On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
Of course you do not like being challenged but on this he has made the right decision
Time will tell where this goes, but yesterday did set in train the next GE campaign even if it is another year away
Oh yes, he made it clear where the Tory campaign is heading. A core vote strategy.
Whatever happened to Vote Blue, Go Green?
It failed to get a Conservative majority even in 2010?
I have principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
A cool photo from NYC. Except it isn’t. It’s an AI-created puzzle. Can anyone work it out?
Huh, I don't know why I obeyed your instruction to solve it, but solve it I did.
Well done. Some people find it hard - or even impossible
I opened the image in a new tab intending to zoom in and look in fine detail, and hit the wrong key combo and zoomed out. Wrong instinct, right result.
Thanks - my eyesight was too good for that one; I could see it when I squinted.
A cool photo from NYC. Except it isn’t. It’s an AI-created puzzle. Can anyone work it out?
That's really good! Took me a moment to get it, but once you see it, you can't unsee it.
It’s like those 3D “magic” images from 20 years ago, where you had to unfocus your eyes to get the hidden picture, except this is much better and far cleverer, and a machine can make them in milliseconds
I still expect some further small interest rate rises despite the apparently improving CPI position. 6.7% is not 2.0% which is the target.
So I expect 0.25% increase in interest rates to be announced today and for the two remaining MPC meetings this year. So 6.0% at the year end. That will probably be it.
I project CPI at Dec 2023 to be around 5.5% maybe slightly less, not below 5.0%.
Interest rates will not fall significantly until CPI moved towards 3%. This may not be achieved until end 2025. Even then rates are unlikely to fall below 3 to 4% long term.
1. The Online Security Bill - about to become law. There are some troubling provisions in it. Perhaps one of our more techy posters might opine.
2. The Law Commission's Surrogacy paper - which seems to me to disregard the rights of women and treat them as mere body parts to be used for the benefit of others.
I think everyone’s pretty tetchy… oh, sorry, techy you said.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Our very own Alistair Meeks said this was a risk back in 2016 in one of his headers.
I can't see anyone calling London "Buenos Aires" any time soon, no matter how effective the ULEZ turns out to be.
No-one could see Rome falling to barbarians in the third century, despite all the instability. The empire was too big and too strong. Until it wasn't.
Sure, it took a couple of centuries but it did in the end happen, and happened broadly incrementally through choices that consistently put the short-term easy option ahead of the long-term gain (precisely the opposite of what built Rome, and indeed, London, up), and created a political culture of expectations that proved incredibly difficult to break out of.
A couple of centuries is, of course, a long time. But then Rome was immensely superior to its neighbours. By contrast, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, pre-WW2, by GDP per capita.
Stephen Dilley, was one of the partners at Womble Bond Dickinson, the Post Office's lawyers, who dealt with Lee Castleton, a subpostmaster convicted and made bankrupt by the Post Office some 18 years ago to teach other subpostmasters a lesson and discourage them from challenging Horizon.
He is giving evidence today and is now straight out misleading at the Post Office inquiry when he says that a solicitor's attendance notes are just written for himself.
This is utter nonsense. They are not some sort of personal diary. They are attendance notes of calls and meetings needed to show what has been said and agreed in a case. They form part of the case file and are essential so that another lawyer can deal with the case should the original solicitor not be available. They are also used by costs clerks when an assessment of what costs the losing party should pay.
Keeping attendance notes and making sure they are accurate and complete is one of the key things that a good litigation solicitor should do. They are intended to be read by others.
I am going to have stop watching because my blood pressure may not stand a whole day of this.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
'Elite' = people on the telly one doesn't like or agree with.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
In your view, who *isn't* in the elite? (or who is, whichever is easier for you). From my POV it's anybody who earns over a certain amount and/or has significant non-labour-related income. So for me it's a class thing. For Zeihan, it's anybody who can realistically become head of government. What is it for you?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
I suppose if you dub anyone espousing a point of view other than your own the "elite" then nothing is surprising.
I think we need to shoot every dog in the country.
Driver rams dog with car to stop attack
A driver used his car to ram a mastiff-type dog as it attacked a dog walker and dragged him into the road.
Video showed the man being set upon by a large brown dog next to a busy road in Sheffield while he held on to his smaller pet, trying to keep it out of reach. As the dog tried to pull him into the road, a passing motorist mounted the pavement and struck the animal with the car bonnet.
Armed police were called to the Handsworth area on Tuesday and eventually managed to restrain the dog and seize it. The man was left with serious injuries to his arm and was taken to hospital. South Yorkshire police said that a 53-year-old man from the city had been arrested on suspicion of having a dangerous dog out of control and remained in custody.
The dog was believed to live at a nearby property and is said to have jumped over a wall before pouncing on the passer-by.
Parents in England no longer see daily school attendance as vital, report finds Research finds breakdown in parents’ social contract with schools since Covid lockdowns and cost of living crisis ... ... some parents no longer believe it is their responsibility to ensure that their child is in school every day, triggering “a full-blown national crisis” in school attendance that will require “a monumental, multi-service effort” if it is to be reversed, the report states. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/21/parents-in-england-no-longer-see-daily-school-attendance-as-vital-report-finds
I have just come back from a break in Jersey. I was surprised by how many British children of school age were on holiday, staying at the hotel.
It was the same in Tenerife. Their parents said it was because it was cheaper in September than in August.
Stephen Dilley, was one of the partners at Womble Bond Dickinson, the Post Office's lawyers, who dealt with Lee Castleton, a subpostmaster convicted and made bankrupt by the Post Office some 18 years ago to teach other subpostmasters a lesson and discourage them from challenging Horizon.
