Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
Britain is an interesting case because in many respects our climate and weather are mild and boring but in one respect - our line of latitude - we are quite an outlier. The gulf stream means we don't pay the price for it except the one aspect it can't ameliorate - the amount of winter sunlight. It doesn't bother me much because I'm used to it - and it's not as bad in London as where I grew up - but when I'm in sunnier climes I do feel a little more vital and alive.
I’m pretty sure I am an actual case of SAD. It’s taken me decades to accept it and understand it - and also decades to earn the money or employment where I can go to nice sunny places in the European winter, to realise the difference
But there is no question. I feel more vital and alive in the sun, and much less depressive than I would be, enduring a British January and February
My soul almost literally lightens when I step out into the soft summery warmth of a tropical evening
Severely Annoying Dude?
You should delete that. For the later health of your Cringe Gland
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
I, genuinely, feel sorry for Charlotte as the first female official "spare" in recent memory.
Princess of Wales admitted to hospital for surgery and will return to duties around Easter
I can't keep up with the Royals, given they've recently all changed title for the first time in my lifetime - that'll be Katherine, will it?
ETA: And I don't like to repeat what others are saying rather than just liking relevant posts, but as I'm replying to you directly, I hope all goes well with your son in law and he is treated and home soon.
Yes, it's Katherine. The Palace is always stupidly reticent with details but two weeks in hospital and 3 months recovering sounds pretty major.
That sounds like…. Various things I don’t want to even mention
Ugh
God save the Princess of Wales!
And I mean it. She’s my favourite royal. Poised, decorous, gracious, grand daughter of coal miners, never puts a foot wrong. Others may scoff but I am a monarchist and she is GOOD for the monarchy
Also, a young mum. Eeek
I agree. God Bless Kate and may she be back to full health a lot quicker than expected. My Mum had her brain tumour/s at around the same time in life. I was too young to really understand how ill she was, never really contemplated her dying. Wonderfully, she pulled through and is still with us; I am sure the same will be true with Kate.
QED: the ages of the royal kids. Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, 8, and Prince Louis, 5, as of December 2023
That’s THE most rewarding age of children from the perspective of a parent. The kids are fun, lively, amusing, talkative. Endlessly curious and interesting. Yes also hard work but crucial work - plus Kate has all the staff she needs
No mother would willingly be separated from kids that age for TWO WEEKS unless it was desperately necessary
I would just comment that my wife had a hysterectomy with our three children at similar ages and my Mother was absolutely wonderful, as my wife was in hospital for a similar time and a similar recovery period
I would just caveat that I have no idea what the Princess of Wales has had surgery for
@timfarron tells MPs that the Rwanda bill declaring Rwanda safe via UK legislation is ridiculous/dangerous misuse of Parliament when the courts should decide.
If Rwanda is safe, he says, "I declare Blackburn Rovers back in the Premier League."
@BestForBritain Braverman tries to relaunch her leadership bid with same "Who Governs Britain?" speech that was largely ignored last time, with added far-right oomph.
Claims that the ECHR "does not share British values", "undermines national security", and a load of other pretty mad stuff. ~AA
QED: the ages of the royal kids. Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, 8, and Prince Louis, 5, as of December 2023
That’s THE most rewarding age of children from the perspective of a parent. The kids are fun, lively, amusing, talkative. Endlessly curious and interesting. Yes also hard work but crucial work - plus Kate has all the staff she needs
No mother would willingly be separated from kids that age for TWO WEEKS unless it was desperately necessary
I would just comment that my wife had a hysterectomy with our three children at similar ages and my Mother was absolutely wonderful, as my wife was in hospital for a similar time and a similar recovery period
I would just caveat that I have no idea what the Princess of Wales has had surgery for
Best wishes for your son in law, and I hope your own health continues to be stable and improve.
Off topic: So, is Macron going to do anything personally to increase births in France? (At the very least, he could contribute to a sperm bank.)
He and his wife do have a dog.
France has substantial tax breaks for those with a big family. He could increase those.
