If you choose to make a political point out of looking "into the eyes of people I’ve served and represented" over 20 year legal career as a reason to be elected to No10 - as Starmer did on Jan 4 - then the public have a right to know what that actually entailed
Struggling to see your point. These are all campaigns to stop criminals being sentenced to death for their crimes not to release them. Seems like an ethical campaign to me.
I am no fan of Starmer and I'm sure this type of campaigning works but it is immoral and intended to make him seem as bad or worse than Boris, which he isn't. And anyway Boris isn't there now.
It is identical to @TheKitchenCabinet re Biden and Trump. There is no hiding Trumps flaws so lets try and imply Biden is as bad. He isn't, not by a long way.
Honestly, why would you say ‘your point’ when it is a tweet from The Sun’s political editor?
Doh. Well because you posted it, presumably to make YOUR point.
It’s a follow up from his earlier tweet that I posted and people criticised me for.
Either way, if it was my point how can you struggle to see it? In fact you don’t struggle to see it, as you’ve said what it is in your second paragraph
Sorry this is getting bizarre. So you are saying I do see your point because I have said what it is in my 2nd paragraph. You freely admit what I have said in my 2nd paragraph is your point? You really are? I was giving you credit for the fact that you couldn't possibly mean that.
Let's us get this clear you are saying that you approve of campaigns that immorally try and make politicians look worse by misrepresenting ethical actions as evil.
You are really saying that?
The way you’ve put that is too annoying to get involved with
Well I understand the feeling because your two previous posts to me were just off the scale bizarre to put it mildly. May I suggest it is because you are trying to justify an unjustifiable position (as pointed out by many here). By all means rubbish Starmer (he is not my cup of tea either) but try not going into the gutter to do it.
Harry Cole made a comment on Social media
I posted it on here
We got into a tiswas over whose ‘point’ it was
You said you struggled to understand said point
Then defined what the point was
So you weren’t struggling to see it
I don’t have a big opinion really about the death penalty, but Harry Cole’s second tweet adds context to his point - if Sir Keir is going to constantly refer to his time as DPP and as a legal eagle as evidence of his moral character, which he does, then he opens himself up to people digging out bits that might put people off him as well
First real day back after a lovely Christmas holiday in Barcelona with one thing on my mind - people who dislike the idea of 15 minute cities are insane. Staying at my friends flat we were one block away from a square with 2 independent cafes, 2 independent pharmacies, an independent bakery, an independent fruit and veg shop, and a Spanish brand shop chain place. And a square like this was every 5-6 blocks. Not to mention all the independent butchers (as a vegetarian, no use for, but still good to see) and the ease of walking, the inclusion of regular benches and space for small greens / plazas and the general slower pace of Mediterranean living. Rinse and repeat here, please and thank you.
You need a certain density to make that work though. Take a typical British suburb at about 15 dwelling per hectare, net; you wouldn't be able to support anything like that number of businesses. I'm not saying you're wrong - but outside Central London, there's very few places you can do it without starting from scratch. (Though where you can start from scratch - as Manchester has essentially done since 1990 - I think you should).
Sure, but 15 minute cities are, as the name suggests, aimed at cities - not suburbs or villages (although I think some of this ethos could work for suburbs, just not at that density). Barcelona is more like a 2 minute city!
They're also called 15-minute neighbourhoods and they work exceptionally well in large villages/small towns.
I live in one such - a small place with a population of 3,000 people. Within a few minutes' walk are the supermarket, railway station, surgery, dentists, primary school, pubs, cafes, churches, park/playground. We have a fairly dense urban form (old houses rather than big-garden suburbia) and that helps; the kids just go to the trampoline in the park rather than having one in their back garden.
Our justice system is one of the better ones & it’s still prone to significant miscarriages. The Sun & Sunak were happy to label the Iranian regime “barbaric” for using the death penalty. Shame this poor man didn’t have the benefit of Starmer’s services
The Sun editorial attacking Starmer actually states the Sun opposes the death penalty. It's self-refuting.
Interesting though that Rupe and his favourite cat’s paw aren’t backing SKS and in fact attacking him. A fair bit of backtracking to do if they’re going adopt Murdoch’s sop of backing the likely winner.
It is funny isn't it. The Murdoch nexus was the media backing of the 'get Rishi in' campaign, but they did seem to have gone sour on him - perhaps when the full scale of his crapness became clear. I thought they'd reluctantly back Starmer as inevitable. If so, they're not really doing themselves any favours.
