use and is not shown as a cycle route on the Cambridgeshire County Council cycle maps, printed or online.""
The council gave vague answer regarding this in court. If they had produced the statement above in court could the verdict have differed or if not would the accused, Auriol Grey, have successfully appealed?
Interesting. I seem to recall there was some ambiguity - the path on the other side was shared, I think, by signage and on the side in question appeared to be shared in practice. A lot of people appeared to view it as shared, but not - it would seem - the lady who was convicted.
Nonetheless, IANAL, but if the judge's summing up contained a relevant inaccuracy, could be grounds for appeal?
Is the footpath on the other side of the joining road (i.e. 180deg from this view) also shared?
At what point does this shared path (in the same direction as original view) stop being shared?
For the first, the answer is yes, as there is a shared use sign some way further along on the other side of the joining road, but it's not obvious and not visible to cyclists heading south as they cross that road. For the second, I've no idea. The time I went along this I rejoined the road at the next set of traffic lights by the brick wall as I wasn't sure and I could see the footpath narrowed ahead and, in my opinion, wasn't suitable for shared use beyond that point.
ETA: Actually, looking at the city cycle map, it ends at the start of that brick wall, with the height-restricted entry on the left. But there's no sign saying it ends (and no sign saying it starts, if you're heading south) at that point.
The judge was categorical that it was a shared path, despite vague answers from both the council and the police.
Given the clarity of the council's statement now, why didn't this come out in court? It is obvious that it is not a shared path as there was (and is) nothing to indicate that it was. The police should have given a clear answer on this and instead - I suspect - they hid behind the council's vague response as this was the best course to not prejudice the prosecution's case.
The police and council employees have questions to answer, at the very least.
Does it being shared or not-shared make much difference to the case?
Just because someone is where they shouldn't be doesn't mean you can push them into the road.
I believe the prosecution did not claim there was any physical contact so "push them into the road" is incorrect
You can push someone in a particular direction without physical contact, which was my meaning in this context.
Whether or not you agree with the verdict (and it did seem harsh) I'm just not sure how the status of the pavement affects the judgement.
I do agree that the council should have made it clear anyway, both during the case and on the ground. Highways should in theory have known right away by looking at their records.
No sorry this is bollocks, a push implies physical contact. Gesticulated in there direction wildly causing her to fall is entirely different.
As I commented earlier, all drivers should get a 'dash cam' as it has a positive effect on your driving knowing your speed, location, time and date is recorded in real time as is the road traffic and conditions
I know it has made me a more courteous and careful driver and of course it could be very useful in my defence following an incident
Which is relevant how and this was between a cyclist and a pedestrian?
The 79 year old lady was killed by a motor vehicle in too close proximity that did not have time or space to avoid. Given a properly designed and constructed road corridor, or other alternative, she would not have fallen in the carriageway.
Designing risk out is a better option than hoping everyone's behaviour is perfect imo - because none of us are and we all make mistakes.
We do not always have the ability to fully 'design out risk' for a host of reasons: for one thing, what is too much risk, or too little? How much does a million pounds' worth of alterations buy in terms of lives? (Yes, there is an answer to this...)
The answer is that we design out as much as possible, which currently does not happen - especially when we have complacent muppets like Grant Shapps and Mark Clarke running things.
We know a lot of things we should do, but the current Govt has failed to do so since 2010. Road deaths fell by a third between 2006 and 2010, when the improvement basically stalled.
Or, as the Government Road Casualty report for 2019 (ie before pandemic distortions) put it:
The number of fatalities in 2019 (1,752) was 2% less than in 2018 (1,784), however, this small decrease may be due to natural variation. The trend in the number of fatalities has been broadly fat since 2010. Previously, and particularly between 2006 and 2010, the general trend was for fatalities to fall. Since that point, most of the year on year changes are either explained by one-of causes (for instance, the snow in 2010) or natural variation. The evidence points towards Britain being in a period when the fatality numbers are broadly stable. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf
Specifics? Why do we still have the highest drink drive limit of anywhere in Europe? Why is continuing edication for drivers not routine? Why do we have self-certification for eyesight for over-80s?
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
Yes it's amazing. And I heard they are not far off releasing a contraption whereby you have one and your friend has one and you punch some numbers into it and then you can speak to your friend even though they are in another town and can't actually hear you without the contraption.
It's bonkers. The end of people speaking to each other in the same room.
isn’t that just a phone? What am I missing?
EDIT: Ah, well done
I think there will be amazing advances in everything including AI. I don't happen to think that people will be as transfixed by, for example, watching Titanic with all AI characters because imo a key ingredient in film and all the arts is the human input even if they're pretending to be someone else but there's no doubt that AI will transform our lives.
Don Hertzfeldt’s It's Such a Beautiful Day manages to be very affecting in spite of its (mainly) stick figure animation.
It’s all down to the story, and I’m interested to see what smaller, riskier creators can produce with a bigger toolbox at a lower price point.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Strange BT experience - they persuaded by to switch to EE (as they're phasing out their own mobile service, as far as I can make out), so they sent me a new router (works fine) and a new SIM card. I can now get and receive WhatsApp messages, but not phone calls on the mobile, or even normal texts - which means that none of the two-factor security things depending on getting a code to my phone work. Should I just wait patiently for a couple of days, or throw myself on the mercy of the BT helpline (which took 45 minutes to answer when I last used it)?
They did the same with me and it was chaotic but resolved in the end
BT are coming out of mobiles and BT sports so not sure what the point of being with them is
I will most certainly switch suppliers of my broadband at the end on my BT contact next year
You still get free roaming in Europe with BT, but not with EE (even though they are co-owned) so I am avoiding the move for as long as possible and even then may go elsewhere.
Strange BT experience - they persuaded by to switch to EE (as they're phasing out their own mobile service, as far as I can make out), so they sent me a new router (works fine) and a new SIM card. I can now get and receive WhatsApp messages, but not phone calls on the mobile, or even normal texts - which means that none of the two-factor security things depending on getting a code to my phone work. Should I just wait patiently for a couple of days, or throw myself on the mercy of the BT helpline (which took 45 minutes to answer when I last used it)?
Possible going into a high street EE shop could help, but I suspect they might just refer you back to BT.
BT are useless. I would avoid them like the plague
Strange BT experience - they persuaded by to switch to EE (as they're phasing out their own mobile service, as far as I can make out), so they sent me a new router (works fine) and a new SIM card. I can now get and receive WhatsApp messages, but not phone calls on the mobile, or even normal texts - which means that none of the two-factor security things depending on getting a code to my phone work. Should I just wait patiently for a couple of days, or throw myself on the mercy of the BT helpline (which took 45 minutes to answer when I last used it)?
Possible going into a high street EE shop could help, but I suspect they might just refer you back to BT.