Aiui the main point is that French families can pool unused income tax allowances. Our children have a £12,570 income tax allowance but if they do not use it because the lazy gits prefer to be at school, tough.
Yes, if our 6 year olds are so lazy they can't be bothered at least to be apprenticed to a chimney sweep or clean coal trucks the world's workers (ie mum and dad) should be able to have their personal allowance transferred to them. Now there's a proper right wing Tory policy.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
With a Republican PM about 1/10 too. Could be bye bye RF
And we become a Republic and JK Rowling beats Gary Lineker 52% to 48% in the first presidential election. That will be just fine.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
Britain is an interesting case because in many respects our climate and weather are mild and boring but in one respect - our line of latitude - we are quite an outlier. The gulf stream means we don't pay the price for it except the one aspect it can't ameliorate - the amount of winter sunlight. It doesn't bother me much because I'm used to it - and it's not as bad in London as where I grew up - but when I'm in sunnier climes I do feel a little more vital and alive.
I’m pretty sure I am an actual case of SAD. It’s taken me decades to accept it and understand it - and also decades to earn the money or employment where I can go to nice sunny places in the European winter, to realise the difference
But there is no question. I feel more vital and alive in the sun, and much less depressive than I would be, enduring a British January and February
My soul almost literally lightens when I step out into the soft summery warmth of a tropical evening
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
Britain is an interesting case because in many respects our climate and weather are mild and boring but in one respect - our line of latitude - we are quite an outlier. The gulf stream means we don't pay the price for it except the one aspect it can't ameliorate - the amount of winter sunlight. It doesn't bother me much because I'm used to it - and it's not as bad in London as where I grew up - but when I'm in sunnier climes I do feel a little more vital and alive.
I’m pretty sure I am an actual case of SAD. It’s taken me decades to accept it and understand it - and also decades to earn the money or employment where I can go to nice sunny places in the European winter, to realise the difference
But there is no question. I feel more vital and alive in the sun, and much less depressive than I would be, enduring a British January and February
My soul almost literally lightens when I step out into the soft summery warmth of a tropical evening
Yeah I know what you mean. I don't mind our light but I'd certainly prefer to be somewhere warmer. I do hope my wife and I can start to spend half the year in Sri Lanka once the kids have flown the nest.
Late October-late March in Sri Lanka, and the rest in Europe, would be pretty much a perfect life, climate wise (and from my perspective). I wish you the best in achieving it
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
If the NHS wasn't influenced by striking unions, maybe everyone could get better outcomes, eh?
Maybe. If the Tories hadn't been in charge for the last 13 years, it might be better, eh?
I would just gently comment that Wales labour has been in charge for more than 13 years and it is worse
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Note that my "spoiled" that is cancelled and disrespected by Powers-That-Be, predicts that by next GE, Ed Davey will NOT be top LibDem, rather will be under co-Leadership of Harry Windsor and Meghan Markle.
Which might possibly by prelude to rise to power reminiscent of Louis Napoleon > Napoleon III but am NOT predicting that!
Perhaps slightly better odds, for Meghan ending up as the Empress Eugenie of early 3rd millennium?
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
QED: the ages of the royal kids. Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, 8, and Prince Louis, 5, as of December 2023
That’s THE most rewarding age of children from the perspective of a parent. The kids are fun, lively, amusing, talkative. Endlessly curious and interesting. Yes also hard work but crucial work - plus Kate has all the staff she needs
No mother would willingly be separated from kids that age for TWO WEEKS unless it was desperately necessary
I would just comment that my wife had a hysterectomy with our three children at similar ages and my Mother was absolutely wonderful, as my wife was in hospital for a similar time and a similar recovery period
I would just caveat that I have no idea what the Princess of Wales has had surgery for
worrying the number of Royals having surgery atm. Praying they are ok
QED: the ages of the royal kids. Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, 8, and Prince Louis, 5, as of December 2023
That’s THE most rewarding age of children from the perspective of a parent. The kids are fun, lively, amusing, talkative. Endlessly curious and interesting. Yes also hard work but crucial work - plus Kate has all the staff she needs
No mother would willingly be separated from kids that age for TWO WEEKS unless it was desperately necessary
I would just comment that my wife had a hysterectomy with our three children at similar ages and my Mother was absolutely wonderful, as my wife was in hospital for a similar time and a similar recovery period
I would just caveat that I have no idea what the Princess of Wales has had surgery for
Best wishes for your son in law, and I hope your own health continues to be stable and improve.