He is giving evidence today and is now straight out misleading at the Post Office inquiry when he says that a solicitor's attendance notes are just written for himself.
This is utter nonsense. They are not some sort of personal diary. They are attendance notes of calls and meetings needed to show what has been said and agreed in a case. They form part of the case file and are essential so that another lawyer can deal with the case should the original solicitor not be available. They are also used by costs clerks when an assessment of what costs the losing party should pay.
Keeping attendance notes and making sure they are accurate and complete is one of the key things that a good litigation solicitor should do. They are intended to be read by others.
I am going to have stop watching because my blood pressure may not stand a whole day of this.
One hopes this is not a case of nominative determinism. But also that there are enough lawyers on the right side of the table to spot this.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
They're within their rights to tell a politician that. I mean, it's nonsense, it's not true, but free speech means they could say something that's stupid.
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
Also, there's a lot of confected outrage about this - the EU adopted a similar 2035 target six months ago and voices were rather quieter about that.
I suspect there is a rationale in simply not putting the UK at a comparative disadvantage. HMG will have access to investment data.
I went back to the time the EU announced that, your fellow Brexiteers on here were extolling the decision as a Brexit benefit giving the UK a competitive advantage over the sclerotic EU.
But I am glad you are seeing the wisdom of aligning ourselves with the EU, you'll be campaigning for Rejoin in the next referendum, mark my words.
On the flip side it's amusing how it's remainers in the main that are frothing at the mouth over EU alignment on environment policy
I shall admit I don't have the technical or industry knowledge to really know whether 2030 or 2035 is a good thing or not. I suspect it makes less difference to both household finances and the environment than either "side" would like to admit.
In terms of politics however, it is a massive sign of weakness to do this two days after your laughing stock predecessor insists you do it.
And in terms of UK investment and preventing our managed decline, it is a massive error and another sign of weakness to commit to a major car manufacturer on a long term framework one week and then u-turn straight away.
There are few votes for investment in this country.
What people want are more handouts and lower prices.
With smaller, more fanatical, groups who want ever higher NHS spending and ever higher house prices.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
They're within their rights to tell a politician that. I mean, it's nonsense, it's not true, but free speech means they could say something that's stupid.
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
It's very troubling that the letter has been written when the subject of it hasn't been convicted of a crime.
AI is now generating pretty pictures - that also function as QR codes. And they really work
Is this the first example of “art” that humans simply couldn’t do, no matter how talented?
A human could do this. It would be laborious, to be sure, but the principle is easy enough. It's still quite a leap of imagination to think of doing it, though, so kudos to the person who dreamt it up.
Fair enough. Try this
It still has that quality of “teenage album cover design” but now it’s “Christ what an amazing teenage album cover design”. For me this is even more impressive than the QR code. AI art is leaping ahead - again
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
They're within their rights to tell a politician that. I mean, it's nonsense, it's not true, but free speech means they could say something that's stupid.
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
It is true though, if they're based in America then the first amendment does apply.
The first amendment doesn't protect Rumble's users from Rumble's policies, but it does protect Rumble from overzealous politicians wanting to violate free speech.
If a politician implies something, on official paperwork, but without having any legal basis for doing so, then the precedent set in Arkell v Pressdram applies too.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
1. The Online Security Bill - about to become law. There are some troubling provisions in it. Perhaps one of our more techy posters might opine.
2. The Law Commission's Surrogacy paper - which seems to me to disregard the rights of women and treat them as mere body parts to be used for the benefit of others.
Miss Cyclefree, what do you make of the (illiberal in my view) calls to change age of consent laws to gear towards the age gap of the relationship? Are you concerned that the powers that be (mostly men) seem to want to dictate to women of legal age who they should be attracted to?
I think we are in danger of confusing what is wise or decent or sensible with what is legal.
Just because it is the latter does not make it the former. Some relationships with a large age gap may work, be loving and not coercive or troubling. Others are the opposite. I had a relationship with someone a lot older than me at a relatively young adult age and it was wonderful. It did not last but it was never intended to and the man in question treated me as well as anyone I've ever been involved with, indeed a lot better than some younger men.
We also risk confusing the age of consent with giving consent. You cannot consent - legally - under the age of consent. But just because you are above it does not mean that you have actually freely consented. That is fact specific.
The other reason why I worry about such changes is that if you have a 2 year rule it will get the police involved in determining whether someone who is 18 + 1 day is acting illegally if they have a relationship with someone who is 15 + 364 days and so on.
That involves discretion and judgment and common sense and, frankly, the police (and many lawyers) are not always overburdened with these virtues.
We would do better to concentrate on teaching girls to stand up for themselves and boys and men to behave with decency and not treat the female sex as merely a hole to be fucked. The pornification of our culture, the revolting way women are talked about, the celebrities we praise, the indecency of our language and public behaviour - we would do well to deal with these rather than think that some change in the law will deal with the problems of predatory men.
OpenAI have just released DALLE3. It’s only available to a few selected users now, but in October it will be accessible to anyone with a ChatGPT4 subscription
This is potentially a game-changer. Why? Because you don’t even need to create a detailed prompt. You no longer have to say “a futuristic Victorian city in hi-res 2023 anime style, award winning, flawless, hyper realistic, with visible brushwork etc etc”
With DALLE3 you can just say “do a mad steampunk city” or even just “make scary art” or “surprise me” and it will create images, endlessly
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
"According to Defra, the new Simpler Recycling system, which Defra says will be outlined “shortly”, will ensure all homes in England “recycle the same materials, ending the confusion and postcode lottery over what can and can’t be recycled”.