BT are useless. I would avoid them like the plague
I find being useless sometimes has its benefits. I am a seasoned complainer and know how to get to the CEO of most organisations. BT usually cock something up for me once every six months and it is usually not particularly devastating but the complaint usually gets me a few months free usage through credits to my account each time.
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
Yes it's amazing. And I heard they are not far off releasing a contraption whereby you have one and your friend has one and you punch some numbers into it and then you can speak to your friend even though they are in another town and can't actually hear you without the contraption.
It's bonkers. The end of people speaking to each other in the same room.
isn’t that just a phone? What am I missing?
EDIT: Ah, well done
I think there will be amazing advances in everything including AI. I don't happen to think that people will be as transfixed by, for example, watching Titanic with all AI characters because imo a key ingredient in film and all the arts is the human input even if they're pretending to be someone else but there's no doubt that AI will transform our lives.
Don Hertzfeldt’s It's Such a Beautiful Day manages to be very affecting in spite of its (mainly) stick figure animation.
It’s all down to the story, and I’m interested to see what smaller, riskier creators can produce with a bigger toolbox at a lower price point.
Yes true and fair enough. Plenty of moving cartoons. But genre-wise the idea of a likewise moving film with AI Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn is less appealing.
Where I do see a parallel is with action painting. A human sets up the initial conditions and then the art/outcome proceeds from there.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
Tech update - as people seemed happy to debate earlier. Now that I have seen the iPhone launch I think I know what to push the button on: 15 Pro.
Having had a mahoosive screen in my pocket with the Pixel 6 Pro, I think I want to drop back to something as small as 6" (fnarr fnarr). The only difference between a Pro and a Pro Max is additional storage (which I don't need), a bigger screen I actively don't want, and a 5x optical zoom camera rather than 3x. And from what I have seen on other phones, I don't think it will make a massive difference.
So, unless my friends at Costco get a batch on their website for dispatch next week, its pre-order from Apple time.
I am such a fanboi now you may as well give me nipple tassels with apple logos.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
Only if AI ultimately leads to humans being killed off, which is plausible. That's not really the solution to climate change people have in mind, though.
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
Yes it's amazing. And I heard they are not far off releasing a contraption whereby you have one and your friend has one and you punch some numbers into it and then you can speak to your friend even though they are in another town and can't actually hear you without the contraption.
It's bonkers. The end of people speaking to each other in the same room.
isn’t that just a phone? What am I missing?
EDIT: Ah, well done
I think there will be amazing advances in everything including AI. I don't happen to think that people will be as transfixed by, for example, watching Titanic with all AI characters because imo a key ingredient in film and all the arts is the human input even if they're pretending to be someone else but there's no doubt that AI will transform our lives.
Don Hertzfeldt’s It's Such a Beautiful Day manages to be very affecting in spite of its (mainly) stick figure animation.
It’s all down to the story, and I’m interested to see what smaller, riskier creators can produce with a bigger toolbox at a lower price point.
Yes true and fair enough. Plenty of moving cartoons. But genre-wise the idea of a likewise moving film with AI Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn is less appealing.
I know we have a few people on here who know the energy industry well. What do people think is the potential of the gas reserves around Crimea? You would have thought there would have been more discussion about it over the last 18 months.
Strange BT experience - they persuaded by to switch to EE (as they're phasing out their own mobile service, as far as I can make out), so they sent me a new router (works fine) and a new SIM card. I can now get and receive WhatsApp messages, but not phone calls on the mobile, or even normal texts - which means that none of the two-factor security things depending on getting a code to my phone work. Should I just wait patiently for a couple of days, or throw myself on the mercy of the BT helpline (which took 45 minutes to answer when I last used it)?
Possible going into a high street EE shop could help, but I suspect they might just refer you back to BT.
BT are useless. I would avoid them like the plague
I find being useless sometimes has its benefits. I am a seasoned complainer and know how to get to the CEO of most organisations. BT usually cock something up for me once every six months and it is usually not particularly devastating but the complaint usually gets me a few months free usage through credits to my account each time.
Been there got the t shirt. Got 400 out of them after I lost my rag with them. Such liars. I left immediately after. ....best decision and a LOT cheaper and without the aggro.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I can also think of a political use - have the crank left argue with ChatGPT4. They can tell it about the Paris Student protests in 1968 and the lessons of Thatcher's struggle with the miners and how Jeremy definitely isn't an anti-semite and if the Foorde report was released then we could reinstate Jeremy and his team.
The world should fear AI. So let BJO and his ilk talk it to death. Then the problem goes away.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
Point of order: the buildings we put up a few decades ago are the ones that are falling down now. Also, we - i.e. the UK - were emitting a hell of a lot more carbon a few decades ago than we are now. And absolute poverty was much more widespread. You can lament things are bad, but by the measures you have chosen, things were worse a few decades ago.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Tech update - as people seemed happy to debate earlier. Now that I have seen the iPhone launch I think I know what to push the button on: 15 Pro.
Having had a mahoosive screen in my pocket with the Pixel 6 Pro, I think I want to drop back to something as small as 6" (fnarr fnarr). The only difference between a Pro and a Pro Max is additional storage (which I don't need), a bigger screen I actively don't want, and a 5x optical zoom camera rather than 3x. And from what I have seen on other phones, I don't think it will make a massive difference.
So, unless my friends at Costco get a batch on their website for dispatch next week, its pre-order from Apple time.
I am such a fanboi now you may as well give me nipple tassels with apple logos.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
The physical laws of the universe (for now) remain a harsh mistress.
Whoever designed the universe just made it too goddamn big!
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
One of the hardest life lessons is coming to terms with your own fallibility. You will make mistakes, but if you can learn from them, then you can get better.
However, if you brook no opposition, or no contradiction, then it becomes possible to deny your fallibility, and to deny making mistakes. And then you cannot learn from them. And you can never improve.
That's the Tories that is.
Seem to remember a former PBer summing it up thus: "... Tories. Always wrong. Never learn."
Tech update - as people seemed happy to debate earlier. Now that I have seen the iPhone launch I think I know what to push the button on: 15 Pro.
Having had a mahoosive screen in my pocket with the Pixel 6 Pro, I think I want to drop back to something as small as 6" (fnarr fnarr). The only difference between a Pro and a Pro Max is additional storage (which I don't need), a bigger screen I actively don't want, and a 5x optical zoom camera rather than 3x. And from what I have seen on other phones, I don't think it will make a massive difference.
So, unless my friends at Costco get a batch on their website for dispatch next week, its pre-order from Apple time.
I am such a fanboi now you may as well give me nipple tassels with apple logos.
Tesla was your gateway drug.
If there's not a youtube account called 'Just Get an iPhone' I will be shocked.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I can also think of a political use - have the crank left argue with ChatGPT4. They can tell it about the Paris Student protests in 1968 and the lessons of Thatcher's struggle with the miners and how Jeremy definitely isn't an anti-semite and if the Foorde report was released then we could reinstate Jeremy and his team.