Thank you and my son in law remains in hospital while the medics attempt to source the problem
I should just say that my wife's hysterotomy was in 1979
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
Britain is an interesting case because in many respects our climate and weather are mild and boring but in one respect - our line of latitude - we are quite an outlier. The gulf stream means we don't pay the price for it except the one aspect it can't ameliorate - the amount of winter sunlight. It doesn't bother me much because I'm used to it - and it's not as bad in London as where I grew up - but when I'm in sunnier climes I do feel a little more vital and alive.
I’m pretty sure I am an actual case of SAD. It’s taken me decades to accept it and understand it - and also decades to earn the money or employment where I can go to nice sunny places in the European winter, to realise the difference
But there is no question. I feel more vital and alive in the sun, and much less depressive than I would be, enduring a British January and February
My soul almost literally lightens when I step out into the soft summery warmth of a tropical evening
Yeah I know what you mean. I don't mind our light but I'd certainly prefer to be somewhere warmer. I do hope my wife and I can start to spend half the year in Sri Lanka once the kids have flown the nest.
Late October-late March in Sri Lanka, and the rest in Europe, would be pretty much a perfect life, climate wise (and from my perspective). I wish you the best in achieving it
It's how my parents in law roll. They are in their mid to late 80s and still super fit and active so it seems to suit them.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
I, genuinely, feel sorry for Charlotte as the first female official "spare" in recent memory.
In an institution that runs in generations, it's not that unusual. Margaret was effectively the 'spare', one way or another (as heir or would-be-regent), from her father becoming king until Anne turned 21, who then in turn filled the role for another ten years.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
Britain is an interesting case because in many respects our climate and weather are mild and boring but in one respect - our line of latitude - we are quite an outlier. The gulf stream means we don't pay the price for it except the one aspect it can't ameliorate - the amount of winter sunlight. It doesn't bother me much because I'm used to it - and it's not as bad in London as where I grew up - but when I'm in sunnier climes I do feel a little more vital and alive.
I’m pretty sure I am an actual case of SAD. It’s taken me decades to accept it and understand it - and also decades to earn the money or employment where I can go to nice sunny places in the European winter, to realise the difference
But there is no question. I feel more vital and alive in the sun, and much less depressive than I would be, enduring a British January and February
My soul almost literally lightens when I step out into the soft summery warmth of a tropical evening
To what extent though is that because the places you travel to are exciting and fun? I bet there are dozens of places with arguably-quite-agreeable climates in China and India - their equivalents of Grimsby or Mansfield (sorry Grimsby and Mansfield) which would neverthless not gladden the heart of the visitor.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
Britain is an interesting case because in many respects our climate and weather are mild and boring but in one respect - our line of latitude - we are quite an outlier. The gulf stream means we don't pay the price for it except the one aspect it can't ameliorate - the amount of winter sunlight. It doesn't bother me much because I'm used to it - and it's not as bad in London as where I grew up - but when I'm in sunnier climes I do feel a little more vital and alive.
I’m pretty sure I am an actual case of SAD. It’s taken me decades to accept it and understand it - and also decades to earn the money or employment where I can go to nice sunny places in the European winter, to realise the difference
But there is no question. I feel more vital and alive in the sun, and much less depressive than I would be, enduring a British January and February
My soul almost literally lightens when I step out into the soft summery warmth of a tropical evening
For those of us stuck with arctic tundra, Vitamin D and looking for periods in the open air at the sky, even a grey one, can have remarkable effects.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
I grant you that once you get to severely cold places, then you are less likely to see people.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
I, genuinely, feel sorry for Charlotte as the first female official "spare" in recent memory.