"Seemingly backing commingling or a twin-stream system, the statement added: “Those materials won’t need to be separated at home – so whilst it was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households, this new plan ensures it.”"
Why has he only ruled out seven bins? What about eight bins? I note too that he hasn't ruled out a slaughter of the first born, so presumably that's in the pipeline.
We already have 7 bins
Paper waste, plastic, glass and cardboard, food, 2 x garden waste, and the bin
Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
I have never before thought of the Ford Motor Company as a fully paid up member of the liberal elitist blob.
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
India suspending grant of visas to Canadians. Oof.
Has Modi actually started assassinating his enemies in NATO countries? Anyone looked into this? I mean, I guess he would if he thought he could get away with it, and it would be following his role model Putin, but seems a bit of a risky step to take - unless he's got an agreement with China up his sleeve.
It's obviously extremely bad if India is doing this, but if they are, it also seems extremely odd for thr Canadian authorities to air their suspicions publicly? Since when was this a thing?
Particularly as both are Commonwealth countries and therefore have more established diplomatic channels to use.
The Leader of the Canadian NDP party, which Trudeau’s Liberal government relies on for confidence and supply, is a Sikh
There's going to be an element of domestic politics in how it's handled, but surely Canada wouldn't say they have evidence of Indian involvement and expel an Indian "diplomat" (=secret service) unless they had some pretty good evidence?
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
Our local council expects you to separate food waste, garden waste (which they charge for separately, or you can just take it to the tip yourself & dump it there for free), ”recyclable waste” (i.e. paper / plastic) and everything else. There are local recycling bins for the rarer things (small electrical devices, etc) too. It’s really not onerous.
What would be a pain in the arse is having to separate all the different kinds of plastic waste, very little of which gets properly recycled anyway I believe: The solution to plastic waste is to generate less of it in the first place.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
They're within their rights to tell a politician that. I mean, it's nonsense, it's not true, but free speech means they could say something that's stupid.
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
It is true though, if they're based in America then the first amendment does apply.
The first amendment doesn't protect Rumble's users from Rumble's policies, but it does protect Rumble from overzealous politicians wanting to violate free speech.
If a politician implies something, on official paperwork, but without having any legal basis for doing so, then the precedent set in Arkell v Pressdram applies too.
The first amendment does not apply in this case. Had a US politician done that, it would apply, but that's not happened. The first amendment does not apply to a UK politician writing to Rumble. (And, to repeat, Rumble have made zero claim that the first amendment does apply, presumably because they understand the situation better than a couple of PBers.)
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
I have never before thought of the Ford Motor Company as a fully paid up member of the liberal elitist blob.
Then you're rather behind the times. I suspect the person quoted is a regular at Davos and is helpfully listed on their website.
AI is now generating pretty pictures - that also function as QR codes. And they really work
Is this the first example of “art” that humans simply couldn’t do, no matter how talented?
A human could do this. It would be laborious, to be sure, but the principle is easy enough. It's still quite a leap of imagination to think of doing it, though, so kudos to the person who dreamt it up.
Fair enough. Try this
It still has that quality of “teenage album cover design” but now it’s “Christ what an amazing teenage album cover design”. For me this is even more impressive than the QR code. AI art is leaping ahead - again
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
Right-click on the photo and open in new tab, then make it full-screen, and then stand back and defocus your eyes (or just take your glasses off). That said, although I can see a word created by the people in the foreground (and one clue is the two people on the left do not look normal) I don't quite understand it.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
They're within their rights to tell a politician that. I mean, it's nonsense, it's not true, but free speech means they could say something that's stupid.
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
It is true though, if they're based in America then the first amendment does apply.
The first amendment doesn't protect Rumble's users from Rumble's policies, but it does protect Rumble from overzealous politicians wanting to violate free speech.
If a politician implies something, on official paperwork, but without having any legal basis for doing so, then the precedent set in Arkell v Pressdram applies too.
The first amendment does not apply in this case. Had a US politician done that, it would apply, but that's not happened. The first amendment does not apply to a UK politician writing to Rumble. (And, to repeat, Rumble have made zero claim that the first amendment does apply, presumably because they understand the situation better than a couple of PBers.)
Unless they're under British jurisdiction then it does, as far as I'm aware (and I may be wrong) most of these firms have their servers in America to ensure they're under American jurisdiction, so yes it does apply.
And no they've not said it applies, they've said free speech applies. The two are fairly interchangeable in America. And they've given the UK politician short shrift, which is fair enough, because the UK politician was overreaching and deserves short shrift.
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
I didn't get it for ages. One thing to do is to wonder why the woman on the right has a different type of dress and is holding a bag.
Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.
I would now be legit terrified as a professional artist
AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before
What AI is doing is not art as such. It’s something else. Something new. And perhaps, scarily and ultimately, better
Talking of scary AI , I’ve just found a completely convincing fake of Elon Musk’s voice. Made in minutes. We will come to miss objective truth
The whole "what is art" debate can get quite pretentious and/or elitist quite quickly but I do think there is a difference between an image created with intention and passion and an image, however clever it may be, that is created by an algorithm. When we create genuinely sentient AIs they will of course be able to make actual art and we can only hope that's what they choose to use their intelligence for - but I doubt it.
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
Our local council expects you to separate food waste, garden waste (which they charge for separately, or you can just take it to the tip yourself & dump it there for free), ”recyclable waste” (i.e. paper / plastic) and everything else. There are local recycling bins for the rarer things (small electrical devices, etc) too. It’s really not onerous.
What would be a pain in the arse is having to separate all the different kinds of plastic waste, very little of which gets properly recycled anyway I believe: The solution to plastic waste is to generate less of it in the first place.