To what degree does the Sun lead opinion versus follow it? I think if the Sun decided to stick by Rishi no matter what, its readership would disagree and potentially stop buying. This is one of the weird push and pulls of UK papers; unlike Fox News (which manages to seep into the brains of elderly Americans by dint of just constantly being on in the background) the right wing papers have to be sought out and bought. That allows you to shape narratives, and respond to the world in the way that suits you, but it doesn't allow you to completely ignore reality. Most people think Rishi is shit, so the Sun has to have some view on that.
Agreed. My belief is that the Sun is very good at knowing what its readership want to read, and follows more than most. I'd say much the same is true of Fox news, tbh. There is just as much of a market in TV news as there is in newspapers. Fox has identified a market for consumers who want stories set out in that way and follows it.
I'm not sure if the Murdoch press seek to back winners in order to curry favour with their readers. I've always thought of it more is being about maintaining influence.
"It woz the Sun wot won it!" is a great line, not because it sells newspapers but because the political class believe they need Murdoch's favour and cannot afford to anger him, and that's rather helpful for access and favourable policies.
A huge number of Sun readers aren't particularly bothered about the editorial line - they might be influenced by it, but it's not what they buy the paper for. It's about juicy showbiz gossip and sport scoops. Do they lose a lot of readers due to being a bit mean to Starmer, Sunak, or even Davey? I suspect not - their readers don't have massive reserves of sympathy for any of these people.
Our justice system is one of the better ones & it’s still prone to significant miscarriages. The Sun & Sunak were happy to label the Iranian regime “barbaric” for using the death penalty. Shame this poor man didn’t have the benefit of Starmer’s services
The Sun editorial attacking Starmer actually states the Sun opposes the death penalty. It's self-refuting.
Interesting though that Rupe and his favourite cat’s paw aren’t backing SKS and in fact attacking him. A fair bit of backtracking to do if they’re going adopt Murdoch’s sop of backing the likely winner.
It is funny isn't it. The Murdoch nexus was the media backing of the 'get Rishi in' campaign, but they did seem to have gone sour on him - perhaps when the full scale of his crapness became clear. I thought they'd reluctantly back Starmer as inevitable. If so, they're not really doing themselves any favours.
To what degree does the Sun lead opinion versus follow it? I think if the Sun decided to stick by Rishi no matter what, its readership would disagree and potentially stop buying. This is one of the weird push and pulls of UK papers; unlike Fox News (which manages to seep into the brains of elderly Americans by dint of just constantly being on in the background) the right wing papers have to be sought out and bought. That allows you to shape narratives, and respond to the world in the way that suits you, but it doesn't allow you to completely ignore reality. Most people think Rishi is shit, so the Sun has to have some view on that.
The days of the Sun making the weather (if they ever truly existed) are over but they’ve definitely been a bellwether over the years; they were even neutral over B*****! Backing stone cold loser Rishi would be a bit of a departure.
Going back to the previous thread topic, I do wonder if one of the reasons Daisy hasn't yet been able to get the top spot in the LDs is because she has been involved in the post Levenson world of media regulation advocacy, and therefore a) it is in no papers interest to shiv Ed Davies in favour of someone who might use their (smallish) platform to come after them and b) she doesn't have the kind of connections in the papers that get her positive coverage that could become a launching pad for a leadership battle. She would be the perfect villain for the Sun - a dogooder who is arguably to the left of Starmer on many things, but is actually quite attractive so their readers can hate her and fancy her at the same time.
Our justice system is one of the better ones & it’s still prone to significant miscarriages. The Sun & Sunak were happy to label the Iranian regime “barbaric” for using the death penalty. Shame this poor man didn’t have the benefit of Starmer’s services
The Sun editorial attacking Starmer actually states the Sun opposes the death penalty. It's self-refuting.
Interesting though that Rupe and his favourite cat’s paw aren’t backing SKS and in fact attacking him. A fair bit of backtracking to do if they’re going adopt Murdoch’s sop of backing the likely winner.
It is funny isn't it. The Murdoch nexus was the media backing of the 'get Rishi in' campaign, but they did seem to have gone sour on him - perhaps when the full scale of his crapness became clear. I thought they'd reluctantly back Starmer as inevitable. If so, they're not really doing themselves any favours.