The world should fear AI. So let BJO and his ilk talk it to death. Then the problem goes away.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
One of the hardest life lessons is coming to terms with your own fallibility. You will make mistakes, but if you can learn from them, then you can get better.
However, if you brook no opposition, or not contradiction, then it becomes possible to deny your fallibility, and to deny making mistakes. And then you cannot learn from them. And you can never improve.
That's the Tories that is.
Seem to remember a former PBer summing it up thus: "... Tories. Always wrong. Never learn."
Something like that anyway.
I think the longer a party is in power the more they will become prone to not only believing they are best for the country (that's what all parties are for), but that it will be a disaster if they are not running things. Possibly happens since as the years and mistakes pile up it's the only way to justify sliding on principles in order to remain in power, since it has to happen you see.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
Point of order: the buildings we put up a few decades ago are the ones that are falling down now. Also, we - i.e. the UK - were emitting a hell of a lot more carbon a few decades ago than we are now. And absolute poverty was much more widespread. You can lament things are bad, but by the measures you have chosen, things were worse a few decades ago.
You can acknowledge huge progress has been made but still lament that the economy is skewed too much to providing frivolities for those who have, at the expense of necessities for those who have not.
We can and should, but it's not like that's very common in terms of grabbing attention. To hear the noisiest voices no progress has been made at all, in fact we've gone backwards in loads of ways (it's not impossible to go backwards of course, but in a lot of areas it's not true).
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
Tech update - as people seemed happy to debate earlier. Now that I have seen the iPhone launch I think I know what to push the button on: 15 Pro.
Having had a mahoosive screen in my pocket with the Pixel 6 Pro, I think I want to drop back to something as small as 6" (fnarr fnarr). The only difference between a Pro and a Pro Max is additional storage (which I don't need), a bigger screen I actively don't want, and a 5x optical zoom camera rather than 3x. And from what I have seen on other phones, I don't think it will make a massive difference.
So, unless my friends at Costco get a batch on their website for dispatch next week, its pre-order from Apple time.
I am such a fanboi now you may as well give me nipple tassels with apple logos.
Tesla was your gateway drug.
Yesterday and today I finally drove the gateway vehicle - Model S. The EV which made me think "oh wow, this is the future". It was a 2017 90D, and at 6 years old it felt like the past as so much of the technology is now outdated.
I am enthusiast for new tech products. Was an early adopter of PDAs. A Windows Mobile enthusiast. Bought and flashed phones with homebrew ROMs. But I don't stay loyal to just one thing or brand or format - I go with what I judge to be good at the time.
Apple make stuff that resonates more with what I need than anyone else, so I'm in the phase of going deeper in. Same with Tesla. But I won't ramp them endlessly if someone better comes along.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I don't get the antipathy for some technological advances (even if some ends up going nowhere, but it's not always easy to predict what will be transformative or not). It's like how mad some people get about billionaires spending money on improving rocket technology.
I mean, if the problem is there is too much money in the hands of a very small number of people who can spend it on a whim, sure, that's an issue, but people also specifically complain about where they spend it rather than on some social cause of the day as though investing in space stuff is inherently wrong when a) it is their money, and b) advances in space tech seems like a pretty useful area to improve in to me.
I think the Tories will hold both. Tamworth is miles out of sight for Labour. And they will pay for their naivety in failing to make an arrangement with the Libs in Beds.
Unfortuntely, neither party's members are up for arrangements unless it's REALLY obvious. In general, I think that the tactically-minded should go with the second-placed challenger unless the two are extraordinarily close (so I do think the LibDems on 12% should have held back in mid-Beds), but it's hard to restrain the enthusiasm of local members in the absence of any clear central direction.
But in fairness, life isn't all about tactical voting (especially if you're a Green - nobody is going to stand down for you at Parliamentary level so it must be hard to be asked to defer to everyone else). We only get a chance every few years to say how we think the country should be run, and using the vote purely to get the Tory out can feel negative and parochial. I don't quarrel with colleagues who want to vote tactically and I'm not above urging it on the doorstep but to be honest I wouldn't do it myself. How many of us who are active in a political party would?
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
Explain the Tom Bingham book? It's a short, accessible read, I highly recommend it..
I think the Tories will hold both. Tamworth is miles out of sight for Labour. And they will pay for their naivety in failing to make an arrangement with the Libs in Beds.
Tamworth is basically a Labour seat. Blair won it comfortably three times in a row. Full of lower-middle class and upper working-class voters, who happened to support Brexit. But with Brexit no longer an important issue, I expect Labour to win by about 2,500 votes.
My mother tongue is Italian. English is my second language. There are things I think and say in Italian which I simply cannot do in English. It is not a matter of translation or communication.
Thinking in and speaking another language gives you an insight and changes your mind in a way which a brilliant tool for telling you what the other person is saying does not. I am not exactly the same person when I am being Italian and the fact that there is this submerged part of me when I am being English affects that as well.
AI software that translates words you speak, and ALSO changes your lip shape to make it look like you’re speaking Foreign
It is NOT live yet, but it can only be a few months before they do this in real time? Then that is not just Babel Fish, but actually far ahead of Babel Fish. Feckin ell
I think the Tories will hold both. Tamworth is miles out of sight for Labour. And they will pay for their naivety in failing to make an arrangement with the Libs in Beds.
Unfortuntely, neither party's members are up for arrangements unless it's REALLY obvious. In general, I think that the tactically-minded should go with the second-placed challenger unless the two are extraordinarily close (so I do think the LibDems on 12% should have held back in mid-Beds), but it's hard to restrain the enthusiasm of local members in the absence of any clear central direction.
But in fairness, life isn't all about tactical voting (especially if you're a Green - nobody is going to stand down for you at Parliamentary level so it must be hard to be asked to defer to everyone else). We only get a chance every few years to say how we think the country should be run, and using the vote purely to get the Tory out can feel negative and parochial. I don't quarrel with colleagues who want to vote tactically and I'm not above urging it on the doorstep but to be honest I wouldn't do it myself. How many of us who are active in a political party would?
Seems naive to me. Just asking for a Tory comeback spin from Sunak, a narrative that would be unhelpful - to both the Liberals and yourselves.
I think the Tories will hold both. Tamworth is miles out of sight for Labour. And they will pay for their naivety in failing to make an arrangement with the Libs in Beds.
Tamworth is basically a Labour seat. Blair won it comfortably three times in a row. Full of lower-middle class and upper working-class voters, who happened to support Brexit. But with Brexit no longer an important issue, I expect Labour to win by about 2,500 votes.
Yes, Labour did win most seats on Tamworth council in the local elections in May. In 2022 however the Conservatives won most seats there, it is the type of seat which gave the Tories a Boris bonus which has now gone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Tamworth_Borough_Council_election
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
And that's the central dynamic of the Johnson Premiership in a nutshell. The thing underpinning the whole damn lot is the assumption that winning a general election should give a government unrestrained power for the duration. No constraints from higher powers, no disobedience from lower ones. And if the electorate don't like it, they can have their say in the fullness of time.