Back in the real world, a lot of public bins have been removed, presumably owing to cost, especially as they used to attract fly-tippers. For instance, the local Sainsbury's used to have a dozen or so skip-sized recycling bins down one side of its car park: now gone.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
AI is now generating pretty pictures - that also function as QR codes. And they really work
Is this the first example of “art” that humans simply couldn’t do, no matter how talented?
A human could do this. It would be laborious, to be sure, but the principle is easy enough. It's still quite a leap of imagination to think of doing it, though, so kudos to the person who dreamt it up.
Fair enough. Try this
It still has that quality of “teenage album cover design” but now it’s “Christ what an amazing teenage album cover design”. For me this is even more impressive than the QR code. AI art is leaping ahead - again
What AI is doing is not art as such. It’s something else. Something new. And perhaps, scarily and ultimately, better
Talking of scary AI , I’ve just found a completely convincing fake of Elon Musk’s voice. Made in minutes. We will come to miss objective truth
The whole "what is art" debate can get quite pretentious and/or elitist quite quickly but I do think there is a difference between an image created with intention and passion and an image, however clever it may be, that is created by an algorithm. When we create genuinely sentient AIs they will of course be able to make actual art and we can only hope that's what they choose to use their intelligence for - but I doubt it.
But the point is the two forms are becoming indistinguishable. You won’t KNOW if you’re looking at human art or AI art. So then your distinction becomes an interesting but irrelevant philosophical debate
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
They're within their rights to tell a politician that. I mean, it's nonsense, it's not true, but free speech means they could say something that's stupid.
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
It's very troubling that the letter has been written when the subject of it hasn't been convicted of a crime.
It certainly troubles me that UK politicians wrote officially to any company, at home or abroad, in such circumstances. It has overtones of the debanking trend.
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
"...asked about a proposal on whether the government was planning on making people have seven bins - something Sunak said he scrapped - he says that was in the environment act.
"There's a very clear statement there," Sunak says."
But the Environment Act 2021 section 57 (which his government passed) says: ... (6) Recyclable household waste in two or more recyclable waste streams may be collected together where— (a) it is not technically or economically practicable to collect recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately, or (b) collecting recyclable household waste in those recyclable waste streams separately has no significant environmental benefit (having regard to the overall environmental impact of collecting it separately and of collecting it together). ... (10) For the purposes of this section the recyclable waste streams are— (a) glass; (b) metal; (c) plastic; (d) paper and card; (e) food waste; (f) garden waste. ...
Our local council expects you to separate food waste, garden waste (which they charge for separately, or you can just take it to the tip yourself & dump it there for free), ”recyclable waste” (i.e. paper / plastic) and everything else. There are local recycling bins for the rarer things (small electrical devices, etc) too. It’s really not onerous.
What would be a pain in the arse is having to separate all the different kinds of plastic waste, very little of which gets properly recycled anyway I believe: The solution to plastic waste is to generate less of it in the first place.
Back in the real world, a lot of public bins have been removed, presumably owing to cost, especially as they used to attract fly-tippers. For instance, the local Sainsbury's used to have a dozen or so skip-sized recycling bins down one side of its car park: now gone.
Are you saying I don’t live in the real world ?!
The sun shining in through my front window looks fairly real to me...perhaps it isn’t? Am I trapped in a Truman Show-esque woke dream of LTNs, recycling and ULEZ zones everywhere?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
I have never before thought of the Ford Motor Company as a fully paid up member of the liberal elitist blob.
Remember that populist logic requires certain things to be a cancer that needs cutting out? It stands to reason that the blob would be ever growing and metastasising. It certainly wouldn’t be a small benign tumour.
The blob is, remember, both weak and strong too.
Allister Heath’s article encapsulates the Rayan Gibbons quote that “if you run into an asshole today, you ran into an asshole; if you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole”.
As for the legendary Davos. It’s a conference and talking shop, well marketed by the organisers. A few of my colleagues go (I’ve never got an invitation therefore I am a man of the people). Nobody makes any decisions there. The main complaint seems to be the accommodation prices go mad that week.
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
See here
Thanks.
I couldn't get it , but I showed it to my dear wife who immediately said 'obey'
Mind you I have had 60 plus years of doing so, and she is amazing with puzzles
AI is now generating pretty pictures - that also function as QR codes. And they really work
Is this the first example of “art” that humans simply couldn’t do, no matter how talented?
A human could do this. It would be laborious, to be sure, but the principle is easy enough. It's still quite a leap of imagination to think of doing it, though, so kudos to the person who dreamt it up.
Fair enough. Try this
It still has that quality of “teenage album cover design” but now it’s “Christ what an amazing teenage album cover design”. For me this is even more impressive than the QR code. AI art is leaping ahead - again
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
A cool photo from NYC. Except it isn’t. It’s an AI-created puzzle. Can anyone work it out?
That's really good! Took me a moment to get it, but once you see it, you can't unsee it.
It’s like those 3D “magic” images from 20 years ago, where you had to unfocus your eyes to get the hidden picture, except this is much better and far cleverer, and a machine can make them in milliseconds
These will soon be in advertising billboards everywhere. Led By Donkeys/Lab missing a trick if they don't have one comprising the leading cabinet members that reads 'TOSSERS'
Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.
I would now be legit terrified as a professional artist
AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before
Art as we know it is over
My wife is an artist. AI doesn’t compete with her because it’s simply another medium, like paint vs sculpture vs printing. People buy the person, the buying experience, the gallery of studio visit etc. Same as Nespresso doesn’t compete with barista coffee bars.