To what degree does the Sun lead opinion versus follow it? I think if the Sun decided to stick by Rishi no matter what, its readership would disagree and potentially stop buying. This is one of the weird push and pulls of UK papers; unlike Fox News (which manages to seep into the brains of elderly Americans by dint of just constantly being on in the background) the right wing papers have to be sought out and bought. That allows you to shape narratives, and respond to the world in the way that suits you, but it doesn't allow you to completely ignore reality. Most people think Rishi is shit, so the Sun has to have some view on that.
The Sun's circulation, like others, has collapsed from 3.8m in 1997, it is now estimated* to be c. 700,000, down over 3m.
Against that, an estimated 47% of the population visit the Sun online every month but how many of those read the editorials or articles about politics? I'd stick my neck out and say hardly any.
Noticed some surprising changes in the secondary questions in the Redfield poll noted earlier (with the 16-point Labour lead, down 2):
* The number who say they don't know has shrunk - down to 10% of 2019 Tories and 3% of 2019 Labour * Ex-Tories now divide evenly 15% Labour 15% Reform, with 54% loyal. * Net Government competence rating has improved from -30 to -19, and Sunak's rating has risen from -19 to -15 * Starmer is well up as well, from +4 to +18, and his lead in a forced choice with Sunak has grown from +7 to +15.
These changes are all well outside MOE, and presumably reflect a calmer month with people a bit less disillusioned with everything.
First real day back after a lovely Christmas holiday in Barcelona with one thing on my mind - people who dislike the idea of 15 minute cities are insane. Staying at my friends flat we were one block away from a square with 2 independent cafes, 2 independent pharmacies, an independent bakery, an independent fruit and veg shop, and a Spanish brand shop chain place. And a square like this was every 5-6 blocks. Not to mention all the independent butchers (as a vegetarian, no use for, but still good to see) and the ease of walking, the inclusion of regular benches and space for small greens / plazas and the general slower pace of Mediterranean living. Rinse and repeat here, please and thank you.
You need a certain density to make that work though. Take a typical British suburb at about 15 dwelling per hectare, net; you wouldn't be able to support anything like that number of businesses. I'm not saying you're wrong - but outside Central London, there's very few places you can do it without starting from scratch. (Though where you can start from scratch - as Manchester has essentially done since 1990 - I think you should).
Sure, but 15 minute cities are, as the name suggests, aimed at cities - not suburbs or villages (although I think some of this ethos could work for suburbs, just not at that density). Barcelona is more like a 2 minute city!
They're also called 15-minute neighbourhoods and they work exceptionally well in large villages/small towns.
I live in one such - a small place with a population of 3,000 people. Within a few minutes' walk are the supermarket, railway station, surgery, dentists, primary school, pubs, cafes, churches, park/playground. We have a fairly dense urban form (old houses rather than big-garden suburbia) and that helps; the kids just go to the trampoline in the park rather than having one in their back garden.
This is part of how London works - outside the centre, it is a set of small towns and villages that got absorbed as London spread. The best and most popular neighbourhoods retain the structure of the village high street, and other localised amenities.
On the Apollo project: I have long thought that the original error was JFK's. He should have made our objective to become a space faring nation, rather than beat the Russkies to the moon. If we had made that our objective, we would have gotten to the moon a little later, but could have built a sustainable space program, instead of one that floundered after Apollo.
(I'm not sure how well the need for reusable rockets was understood back then, but I think it's the key advance in recent years.)
On the Apollo project: I have long thought that the original error was JFK's. He should have made our objective to become a space faring nation, rather than beat the Russkies to the moon. If we had made that our objective, we would have gotten to the moon a little later, but could have built a sustainable space program, instead of one that floundered after Apollo.
(I'm not sure how well the need for reusable rockets was understood back then, but I think it's the key advance in recent years.)
NASA had plans for a reusable Saturn V - including flyback version, which would fly back to a runway. From memory, von Braun said that government would have to order a couple of hundred Saturn V's to make it worthwhile...
Companies have been looking at reusability of rockets for as long as there have been rockets; but the costs have always been such that there would need to be many, many launches to make development worthwhile. Computers have changed this equation a great deal, both in terms of modelling and control.
In all of the excitement about how Starmer drove SPM's to suicide we have missed the accounts being published for Teesworks.
Headline is that the private developers are making a fortune with assets gifted to them by the taxpayer. Lost in the middle is a nugget about land. Ben Houchen International Airport got very het up when various people stated that land had been sold to the developers for £100. An outrageous lie said Houchen, who then spent £7k with Carter Fuck looking to sue Andy McDonald MP for libel.