Johnson may have gone, but the people in charge now are still Johnson acolytes, albeit disloyal ones. Mostly, the same theory of government is being applied. The only difference is the timing. At Johnson's peak, you could almost hear the sneering giggle as they said "of course, the public can have their say, they can get rid of us... In 2024. Maybe 2025." That's a lot closer now than it was then. Less space for sneering, and it's beginning to show.
I find it utterly impossible to learn foreign languages, which can't be inherited because my grandmother could speak two perfectly, and my great-grandmother could apparently speak about five. It must be something to do with attending a bog standard English school, which totally obliterates a person's languages potential. It usually involves spending 5 years learning less than zero, which seems impossible. You actually come out of it knowing less than you went in with.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
And that's the central dynamic of the Johnson Premiership in a nutshell. The thing underpinning the whole damn lot is the assumption that winning a general election should give a government unrestrained power for the duration. No constraints from higher powers, no disobedience from lower ones. And if the electorate don't like it, they can have their say in the fullness of time.
Johnson may have gone, but the people in charge now are still Johnson acolytes, albeit disloyal ones. Mostly, the same theory of government is being applied. The only difference is the timing. At Johnson's peak, you could almost hear the sneering giggle as they said "of course, the public can have their say, they can get rid of us... In 2024. Maybe 2025." That's a lot closer now than it was then. Less space for sneering, and it's beginning to show.
Do we really want to be speaking to avatars of each other, who speak our language in someone else’s voice while we watch computer graphics on a phone screen?
I mean, call me an old romantic, but I quite like making a connection with French speaking people, even if it does mean scratching my head from time to time mid-sentence to find the right word.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
The rule of law in the UK is Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the ultimate legal power
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I don't get the antipathy for some technological advances (even if some ends up going nowhere, but it's not always easy to predict what will be transformative or not). It's like how mad some people get about billionaires spending money on improving rocket technology.
I mean, if the problem is there is too much money in the hands of a very small number of people who can spend it on a whim, sure, that's an issue, but people also specifically complain about where they spend it rather than on some social cause of the day as though investing in space stuff is inherently wrong when a) it is their money, and b) advances in space tech seems like a pretty useful area to improve in to me.
Let me quote from an article:
“In late October, director of the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) David Beasley pointed out that billionaires like Musk could donate just a fraction of their wealth, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, to address world hunger.
“In response, Musk tweeted in a reply to a misleading tweet about Beasley’s remark that he would donate $6 billion — just 2 percent of his net worth at the time — if the UN could prove that the money would solve world hunger, ignoring that Beasley never mentioned solving world hunger altogether with that amount of money.
““If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk said.
“The WFP took Musk up on his challenge and issued a report just three days later detailing how it could use the funds to feed 42 million of the people across the world who were most at risk of starvation for a year. Of course, the money from Musk, who is notorious for pledging to do good with his money and influence and then backing out, never materialized”
I think the Tories will hold both. Tamworth is miles out of sight for Labour. And they will pay for their naivety in failing to make an arrangement with the Libs in Beds.
Tamworth is basically a Labour seat. Blair won it comfortably three times in a row. Full of lower-middle class and upper working-class voters, who happened to support Brexit. But with Brexit no longer an important issue, I expect Labour to win by about 2,500 votes.
I find it utterly impossible to learn foreign languages, which can't be inherited because my grandmother could speak two perfectly, and my great-grandmother could apparently speak about five. It must be something to do with attending a bog standard English school, which totally obliterates a person's languages potential. It usually involves spending 5 years learning less than zero, which seems impossible. You actually come out of it knowing less than you went in with.
"I'm a bilingual illiterate, I can't read in two languages."
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I don't get the antipathy for some technological advances (even if some ends up going nowhere, but it's not always easy to predict what will be transformative or not). It's like how mad some people get about billionaires spending money on improving rocket technology.
I mean, if the problem is there is too much money in the hands of a very small number of people who can spend it on a whim, sure, that's an issue, but people also specifically complain about where they spend it rather than on some social cause of the day as though investing in space stuff is inherently wrong when a) it is their money, and b) advances in space tech seems like a pretty useful area to improve in to me.
Let me quote from an article:
“In late October, director of the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) David Beasley pointed out that billionaires like Musk could donate just a fraction of their wealth, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, to address world hunger.
“In response, Musk tweeted in a reply to a misleading tweet about Beasley’s remark that he would donate $6 billion — just 2 percent of his net worth at the time — if the UN could prove that the money would solve world hunger, ignoring that Beasley never mentioned solving world hunger altogether with that amount of money.
““If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk said.
“The WFP took Musk up on his challenge and issued a report just three days later detailing how it could use the funds to feed 42 million of the people across the world who were most at risk of starvation for a year. Of course, the money from Musk, who is notorious for pledging to do good with his money and influence and then backing out, never materialized”
It’s this sort of thing that gets people annoyed.
I don't agree. Yes, people get annoyed because people like Musk are absolute arses, but people make criticisms far more generally that make the endeavour itself of advancing space tech seem selfish and pointless, like Prince William criticising the space race in those terms. It's great that he and others want the greatest minds to help fix problems on earth, but I think there's a bit of focusing on the unlikable shits spending their money and assuming there's zero benefits to be had from a whole field of science and technology.
I think the Tories will hold both. Tamworth is miles out of sight for Labour. And they will pay for their naivety in failing to make an arrangement with the Libs in Beds.
Unfortuntely, neither party's members are up for arrangements unless it's REALLY obvious. In general, I think that the tactically-minded should go with the second-placed challenger unless the two are extraordinarily close (so I do think the LibDems on 12% should have held back in mid-Beds), but it's hard to restrain the enthusiasm of local members in the absence of any clear central direction.
But in fairness, life isn't all about tactical voting (especially if you're a Green - nobody is going to stand down for you at Parliamentary level so it must be hard to be asked to defer to everyone else). We only get a chance every few years to say how we think the country should be run, and using the vote purely to get the Tory out can feel negative and parochial. I don't quarrel with colleagues who want to vote tactically and I'm not above urging it on the doorstep but to be honest I wouldn't do it myself. How many of us who are active in a political party would?
Most elections are predictable (under FPTP). I’ve never been in a Westminster constituency at an election where the result wasn’t obvious. I could vote for the best placed candidate to unseat the incumbent, but the best placed second candidate will be miles behind, so I might as well vote for the party I support.
My local ward is more marginal, but it’s marginal between 2 parties I feel similarly about! And who will control the Council overall is usually predictable. So, again, I just vote for the party I support.
If I lived in a marginal seat where it was between 2 parties I feel differently about, but neither is the party I support, I would vote tactically!