The biggest competition remains IKEA and Farrow & Ball. Art is, except at the very top end of the market, a home deco choice. They agonise way more over paying £200 for an etching than they would paying £200 for a meal out because it’s a decorative choice.
WRT Sunak's move, there are separate issues to unravel.
Electorally I doubt if it can help him much, but it is not impossible that it makes Labour make mistakes. They may have made a mistake in affirming 2030 for old style cars, as the EU is not in line.
As Sunak will probably lose it would be better if he lost with dignity on a centrist non populist Toryism, the sort they need back if they are to govern again and attract stellar future ministers.
It looks like he has chosen the populist/DM/Sun path, and there will be lots more to come.
This has betting implications. I would still be cautious about betting the farm on Labour 326+ seats.
The other big set of issues is about the actuality. The 2050 target is not going to be met globally (the only relevant measure) without impossible and very unlikely amounts of atmospheric capture. In the light of that harsh fact all parties who want to govern will have to be pragmatic.
Strangely, all voters know this about 2050, but almost no-one will say so. But it will affect votes.
As John Redwood (mostly right this morning) said, the best plan would be to picket the Chinese embassy.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.
I would now be legit terrified as a professional artist
AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before
Art as we know it is over
My wife is an artist. AI doesn’t compete with her because it’s simply another medium, like paint vs sculpture vs printing. People buy the person, the buying experience, the gallery of studio visit etc. Same as Nespresso doesn’t compete with barista coffee bars.
The biggest competition remains IKEA and Farrow & Ball. Art is, except at the very top end of the market, a home deco choice. They agonise way more over paying £200 for an etching than they would paying £200 for a meal out because it’s a decorative choice.
Hmmm
What’s to stop someone “pretending” to be an artist, like your wife - they could even mock up a studio - but actually getting DALLE3 to do the hard work?
For the moment she’s probably OK as it’s still very hard to fake real paint with real brushwork, but that may change
Anyone working in printed, published or digital art is screwed already. Illustrators etc. Graphic designers. Everyone in Hollywood (hence the strike)
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Constitutional protection around free speech applies to government action. It has no impact on what a social media company can do. It does not apply to the actions of Rumble. Rumble routinely blocks material from its platform.
Yes, if it breaks their policies they're within their rights to act.
They're also within their rights to tell a politician who while acting in an official capacity as a politician insists that speech gets taken down, that the first amendment applies.
They're within their rights to tell a politician that. I mean, it's nonsense, it's not true, but free speech means they could say something that's stupid.
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
It is true though, if they're based in America then the first amendment does apply.
The first amendment doesn't protect Rumble's users from Rumble's policies, but it does protect Rumble from overzealous politicians wanting to violate free speech.
If a politician implies something, on official paperwork, but without having any legal basis for doing so, then the precedent set in Arkell v Pressdram applies too.
The first amendment does not apply in this case. Had a US politician done that, it would apply, but that's not happened. The first amendment does not apply to a UK politician writing to Rumble. (And, to repeat, Rumble have made zero claim that the first amendment does apply, presumably because they understand the situation better than a couple of PBers.)
Unless they're under British jurisdiction then it does, as far as I'm aware (and I may be wrong) most of these firms have their servers in America to ensure they're under American jurisdiction, so yes it does apply.
And no they've not said it applies, they've said free speech applies. The two are fairly interchangeable in America. And they've given the UK politician short shrift, which is fair enough, because the UK politician was overreaching and deserves short shrift.
I’m not saying they’re under British jurisdiction. I’m saying a US company is under no obligation to do anything about a letter from a UK politician, and they don’t need to invoke the first amendment for that to be true. The US Constitution limits the action of the US government. It does not limit what a UK politician can do, but what a UK politician can do, is, of course, basically nothing. What are you not understanding here?
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
Someone made a comment on here yesterday, (I can't remember who), which I thought was very telling. It said something like "This new policy has managed to unite the car companies and green activists". Whoever wrote that obviously thought that they were showing how two totally different groups had been brought together by the policy in an unusual way. But to a lot of other people, those two groups are all part of the same "elite", and so it wouldn't be surprising at all from their point of view.
I have never before thought of the Ford Motor Company as a fully paid up member of the liberal elitist blob.
Remember that populist logic requires certain things to be a cancer that needs cutting out? It stands to reason that the blob would be ever growing and metastasising. It certainly wouldn’t be a small benign tumour.
The blob is, remember, both weak and strong too.
Allister Heath’s article encapsulates the Rayan Gibbons quote that “if you run into an asshole today, you ran into an asshole; if you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole”.
As for the legendary Davos. It’s a conference and talking shop, well marketed by the organisers. A few of my colleagues go (I’ve never got an invitation therefore I am a man of the people). Nobody makes any decisions there. The main complaint seems to be the accommodation prices go mad that week.
I know all that. However, it must also be seen as a very powerful pressure group, given its reach and the importance its participants give to staying on message. Starmer famously expressed a preference for Davos over Westminster, and went on to announce his policy of winding up our oil industry at the conference. Mexican Pete was expressing a rather outdated view that business leaders aren't a part of this nexus, when they absolutely are.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
The gift to Labour would be an automotive declaring they will stick to UK EV investment plans because they are expecting a Labour government from next year.
Unlikely but not impossible, say in an interview.
Remember any automotive investment here is on a knife edge anyway because of the huge wider cost pressures on the industry, the importance of proximity to battery manufacturing and the customs friction at the border.
A cool photo from NYC. Except it isn’t. It’s an AI-created puzzle. Can anyone work it out?
That's really good! Took me a moment to get it, but once you see it, you can't unsee it.