The published accounts show that the land was sold for £97. So, one of two things is true: Houchen knew what McDonald said was true and was willing to sue anyway as its politically embarrassing Houchen didn't know what was going on but thought a pile on would be politically good
Historical corruption in the industrial North and Wales could be pinned on Labour authorities for a century. Now the Conservatives are in the ascendency in working class toilets like 'Boro, the corruption continues. Perhaps grifters have no real party allegiance but simply pin the most convenient coloured rosette on their lapel in order to grift. Similarly the SNP in Scotland.
On the Apollo project: I have long thought that the original error was JFK's. He should have made our objective to become a space faring nation, rather than beat the Russkies to the moon. If we had made that our objective, we would have gotten to the moon a little later, but could have built a sustainable space program, instead of one that floundered after Apollo.
(I'm not sure how well the need for reusable rockets was understood back then, but I think it's the key advance in recent years.)
NASA had plans for a reusable Saturn V - including flyback version, which would fly back to a runway. From memory, von Braun said that government would have to order a couple of hundred Saturn V's to make it worthwhile...
Companies have been looking at reusability of rockets for as long as there have been rockets; but the costs have always been such that there would need to be many, many launches to make development worthwhile. Computers have changed this equation a great deal, both in terms of modelling and control.
SpaceX launched 98 times last year. Looking at 144 times this year.
The landing suicide burn aside, the Falcon 9 could have been done anytime since the late 50s - though with lower efficiency.
In all of the excitement about how Starmer drove SPM's to suicide we have missed the accounts being published for Teesworks.
Headline is that the private developers are making a fortune with assets gifted to them by the taxpayer. Lost in the middle is a nugget about land. Ben Houchen International Airport got very het up when various people stated that land had been sold to the developers for £100. An outrageous lie said Houchen, who then spent £7k with Carter Fuck looking to sue Andy McDonald MP for libel.
The published accounts show that the land was sold for £97. So, one of two things is true: Houchen knew what McDonald said was true and was willing to sue anyway as its politically embarrassing Houchen didn't know what was going on but thought a pile on would be politically good
Historical corruption in the industrial North and Wales could be pinned on Labour authorities for a century. Now the Conservatives are in the ascendency in working class toilets like 'Boro, the corruption continues. Perhaps grifters have no real party allegiance but simply pin the most convenient coloured rosette on their lapel in order to grift. Similarly the SNP in Scotland.
https://twitter.com/SeanSafyre/status/1744138937239822685 Found an iPhone on the side of the road... Still in airplane mode with half a battery and open to a baggage claim for #AlaskaAirlines ASA1282 Survived a 16,000 foot drop perfectly intact!
Sounds impressive, but although it would have taken half an hour to reach the ground, its speed of impact would be the same as dropping it from less than ten feet above the ground, I think?
You and Cookie are probably right - for a skydiver, max veolocity is more or less reached in 200 metres - a phone is denser and would accelerate faster, but we're probably talking somewhere around a fairly high building.
The answer to how it survived is mostly to do with what it landed on, as anyone who has ever dropped a phone will know.
An IPhone will accelerate at 9.81m/s so will a human density is never a factor in gravitational acceleration. The only thing that affects the acceleration will be air resistance. Otherwise everything accelerates at the same rate imposed by gravity
Is there any limit to acceleration?
I mean, if, from stationary, after 1 sec the object has fallen 9.81 m and after 2 secs it has fallen more than 2 x 9.81m (as it is accelerating) is there any limit to the maximum speed it will reach?
In a vacuum, no. In air, yes - because the upward force of air resistance increases as you go faster until it is equal to the force of gravity. This is called terminal velocity. At this point, you don't accelerate any faster. For a human, I think this is about 120mph - 200mph depending on body position (you will go faster if you are 'diving' and therefore minimising air resistance). My gut feeling is that the air resistance on an iphone will be lower than on a human, so it will have a faster terminal velocity. But it will still reach it within, I would say, the time it takes to fall from a tall building. So if it falls out of a plane it will probably reach terminal velocity within, ooh, 30 seconds or so, I would say.
Almost correct. The iphone's terminal velocity is lower as it's drag force will equal it's weight much sooner. They used to say that a penny dropped off a skyscraper will dent the pavement. It won't because it's so light it reaches a very low terminal velocity very quickly.
https://twitter.com/SeanSafyre/status/1744138937239822685 Found an iPhone on the side of the road... Still in airplane mode with half a battery and open to a baggage claim for #AlaskaAirlines ASA1282 Survived a 16,000 foot drop perfectly intact!