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I don't get the antipathy for some technological advances (even if some ends up going nowhere, but it's not always easy to predict what will be transformative or not). It's like how mad some people get about billionaires spending money on improving rocket technology.
I mean, if the problem is there is too much money in the hands of a very small number of people who can spend it on a whim, sure, that's an issue, but people also specifically complain about where they spend it rather than on some social cause of the day as though investing in space stuff is inherently wrong when a) it is their money, and b) advances in space tech seems like a pretty useful area to improve in to me.
Let me quote from an article:
“In late October, director of the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) David Beasley pointed out that billionaires like Musk could donate just a fraction of their wealth, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, to address world hunger.
“In response, Musk tweeted in a reply to a misleading tweet about Beasley’s remark that he would donate $6 billion — just 2 percent of his net worth at the time — if the UN could prove that the money would solve world hunger, ignoring that Beasley never mentioned solving world hunger altogether with that amount of money.
““If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk said.
“The WFP took Musk up on his challenge and issued a report just three days later detailing how it could use the funds to feed 42 million of the people across the world who were most at risk of starvation for a year. Of course, the money from Musk, who is notorious for pledging to do good with his money and influence and then backing out, never materialized”
It’s this sort of thing that gets people annoyed.
I don't agree. Yes, people get annoyed because people like Musk are absolute arses, but people make criticisms far more generally that make the endeavour itself of advancing space tech seem selfish and pointless, like Prince William criticising the space race in those terms. It's great that he and others want the greatest minds to help fix problems on earth, but I think there's a bit of focusing on the unlikable shits spending their money and assuming there's zero benefits to be had from a whole field of science and technology.
I generally don’t bother listening to what Prince William says. Royals are there to be seen and not heard. So I don’t know what he did say here.
There are debates to be had over where we should focus our collective efforts. I suspect more people are annoyed with Musk because he’s a massive arse than because they disagree over the value of space travel.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
The rule of law in the UK is Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the ultimate legal power
Stop digging. Go and read Tom Bingham's book. Governments are subject to the rule of law and answerable to the law. There was a time when the party you supported understood this.
"Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law."
Mrs Thatcher
That the Tories - and some of their ardent supporters - have forgotten this is to their shame.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
Reminds one of the way India is pursuing a space programme at the same time as demanding foreign aid from the West.
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
That's called the social question. If you don't get why it isn't being resolved, here's a clue:
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I don't get the antipathy for some technological advances (even if some ends up going nowhere, but it's not always easy to predict what will be transformative or not). It's like how mad some people get about billionaires spending money on improving rocket technology.
I mean, if the problem is there is too much money in the hands of a very small number of people who can spend it on a whim, sure, that's an issue, but people also specifically complain about where they spend it rather than on some social cause of the day as though investing in space stuff is inherently wrong when a) it is their money, and b) advances in space tech seems like a pretty useful area to improve in to me.
Let me quote from an article:
“In late October, director of the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) David Beasley pointed out that billionaires like Musk could donate just a fraction of their wealth, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, to address world hunger.
“In response, Musk tweeted in a reply to a misleading tweet about Beasley’s remark that he would donate $6 billion — just 2 percent of his net worth at the time — if the UN could prove that the money would solve world hunger, ignoring that Beasley never mentioned solving world hunger altogether with that amount of money.
““If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk said.
“The WFP took Musk up on his challenge and issued a report just three days later detailing how it could use the funds to feed 42 million of the people across the world who were most at risk of starvation for a year. Of course, the money from Musk, who is notorious for pledging to do good with his money and influence and then backing out, never materialized”
It’s this sort of thing that gets people annoyed.
I don't agree. Yes, people get annoyed because people like Musk are absolute arses, but people make criticisms far more generally that make the endeavour itself of advancing space tech seem selfish and pointless, like Prince William criticising the space race in those terms. It's great that he and others want the greatest minds to help fix problems on earth, but I think there's a bit of focusing on the unlikable shits spending their money and assuming there's zero benefits to be had from a whole field of science and technology.
It's going to be hilarious to watch Musk bite the dust. He's in debt up to his face, he has threatened the Anti-Defamation League, and he wants to turn X into a baby version of WeChat. (Cool that the logo looks like a Close Window button, except in a funny typeface, though.)
Thinking back to the original Star Trek, it is quite bizarre how we have completely exceeded Star Trek “futurist technology” in respect of, say, smartphones, which are way beyond Star Trek “communicators” and in fact are like multiple Star Trek technologies combined in one, with the added incredibleness of the internet
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Meanwhile kids are going hungry and their schools are falling down around them. I don't really get why we are pursuing ludicrous technology when we seemingly can't manage basic tasks like feeding our people or putting up serviceable buildings that we used to manage just fine a few decades ago. And all the while the planet fries. Fix that and then we can talk about VR contact lenses.
The “ludicrous” technology (a really bizarre phrase: is the internet “ludicrous”?) is what might save us from the many disasters that loom, not least climate change
I don't get the antipathy for some technological advances (even if some ends up going nowhere, but it's not always easy to predict what will be transformative or not). It's like how mad some people get about billionaires spending money on improving rocket technology.
I mean, if the problem is there is too much money in the hands of a very small number of people who can spend it on a whim, sure, that's an issue, but people also specifically complain about where they spend it rather than on some social cause of the day as though investing in space stuff is inherently wrong when a) it is their money, and b) advances in space tech seems like a pretty useful area to improve in to me.
Let me quote from an article:
“In late October, director of the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) David Beasley pointed out that billionaires like Musk could donate just a fraction of their wealth, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, to address world hunger.
“In response, Musk tweeted in a reply to a misleading tweet about Beasley’s remark that he would donate $6 billion — just 2 percent of his net worth at the time — if the UN could prove that the money would solve world hunger, ignoring that Beasley never mentioned solving world hunger altogether with that amount of money.
““If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk said.
“The WFP took Musk up on his challenge and issued a report just three days later detailing how it could use the funds to feed 42 million of the people across the world who were most at risk of starvation for a year. Of course, the money from Musk, who is notorious for pledging to do good with his money and influence and then backing out, never materialized”
It’s this sort of thing that gets people annoyed.
With apologies for using Wiki but this was also widely reported in many media sources.
"In 2018, the Center for Global Development ranked WFP last in a study of 40 aid programmes, based on indicators grouped into four themes: maximising efficiency, fostering institutions, reducing burdens, and transparency and learning. These indicators relate to aid effectiveness principles developed at the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008), and the Busan Partnership Agreement (2011)"
Maybe they should put their own house in order before they start criticising others.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
But they are not trying to get laws through Parliament. They are actively trying to ignore or break the laws that are already enacted - some of which were enacted by them!
This isn't about the rights and wrongs of laws. If they think a law is wrong then they should change it through the proper procedures. Not just ignore it or break it when it suits them.