It’s like those 3D “magic” images from 20 years ago, where you had to unfocus your eyes to get the hidden picture, except this is much better and far cleverer, and a machine can make them in milliseconds
These will soon be in advertising billboards everywhere. Led By Donkeys/Lab missing a trick if they don't have one comprising the leading cabinet members that reads 'TOSSERS'
Yes they’re PERFECT for ads and billboards. Because they’re so beguiling - you keep looking at them to find the word/logo
They invoke scrutiny, which is every advertiser’s dream
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
I'm just pointing the route to Net Zero really does matter, from an environmental perspective. The sooner the better, particularly for low hanging fruit like ground transport.
The strangest thing is that Sunak is deliberately slowing one of our fastest growing sectors. If you're interested in productivity growth, as you claim, then this is a disaster.
AI is now generating pretty pictures - that also function as QR codes. And they really work
Is this the first example of “art” that humans simply couldn’t do, no matter how talented?
A human could do this. It would be laborious, to be sure, but the principle is easy enough. It's still quite a leap of imagination to think of doing it, though, so kudos to the person who dreamt it up.
Fair enough. Try this
It still has that quality of “teenage album cover design” but now it’s “Christ what an amazing teenage album cover design”. For me this is even more impressive than the QR code. AI art is leaping ahead - again
Mediocre gimmicks
Perhaps. But it is still extremely clever
Maybe. But nothing about it detains my attention. Whereas last week I spent 20 minutes in front of a minor work by a minor painter in York's Art Gallery and I would happily travel a long way to see it again. When AI can do that for me I'll change my mind.
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
See here
Thanks.
I couldn't get it , but I showed it to my dear wife who immediately said 'obey'
Mind you I have had 60 plus years of doing so, and she is amazing with puzzles
I think this must be one of those visual tricks like the "what colour is the dress" meme where you either see it one way or another. I saw it immediately and was slightly puzzled that others can't.
Yes, there have been complaints it is putting self-employed artists out of business, which is sad. You'd have hoped AI would replace the sort of mass-produced wall art sold in Wilko and the like.
I would now be legit terrified as a professional artist
AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before
Art as we know it is over
My wife is an artist. AI doesn’t compete with her because it’s simply another medium, like paint vs sculpture vs printing. People buy the person, the buying experience, the gallery of studio visit etc. Same as Nespresso doesn’t compete with barista coffee bars.
The biggest competition remains IKEA and Farrow & Ball. Art is, except at the very top end of the market, a home deco choice. They agonise way more over paying £200 for an etching than they would paying £200 for a meal out because it’s a decorative choice.
Hmmm
What’s to stop someone “pretending” to be an artist, like your wife - they could even mock up a studio - but actually getting DALLE3 to do the hard work?
For the moment she’s probably OK as it’s still very hard to fake real paint with real brushwork, but that may change
Anyone working in printed, published or digital art is screwed already. Illustrators etc. Graphic designers. Everyone in Hollywood (hence the strike)
Not enough money in it for them to bother. In art you’re either scraping a living or so well known that the passing off isn’t possible.
I agree it’s the mass product where the “terroir” doesn’t count where the revolution is. Same way Aussie wine replaced much cheap French plonk on the UK market but people kept buying small producers with a story, even at the cheap end.
Some irony here. Maybe they extinguished the fire with Pepsi Max?
As a result of the latest missile strike by russian terrorists, the @PepsiCo factory in Vyshneve, Kyiv region, was devastated. PepsiCo is listed on the list of war sponsors since it still operates in russia. They paid for the missile that destroyed their facility with their taxes in russia. https://x.com/DefenceU/status/1704784431813111822?s=20
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Looks like that very intense Cape Verde hurricane is going to brush past the Caribbean islands and not make major destructive landfall. Good news for Rishi.
Could someone explain the photo to me because I can't see it. Though, superficial creature that I am, I do like the women's outfits - apart from the one with the silly grey stripe on her skirt.
See here
Thanks.
I couldn't get it , but I showed it to my dear wife who immediately said 'obey'
Mind you I have had 60 plus years of doing so, and she is amazing with puzzles
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
I had already read what I think is an excellent book by Graham Harvey (agricultural editor on The Archers!) called 'We Want Real Food', complaining that nitrogen fertilisers are increasing bulk and yield, but leading to a paucity of other minerals in our food (because it's all nitrogen basically). He argued for rock dust to remineralise soils, which has been done with considerable success in various places, as a potential substitute for nitrogen fertilisers. I don't know about this, but why not get it done anyway, and see what benefits we can gain? I believe it also helps with erosion.
New Hampshire yesterday! "Democrat Hal Rafter won by 12 points in a state House district that went narrowly for Donald Trump in 2020," wrote Post columnist Aaron Blake. "The 12-point improvement on the 2020 margin is in line with Democrats’ encouraging continued over-performances in special elections this year; Daily Kos Elections and FiveThirtyEight data on more than two dozen special elections show the party running an average of 7.6 points better than their 2020 margins — margins from a 2020 election that, it bears noting, were already good for Democrats — and double digits better than the normal partisan fundamentals."
"Rafter's election flipped a red seat to blue, bringing the populous statehouse to a 198-197 narrowly favoring Republicans, but that could become a tie if upcoming special elections break as expected, and frequent vacancies often tilt the balance of power for votes"
Interesting bearing in mind this was one of the Trumps states that he says he was cheated from winning!!!
I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?
Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
I'm no lawyer, bur seeing as he was apprehended outside the prison, how on earth is such a plea even possible?
Any number of defences available. Identity. No mens rea. Necessity. Coercion. Defect in the original process of imprisonment. Insanity. Assertion of human rights in the face of prison conditions.