Sounds impressive, but although it would have taken half an hour to reach the ground, its speed of impact would be the same as dropping it from less than ten feet above the ground, I think?
You and Cookie are probably right - for a skydiver, max veolocity is more or less reached in 200 metres - a phone is denser and would accelerate faster, but we're probably talking somewhere around a fairly high building.
The answer to how it survived is mostly to do with what it landed on, as anyone who has ever dropped a phone will know.
An IPhone will accelerate at 9.81m/s so will a human density is never a factor in gravitational acceleration. The only thing that affects the acceleration will be air resistance. Otherwise everything accelerates at the same rate imposed by gravity
Is there any limit to acceleration?
I mean, if, from stationary, after 1 sec the object has fallen 9.81 m and after 2 secs it has fallen more than 2 x 9.81m (as it is accelerating) is there any limit to the maximum speed it will reach?
In a vacuum, no. In air, yes - because the upward force of air resistance increases as you go faster until it is equal to the force of gravity. This is called terminal velocity. At this point, you don't accelerate any faster. For a human, I think this is about 120mph - 200mph depending on body position (you will go faster if you are 'diving' and therefore minimising air resistance). My gut feeling is that the air resistance on an iphone will be lower than on a human, so it will have a faster terminal velocity. But it will still reach it within, I would say, the time it takes to fall from a tall building. So if it falls out of a plane it will probably reach terminal velocity within, ooh, 30 seconds or so, I would say.
Almost correct. The iphone's terminal velocity is lower as it's drag force will equal it's weight much sooner. They used to say that a penny dropped off a skyscraper will dent the pavement. It won't because it's so light it reaches a very low terminal velocity very quickly.
Depends which way you drop it. Face parallel to the ground, yes. If it falls edge on (admittedly much harder), the drag is lower and the TV is faster.
Comments
I posted it on here
We got into a tiswas over whose ‘point’ it was
You said you struggled to understand said point
Then defined what the point was
So you weren’t struggling to see it
I don’t have a big opinion really about the death penalty, but Harry Cole’s second tweet adds context to his point - if Sir Keir is going to constantly refer to his time as DPP and as a legal eagle as evidence of his moral character, which he does, then he opens himself up to people digging out bits that might put people off him as well
I live in one such - a small place with a population of 3,000 people. Within a few minutes' walk are the supermarket, railway station, surgery, dentists, primary school, pubs, cafes, churches, park/playground. We have a fairly dense urban form (old houses rather than big-garden suburbia) and that helps; the kids just go to the trampoline in the park rather than having one in their back garden.
"It woz the Sun wot won it!" is a great line, not because it sells newspapers but because the political class believe they need Murdoch's favour and cannot afford to anger him, and that's rather helpful for access and favourable policies.
A huge number of Sun readers aren't particularly bothered about the editorial line - they might be influenced by it, but it's not what they buy the paper for. It's about juicy showbiz gossip and sport scoops. Do they lose a lot of readers due to being a bit mean to Starmer, Sunak, or even Davey? I suspect not - their readers don't have massive reserves of sympathy for any of these people.
Against that, an estimated 47% of the population visit the Sun online every month but how many of those read the editorials or articles about politics? I'd stick my neck out and say hardly any.
(*https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_business/dmgt-daily-mail-telegraph-acquisition-market-share/)
* The number who say they don't know has shrunk - down to 10% of 2019 Tories and 3% of 2019 Labour
* Ex-Tories now divide evenly 15% Labour 15% Reform, with 54% loyal.
* Net Government competence rating has improved from -30 to -19, and Sunak's rating has risen from -19 to -15
* Starmer is well up as well, from +4 to +18, and his lead in a forced choice with Sunak has grown from +7 to +15.
These changes are all well outside MOE, and presumably reflect a calmer month with people a bit less disillusioned with everything.
(I'm not sure how well the need for reusable rockets was understood back then, but I think it's the key advance in recent years.)
e.g. http://www.astronautix.com/w/wingedsaturnv.html
https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/space-and-exploration-n09897/lot.38.html
Companies have been looking at reusability of rockets for as long as there have been rockets; but the costs have always been such that there would need to be many, many launches to make development worthwhile. Computers have changed this equation a great deal, both in terms of modelling and control.
The landing suicide burn aside, the Falcon 9 could have been done anytime since the late 50s - though with lower efficiency.