I know we have a few people on here who know the energy industry well. What do people think is the potential of the gas reserves around Crimea? You would have thought there would have been more discussion about it over the last 18 months.
High.
Romania and Turkey already have developed fields in the Black Sea and are finding more all the time. I don't know the details around Crimea but I would be very surprised if there were not substantial reserves. The geology is right for it.
That's stupid. The "supply" part of "confidence and supply" refers to voting for a budget (to raise tax and spend) and supply bills (pay for civil servant wages, rent/maintenance on Govt buildings, etc). They're not a nice-to-have, they're a must-have
' An ex-official has accused counter-terrorism police of using a selfie with Jacob Rees Mogg as evidence that he was a “far-Right extremist”.
He claims police asked how he voted in the Brexit ref after being accused of leaking Darroch's memos.
He claims:
Officers dragged him from bed, crowded into his bathroom whilst he was defecating, laughed at him and told him to “shit in your pants” prior to getting into a police car, and trashed his home during their search.
He was suffering from a post-cancer op at the time.'
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
The rule of law in the UK is Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the ultimate legal power
Stop digging. Go and read Tom Bingham's book. Governments are subject to the rule of law and answerable to the law. There was a time when the party you supported understood this.
"Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law."
Mrs Thatcher
That the Tories - and some of their ardent supporters - have forgotten this is to their shame.
The rule of law in the UK is statute law ultimately, even that supersedes common law. That doesn't include detention without trial etc fair enough but there is no evidence the government is doing that
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
The rule of law in the UK is Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the ultimate legal power
Stop digging. Go and read Tom Bingham's book. Governments are subject to the rule of law and answerable to the law. There was a time when the party you supported understood this.
"Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law."
Mrs Thatcher
That the Tories - and some of their ardent supporters - have forgotten this is to their shame.
Regardless of what Mrs Thatcher said, @HYUFD is actually right. The Crown (or the further abstraction of it: the Crown-in-Parliament) is the ultimate legal power: the fount of all power, justice and honour. It's the only thing that gives the Privy Council and its standing subcommittee (the Cabinet) and its chair (the PM) their authority: without it they would just be silly people with no power.
The members of Government, like every other person, is answerable to the law but the law can be changed and does not cover all eventualities. Orders-in-Council can cover the latter quite nicely and a Bill thru Parliament can cover the former.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
But they are not trying to get laws through Parliament. They are actively trying to ignore or break the laws that are already enacted - some of which were enacted by them!
This isn't about the rights and wrongs of laws. If they think a law is wrong then they should change it through the proper procedures. Not just ignore it or break it when it suits them.
Indeed. The law must be obeyed but the law can be changed and does not cover all eventualities. If the Government is breaking the law it just goes to show they don't know how Government works. Which should surprise me but doesn't.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
The rule of law in the UK is Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the ultimate legal power
Stop digging. Go and read Tom Bingham's book. Governments are subject to the rule of law and answerable to the law. There was a time when the party you supported understood this.
"Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law."
Mrs Thatcher
That the Tories - and some of their ardent supporters - have forgotten this is to their shame.
Regardless of what Mrs Thatcher said, @HYUFD is actually right. The Crown (or the further abstraction of it: the Crown-in-Parliament) is the ultimate legal power: the fount of all power, justice and honour. It's the only thing that gives the Privy Council and its standing subcommittee (the Cabinet) and its chair (the PM) their authority: without it they would just be silly people with no power.
The members of Government, like every other person, is answerable to the law but the law can be changed and does not cover all eventualities. Orders-in-Council can cover the latter quite nicely and a Bill thru Parliament can cover the former.
Except this government seems to believe it doesn't even have to bother with that.
And in any event, saying that "technically it's perfectly constitutional to abolish any and all constraints on government" says nothing other than that a constitution alone is no protection from tyranny.
And it certainly doesn't excuse government ignoring existing law, which is what's complained about. As HYUFD appears to imagine.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
The rule of law in the UK is Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the ultimate legal power
Stop digging. Go and read Tom Bingham's book. Governments are subject to the rule of law and answerable to the law. There was a time when the party you supported understood this.
"Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law."
Mrs Thatcher
That the Tories - and some of their ardent supporters - have forgotten this is to their shame.
Regardless of what Mrs Thatcher said, @HYUFD is actually right. The Crown (or the further abstraction of it: the Crown-in-Parliament) is the ultimate legal power: the fount of all power, justice and honour. It's the only thing that gives the Privy Council and its standing subcommittee (the Cabinet) and its chair (the PM) their authority: without it they would just be silly people with no power.
The members of Government, like every other person, is answerable to the law but the law can be changed and does not cover all eventualities. Orders-in-Council can cover the latter quite nicely and a Bill thru Parliament can cover the former.
Except this government seems to believe it doesn't even have to bother with that.
And in any event, saying that "technically it's perfectly constitutional to abolish any and all constraints on government" says nothing other than that a constitution alone is no protection from tyranny.
And it certainly doesn't excuse government ignoring existing law, which is what's complained about. As HYUFD appears to imagine.
Yes. I understood @HYUFD's point but misunderstood @Cyclefree's.
A government with a working majority in the HoC can do pretty much anything it likes, because it can change any laws it doesn't like. There isn't anything new about any of that AFAIK.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
Well technically under our constitution if the elected government can get a law through Parliament it will get the King's assent as statute law and indeed then be answerable to no one
** wonders whether she should explain the rule of law to @HYUFD. Then thinks, fuck it, cleaning the skirting boards would be more rewarding **
The rule of law in the UK is Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the ultimate legal power
Stop digging. Go and read Tom Bingham's book. Governments are subject to the rule of law and answerable to the law. There was a time when the party you supported understood this.
"Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law."
Mrs Thatcher
That the Tories - and some of their ardent supporters - have forgotten this is to their shame.
Regardless of what Mrs Thatcher said, @HYUFD is actually right. The Crown (or the further abstraction of it: the Crown-in-Parliament) is the ultimate legal power: the fount of all power, justice and honour. It's the only thing that gives the Privy Council and its standing subcommittee (the Cabinet) and its chair (the PM) their authority: without it they would just be silly people with no power.
The members of Government, like every other person, is answerable to the law but the law can be changed and does not cover all eventualities. Orders-in-Council can cover the latter quite nicely and a Bill thru Parliament can cover the former.
Except this government seems to believe it doesn't even have to bother with that.
And in any event, saying that "technically it's perfectly constitutional to abolish any and all constraints on government" says nothing other than that a constitution alone is no protection from tyranny.
And it certainly doesn't excuse government ignoring existing law, which is what's complained about. As HYUFD appears to imagine.
Yes. I understood @HYUFD's point but misunderstood @Cyclefree's.
I think it's HYUFD who fails to understand how the system works. Government can legislate through Parliament, but they have to operate within the vast network of existing law. He seems to think that can be waved aside without consequence. Which as Cyclefree implies, is thinking at a level which ought to embarrass a primary school kid.