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
Small point, is necessity really a defence? I thought there was a cannibalism case way back, when some sailors aboard a lifeboat drew lots and ate one of the party. They were convicted of murder establishing that necessity isn't a defence?
What you may claim was necessary isn’t necessarily what the judge and jury decide was necessary.
AI is now generating pretty pictures - that also function as QR codes. And they really work
Is this the first example of “art” that humans simply couldn’t do, no matter how talented?
A human could do this. It would be laborious, to be sure, but the principle is easy enough. It's still quite a leap of imagination to think of doing it, though, so kudos to the person who dreamt it up.
Fair enough. Try this
It still has that quality of “teenage album cover design” but now it’s “Christ what an amazing teenage album cover design”. For me this is even more impressive than the QR code. AI art is leaping ahead - again
Mediocre gimmicks
Perhaps. But it is still extremely clever
Maybe. But nothing about it detains my attention. Whereas last week I spent 20 minutes in front of a minor work by a minor painter in York's Art Gallery and I would happily travel a long way to see it again. When AI can do that for me I'll change my mind.
But that’s because you KNOW you are looking at human art. So you are emotionally prepared for and invested in the art beforehand
What would you do if you went into an art gallery and you knew 50% of the art was human, and 50% of the art was AI - but they didn’t tell you which? How would you react to the individual artworks?
You’d be clueless and disturbed (so would I, this is not an insult)
And if you think you’d always be able to tell the difference you’re delusional
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
Comments
So I expect 0.25% increase in interest rates to be announced today and for the two remaining MPC meetings this year. So 6.0% at the year end. That will probably be it.
I project CPI at Dec 2023 to be around 5.5% maybe slightly less, not below 5.0%.
Interest rates will not fall significantly until CPI moved towards 3%. This may not be achieved until end 2025. Even then rates are unlikely to fall below 3 to 4% long term.
Of course I may be wrong DYOR.
oh, sorry, techy you said.
Sure, it took a couple of centuries but it did in the end happen, and happened broadly incrementally through choices that consistently put the short-term easy option ahead of the long-term gain (precisely the opposite of what built Rome, and indeed, London, up), and created a political culture of expectations that proved incredibly difficult to break out of.
A couple of centuries is, of course, a long time. But then Rome was immensely superior to its neighbours. By contrast, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world, pre-WW2, by GDP per capita.
He is giving evidence today and is now straight out misleading at the Post Office inquiry when he says that a solicitor's attendance notes are just written for himself.
This is utter nonsense. They are not some sort of personal diary. They are attendance notes of calls and meetings needed to show what has been said and agreed in a case. They form part of the case file and are essential so that another lawyer can deal with the case should the original solicitor not be available. They are also used by costs clerks when an assessment of what costs the losing party should pay.
Keeping attendance notes and making sure they are accurate and complete is one of the key things that a good litigation solicitor should do. They are intended to be read by others.
I am going to have stop watching because my blood pressure may not stand a whole day of this.
What AI is doing is not art as such. It’s something else. Something new. And perhaps, scarily and ultimately, better
Talking of scary AI , I’ve just found a completely convincing fake of Elon Musk’s voice. Made in minutes. We will come to miss objective truth
The first amendment does not apply to what Rumble does. The first amendment does not apply to a letter from a UK politician. The first amendment does not apply here.
And, indeed, Rumble haven't made any such claim. They've said they believe in free speech and aren't going to listen to the letter sent, but they've not made any reference, that I can see, to the first amendment, presumably because they know the first amendment doesn't apply. It's just PB commenters who have brought the first amendment into this. And I am exercising my free speech to point out that the first amendment doesn't apply.
I'd also point out that Dinenage's letter does not "insist[] that speech gets taken down". It requests information from Rumble. It focuses on the monetisation of content, not on whether it is still present on the platform. It implies Rumble should demonetise Brand, but it doesn't actually ask Rumble to do that explicitly.
The first amendment doesn't protect Rumble's users from Rumble's policies, but it does protect Rumble from overzealous politicians wanting to violate free speech.
If a politician implies something, on official paperwork, but without having any legal basis for doing so, then the precedent set in Arkell v Pressdram applies too.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Just because it is the latter does not make it the former. Some relationships with a large age gap may work, be loving and not coercive or troubling. Others are the opposite. I had a relationship with someone a lot older than me at a relatively young adult age and it was wonderful. It did not last but it was never intended to and the man in question treated me as well as anyone I've ever been involved with, indeed a lot better than some younger men.
We also risk confusing the age of consent with giving consent. You cannot consent - legally - under the age of consent. But just because you are above it does not mean that you have actually freely consented. That is fact specific.
The other reason why I worry about such changes is that if you have a 2 year rule it will get the police involved in determining whether someone who is 18 + 1 day is acting illegally if they have a relationship with someone who is 15 + 364 days and so on.
That involves discretion and judgment and common sense and, frankly, the police (and many lawyers) are not always overburdened with these virtues.
We would do better to concentrate on teaching girls to stand up for themselves and boys and men to behave with decency and not treat the female sex as merely a hole to be fucked. The pornification of our culture, the revolting way women are talked about, the celebrities we praise, the indecency of our language and public behaviour - we would do well to deal with these rather than think that some change in the law will deal with the problems of predatory men.