I absolutely hate people booing national anthems . The Scottish football supporters should be ashamed .
Both supporters booed the others anthem.
It does show how Jerusalem must be the England anthem, it is ludicrous having GSTK still as national anthem for England when they play against other home nations or Commonwealth realms the King is head of state of too.
Surprised to see you advocating that fine socialist hymn, Jerusalem. In these multi-ethnic days, its Christian references might be a bit tricky though, whereas at least GSTK is, erm, agnostic as to which God is to do the saving.
Strange BT experience - they persuaded by to switch to EE (as they're phasing out their own mobile service, as far as I can make out), so they sent me a new router (works fine) and a new SIM card. I can now get and receive WhatsApp messages, but not phone calls on the mobile, or even normal texts - which means that none of the two-factor security things depending on getting a code to my phone work. Should I just wait patiently for a couple of days, or throw myself on the mercy of the BT helpline (which took 45 minutes to answer when I last used it)?
The EE helpline normally answers after a couple of minutes of holding. I've had to use it several times in the past week.
Strange BT experience - they persuaded by to switch to EE (as they're phasing out their own mobile service, as far as I can make out), so they sent me a new router (works fine) and a new SIM card. I can now get and receive WhatsApp messages, but not phone calls on the mobile, or even normal texts - which means that none of the two-factor security things depending on getting a code to my phone work. Should I just wait patiently for a couple of days, or throw myself on the mercy of the BT helpline (which took 45 minutes to answer when I last used it)?
Possible going into a high street EE shop could help, but I suspect they might just refer you back to BT.
In my experience, waiting times in EE shops are longer than on the phone, but that assumes a working phone!
I absolutely hate people booing national anthems . The Scottish football supporters should be ashamed .
Both supporters booed the others anthem.
It does show how Jerusalem must be the England anthem, it is ludicrous having GSTK still as national anthem for England when they play against other home nations or Commonwealth realms the King is head of state of too.
Surprised to see you advocating that fine socialist hymn, Jerusalem. In these multi-ethnic days, its Christian references might be a bit tricky though, whereas at least GSTK is, erm, agnostic as to which God is to do the saving.
Socialists don't seem to have a problem with it...
Scoop: the FBI agent overseeing the investigation into Hunter Biden disputed whistleblower claims that David Weiss was stymied by the Biden admin -- a critical detail McCarthy cited when announcing plans to pursue an impeachment inquiry on Tuesday... https://twitter.com/JaxAlemany/status/1701709800969478462
So the 'impeachment' isn't even based on no evidence - it's premised on a lie.
Looks like Sevastopol had some excitement last night
"A # of Russian Telegram channels posted videos of explosions and a fire reportedly at the 13th Ship Repair Plant in Sevastopol, possibly from a missile strike. "
"Hundreds of thousands of people could be excluded from voting in a UK general election because of voter ID laws, the government’s election watchdog has said.
The laws could have a disproportionate effect on poorer people, those with disabilities and people from minority ethnic backgrounds, the Electoral Commission warned.
It said ministers should take urgent action to alleviate these impacts, including drawing up a wider list of documents that people can show to vote and allowing people without ID to have someone else vouch for their identity."
Comments
This is a chain reaction of intertwining technologies, several of which are apparently culminating at once, chain reactions lead to explosions
“Mojo Vision raises $45M for AR contact lenses with sports applications
venturebeat.com/2022/01/04/moj… via @VentureBeat by @deantak #digitalhealth #wearables #CES2022 #medtech”
https://x.com/medtechshow/status/1478955297544749057?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w?si=08xc1lEQ3fV7WBJ8
I love his extremely pressed trousers
We know a lot of things we should do, but the current Govt has failed to do so since 2010. Road deaths fell by a third between 2006 and 2010, when the improvement basically stalled.
Or, as the Government Road Casualty report for 2019 (ie before pandemic distortions) put it:
The number of fatalities in 2019 (1,752) was 2% less than in 2018 (1,784), however, this small decrease may be due to natural variation. The trend in the number of fatalities has been broadly fat since 2010. Previously, and particularly between 2006 and 2010, the general trend was for fatalities to fall. Since that point, most of the year on year changes are either explained by one-of causes (for instance, the snow in 2010) or natural variation. The evidence points towards Britain being in a period when the fatality numbers are broadly stable.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf
Specifics? Why do we still have the highest drink drive limit of anywhere in Europe? Why is continuing edication for drivers not routine? Why do we have self-certification for eyesight for over-80s?
It’s all down to the story, and I’m interested to see what smaller, riskier creators can produce with a bigger toolbox at a lower price point.
And yet at the same time Star Trek has humans roaming the universe, and we have yet to bodily get beyond the Moon
With quasi-AGI like GPT4 (or 5, or 6) we are very close to Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey; yet again we remain rooted on earth
Where I do see a parallel is with action painting. A human sets up the initial conditions and then the art/outcome proceeds from there.
The Scotland team is packed with nearlymen and chancers. Or people like McTominay who are played out of position by their club.
Hingland? Why oh why is the bearded one sticking with Harry Maguire?
I think that means I'm doing just more than two people's jobs
Having had a mahoosive screen in my pocket with the Pixel 6 Pro, I think I want to drop back to something as small as 6" (fnarr fnarr). The only difference between a Pro and a Pro Max is additional storage (which I don't need), a bigger screen I actively don't want, and a 5x optical zoom camera rather than 3x. And from what I have seen on other phones, I don't think it will make a massive difference.
So, unless my friends at Costco get a batch on their website for dispatch next week, its pre-order from Apple time.
I am such a fanboi now you may as well give me nipple tassels with apple logos.
....best decision and a LOT cheaper and without the aggro.
The world should fear AI. So let BJO and his ilk talk it to death. Then the problem goes away.
Also, we - i.e. the UK - were emitting a hell of a lot more carbon a few decades ago than we are now.
And absolute poverty was much more widespread.
You can lament things are bad, but by the measures you have chosen, things were worse a few decades ago.
"But this Government seems to think that once it has decided to do something no one - not Parliament, the Courts or Local Authorities - are going to be allowed to stop them doing it in exactly the way they want to. They believe they are answerable to no one."
is why the Tories need to lose the next election and learn in opposition that they don't get to reinstate the divine right of kings just because it suits them to do so.
I do have a day off on Thursday
Tomorrow's Daily Telegraph lead feature is on aliens.
Whoever designed the universe just made it too goddamn big!
However, if you brook no opposition, or no contradiction, then it becomes possible to deny your fallibility, and to deny making mistakes. And then you cannot learn from them. And you can never improve.
That's the Tories that is.
Seem to remember a former PBer summing it up thus: "... Tories. Always wrong. Never learn."
Something like that anyway.
SKS fans please explain
into ChatGPT?
Of course, there probably is.
I am enthusiast for new tech products. Was an early adopter of PDAs. A Windows Mobile enthusiast. Bought and flashed phones with homebrew ROMs. But I don't stay loyal to just one thing or brand or format - I go with what I judge to be good at the time.
Apple make stuff that resonates more with what I need than anyone else, so I'm in the phase of going deeper in. Same with Tesla. But I won't ramp them endlessly if someone better comes along.
[Going back further, there was an example in Darlington in 1983 where the SDP thought they could win but ended up coming third].
I mean, if the problem is there is too much money in the hands of a very small number of people who can spend it on a whim, sure, that's an issue, but people also specifically complain about where they spend it rather than on some social cause of the day as though investing in space stuff is inherently wrong when a) it is their money, and b) advances in space tech seems like a pretty useful area to improve in to me.
But in fairness, life isn't all about tactical voting (especially if you're a Green - nobody is going to stand down for you at Parliamentary level so it must be hard to be asked to defer to everyone else). We only get a chance every few years to say how we think the country should be run, and using the vote purely to get the Tory out can feel negative and parochial. I don't quarrel with colleagues who want to vote tactically and I'm not above urging it on the doorstep but to be honest I wouldn't do it myself. How many of us who are active in a political party would?
And on that positive note, good night from Mende, Lozere, Deepest France
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/014103453X
Thinking in and speaking another language gives you an insight and changes your mind in a way which a brilliant tool for telling you what the other person is saying does not. I am not exactly the same person when I am being Italian and the fact that there is this submerged part of me when I am being English affects that as well.
Language is not simply a transactional tool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Tamworth_Borough_Council_election
Johnson may have gone, but the people in charge now are still Johnson acolytes, albeit disloyal ones. Mostly, the same theory of government is being applied. The only difference is the timing. At Johnson's peak, you could almost hear the sneering giggle as they said "of course, the public can have their say, they can get rid of us... In 2024. Maybe 2025." That's a lot closer now than it was then. Less space for sneering, and it's beginning to show.
I mean, call me an old romantic, but I quite like making a connection with French speaking people, even if it does mean scratching my head from time to time mid-sentence to find the right word.
“In late October, director of the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) David Beasley pointed out that billionaires like Musk could donate just a fraction of their wealth, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, to address world hunger.
“In response, Musk tweeted in a reply to a misleading tweet about Beasley’s remark that he would donate $6 billion — just 2 percent of his net worth at the time — if the UN could prove that the money would solve world hunger, ignoring that Beasley never mentioned solving world hunger altogether with that amount of money.
““If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” Musk said.
“The WFP took Musk up on his challenge and issued a report just three days later detailing how it could use the funds to feed 42 million of the people across the world who were most at risk of starvation for a year. Of course, the money from Musk, who is notorious for pledging to do good with his money and influence and then backing out, never materialized”
It’s this sort of thing that gets people annoyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDe60CbIagg
My local ward is more marginal, but it’s marginal between 2 parties I feel similarly about! And who will control the Council overall is usually predictable. So, again, I just vote for the party I support.
If I lived in a marginal seat where it was between 2 parties I feel differently about, but neither is the party I support, I would vote tactically!
There are debates to be had over where we should focus our collective efforts. I suspect more people are annoyed with Musk because he’s a massive arse than because they disagree over the value of space travel.
"Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law."
Mrs Thatcher
That the Tories - and some of their ardent supporters - have forgotten this is to their shame.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GsplqGGImGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VAZZTjj6yM#t=63s
"In 2018, the Center for Global Development ranked WFP last in a study of 40 aid programmes, based on indicators grouped into four themes: maximising efficiency, fostering institutions, reducing burdens, and transparency and learning. These indicators relate to aid effectiveness principles developed at the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), the Accra Agenda for Action (2008), and the Busan Partnership Agreement (2011)"
Maybe they should put their own house in order before they start criticising others.
This isn't about the rights and wrongs of laws. If they think a law is wrong then they should change it through the proper procedures. Not just ignore it or break it when it suits them.
"ACT's David Seymour floats confidence-only partnership - no supply
5:00 pm on 9 September 2023"
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/election-2023/497636/act-s-david-seymour-floats-confidence-only-partnership-no-supply
Romania and Turkey already have developed fields in the Black Sea and are finding more all the time. I don't know the details around Crimea but I would be very surprised if there were not substantial reserves. The geology is right for it.
' An ex-official has accused counter-terrorism police of using a selfie with Jacob Rees Mogg as evidence that he was a “far-Right extremist”.
He claims police asked how he voted in the Brexit ref after being accused of leaking Darroch's memos.
He claims:
Officers dragged him from bed, crowded into his bathroom whilst he was defecating, laughed at him and told him to “shit in your pants” prior to getting into a police car, and trashed his home during their search.
He was suffering from a post-cancer op at the time.'
https://x.com/StevenEdginton/status/1701691168084357600?s=20
https://x.com/StevenEdginton/status/1701692852021973289?s=20
The members of Government, like every other person, is answerable to the law but the law can be changed and does not cover all eventualities. Orders-in-Council can cover the latter quite nicely and a Bill thru Parliament can cover the former.
Why a Wisconsin judge has become a national flash point before she even takes office
https://news.yahoo.com/why-a-wisconsin-judge-has-become-a-national-flash-point-before-she-even-takes-office-194003020.html
And in any event, saying that "technically it's perfectly constitutional to abolish any and all constraints on government" says nothing other than that a constitution alone is no protection from tyranny.
And it certainly doesn't excuse government ignoring existing law, which is what's complained about.
As HYUFD appears to imagine.
Government can legislate through Parliament, but they have to operate within the vast network of existing law.
He seems to think that can be waved aside without consequence. Which as Cyclefree implies, is thinking at a level which ought to embarrass a primary school kid.
Soviet invasion of central Europe was a ‘mistake’, says Vladimir Putin
Russia’s leader criticises cold war deployment of tanks to Hungary and Czechoslovakia
https://www.ft.com/content/768a25fe-b171-4d1c-8283-5e225ee8572b
https://twitter.com/JaxAlemany/status/1701709800969478462
So the 'impeachment' isn't even based on no evidence - it's premised on a lie.
Of course, that means that his dirty little imperialistic war is killing fellow Russians on both sides, but I don't think he cares much about that.
"A # of Russian Telegram channels posted videos of explosions and a fire reportedly at the 13th Ship Repair Plant in Sevastopol, possibly from a missile strike. "
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1701788035719868874
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/13/uk-election-watchdog-issues-damning-verdict-on-voter-id-impact
"Hundreds of thousands of people could be excluded from voting in a UK general election because of voter ID laws, the government’s election watchdog has said.
The laws could have a disproportionate effect on poorer people, those with disabilities and people from minority ethnic backgrounds, the Electoral Commission warned.
It said ministers should take urgent action to alleviate these impacts, including drawing up a wider list of documents that people can show to vote and allowing people without ID to have someone else vouch for their identity."