This is potentially a game-changer. Why? Because you don’t even need to create a detailed prompt. You no longer have to say “a futuristic Victorian city
in hi-res 2023 anime style, award winning, flawless, hyper realistic, with visible brushwork etc etc”
With DALLE3 you can just say “do a mad steampunk city” or even just “make scary art” or “surprise me” and it will create images, endlessly
Paper waste, plastic, glass and cardboard, food, 2 x garden waste, and the bin
What would be a pain in the arse is having to separate all the different kinds of plastic waste, very little of which gets properly recycled anyway I believe: The solution to plastic waste is to generate less of it in the first place.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66876658
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
And no they've not said it applies, they've said free speech applies. The two are fairly interchangeable in America. And they've given the UK politician short shrift, which is fair enough, because the UK politician was overreaching and deserves short shrift.
AI is showing creativity and flair, and anyone can use it, and it produces images in seconds, 24/7, virtually for free - in any style, theme, genre - and now it produces stuff no one has ever conceived before
Art as we know it is over
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
https://thepeoplespicture.com/mona-lisa-ey/
I’ve been pointing this out on PB for years
Good morning, everyone.
The sun shining in through my front window looks fairly real to me...perhaps it isn’t? Am I trapped in a Truman Show-esque woke dream of LTNs, recycling and ULEZ zones everywhere?
But I'm so not worried - yelp.
What am I missing
@TheScreamingEagles should appreciate it. Lol
The blob is, remember, both weak and strong too.
Allister Heath’s article encapsulates the Rayan Gibbons quote that “if you run into an asshole today, you ran into an asshole; if you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole”.
As for the legendary Davos. It’s a conference and talking shop, well marketed by the organisers. A few of my colleagues go (I’ve never got an invitation therefore I am a man of the people). Nobody makes any decisions there. The main complaint seems to be the accommodation prices go mad that week.
Mind you I have had 60 plus years of doing so, and she is amazing with puzzles
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/managing-uk-agriculture-rock-dust-could-absorb-45-cent-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-needed-net-zero
The biggest competition remains IKEA and Farrow & Ball. Art is, except at the very top end of the market, a home deco choice. They agonise way more over paying £200 for an etching than they would paying £200 for a meal out because it’s a decorative choice.
Electorally I doubt if it can help him much, but it is not impossible that it makes Labour make mistakes. They may have made a mistake in affirming 2030 for old style cars, as the EU is not in line.
As Sunak will probably lose it would be better if he lost with dignity on a centrist non populist Toryism, the sort they need back if they are to govern again and attract stellar future ministers.
It looks like he has chosen the populist/DM/Sun path, and there will be lots more to come.
This has betting implications. I would still be cautious about betting the farm on Labour 326+ seats.
The other big set of issues is about the actuality. The 2050 target is not going to be met globally (the only relevant measure) without impossible and very unlikely amounts of atmospheric capture. In the light of that harsh fact all parties who want to govern will have to be pragmatic.
Strangely, all voters know this about 2050, but almost no-one will say so. But it will affect votes.
As John Redwood (mostly right this morning) said, the best plan would be to picket the Chinese embassy.
What’s to stop someone “pretending” to be an artist, like your wife - they could even mock up a studio - but actually getting DALLE3 to do the hard work?
For the moment she’s probably OK as it’s still very hard to fake real paint with real brushwork, but that may change
Anyone working in printed, published or digital art is screwed already. Illustrators etc. Graphic designers. Everyone in Hollywood (hence the strike)
Unlikely but not impossible, say in an interview.
Remember any automotive investment here is on a knife edge anyway because of the huge wider cost pressures on the industry, the importance of proximity to battery manufacturing and the customs friction at the border.
They invoke scrutiny, which is every advertiser’s dream
They will surely be exploited soon
The strangest thing is that Sunak is deliberately slowing one of our fastest growing sectors. If you're interested in productivity growth, as you claim, then this is a disaster.
https://www.friendsofyorkartgallery.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Liverpool-Docks-at-Night-by-J-Atkinson-Grimshaw.pdf
I agree it’s the mass product where the “terroir” doesn’t count where the revolution is. Same way Aussie wine replaced much cheap French plonk on the UK market but people kept buying small producers with a story, even at the cheap end.
As a result of the latest missile strike by russian terrorists, the
@PepsiCo
factory in Vyshneve, Kyiv region, was devastated. PepsiCo is listed on the list of war sponsors since it still operates in russia. They paid for the missile that destroyed their facility with their taxes in russia.
https://x.com/DefenceU/status/1704784431813111822?s=20
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
"Democrat Hal Rafter won by 12 points in a state House district that went narrowly for Donald Trump in 2020," wrote Post columnist Aaron Blake. "The 12-point improvement on the 2020 margin is in line with Democrats’ encouraging continued over-performances in special elections this year; Daily Kos Elections and FiveThirtyEight data on more than two dozen special elections show the party running an average of 7.6 points better than their 2020 margins — margins from a 2020 election that, it bears noting, were already good for Democrats — and double digits better than the normal partisan fundamentals."
"Rafter's election flipped a red seat to blue, bringing the populous statehouse to a 198-197 narrowly favoring Republicans, but that could become a tie if upcoming special elections break as expected, and frequent vacancies often tilt the balance of power for votes"
Interesting bearing in mind this was one of the Trumps states that he says he was cheated from winning!!!
Such a plea is possible for the simple reason that no-one can be criminally convicted except by proper process, and people are entitled not to convict themselves by pleading guilty. (If you remain mute, a NG plea is entered in default). NG means "prove it".
But then I saw PORNHUB and now I can’t NOT see it. You can’t go back. On odd psychovisual phenomenon
What would you do if you went into an art gallery and you knew 50% of the art was human, and 50% of the art was AI - but they didn’t tell you which? How would you react to the individual artworks?
You’d be clueless and disturbed (so would I, this is not an insult)
And if you think you’d always be able to tell the difference you’re delusional
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.