I have everything crossed for the Princess of Wales, she has three young children who need a mother.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
Most eloquent, as ever
I’ve belatedly realised there simply isn’t an ideal climate for me. Hence my wandering
I want the tropics - especially Indochina - in winter. I want a bit of English spring in spring - but also Greece. A dash of the riviera in summer. Then london again. Perhaps Austria in high summer, New England in early fall, Mexico in later autumn etc etc
There is nowhere perfect. In my grizzled later years I will be delighted if I can shuffle between the languid backstreets of Phnom Penh in winter and the delights of Europe at other times
And now, some tv and then bed. Night night from Kampuchea
A Jewish charity to help disaffected young boys has been mobbed by a mob of masked men after the address was posted by a provocative social media activist.
Disturbing footage shows the crowd abusing Jewish passers-by in Hendon while being blocked by police.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
I, genuinely, feel sorry for Charlotte as the first female official "spare" in recent memory.
In an institution that runs in generations, it's not that unusual. Margaret was effectively the 'spare', one way or another (as heir or would-be-regent), from her father becoming king until Anne turned 21, who then in turn filled the role for another ten years.
She will be knee-deep in paparazzi and social media trolls. They weren't.
Double whammy of fake news shirly? I've been told repeatedly on here that a) EU countries are irredeemably bound by the heavy hand of the EU and b) Germany is a particular laggard in support for Ukraine.
Somewhere in between Germany being a laggard while offering 5,000 used helmets when people on here were criticising Germany, and when Germany pulled its finger out of its arsenal to start usefully supplying Ukraine, which people on here acknowledged and congratulated them for, this happened:
"Germany’s “deeply ashamed” vice-chancellor has told Volodymyr Zelensky he is sorry that Berlin took so long to send weapons to Ukraine.
Robert Habeck, who is Olaf Scholz’s deputy, made a surprise visit to Kyiv on Monday, where he made a grovelling face-to-face apology to the president of Ukraine.
The Green politician said the two men had met in 2021, before Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and that Mr Zelensky had explained the threat of war was real.
Mr Habeck said: “At that time we started the debate in Germany that we should support Ukraine with weapons.
“Germany was not willing or able to do that at that time. We have changed our position but it took too long and it was too late.”
Mr Habeck appeared to make a veiled criticism of Mr Scholz, Germany’s centre-Left chancellor, who has faced accusations of dithering over sending weapons to Kyiv.
“I think not all of the German politicians would say the same but I feel deeply ashamed. It was far too late,” he said in a sign of possible divides among the coalition."
Maybe the repeating people on here had a very good point
That was exactly the point: for a period after the war started, Germany was oddly reticent to send some weapons, especially the tanks, and blocked others from doing so. I can understand this (the echoes of WW2), but that excuse only stretches so far. Since they decided to send Leos, and allow other countries to send them, they've done much better. I, and others on here, have openly acknowledged this.
Now they need to send some Taurus missiles. If they haven't already...
East Politics has been a thing in Germany since before Bismarck. There is a belief among some historians that dropping the treaty with Russia, by the Kaiser was the first mistake on the road to WWI.
But obviously much more important is that, since WWII, West Germany and now the united Germany defined themselves as Not *That* Germany - as a New Germany, unaggressive, trading, friendly, jaw-jaw-is-better-than-war-war. A big part of that is reaching out a hand of friendship to Russia - to put *WWII* behind.
So exporting weapons to a country fighting Russia felt very un-natural to many German politicians. Not because they are Putin fans, but because their instincts have been trained for decades not to do such things.
Putin has broken many barriers - Sweden and Finland in NATO! - and this is another one.
It's a fair point. So much easier culturally for the UK, with a long history of scrapping with the Russkies, than either for Germany with its Ostpolitik and unfortunate 20th Century events, France with its history of NATO semi-detachment and Italy with its lack of any real historical grudges with Russia.
The Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, the predecessor of the modern Italian state, was a belligerent on our side during the Crimean War, and of course they were on the Axis side during the first part of WW2, although I am not sure if any Italian troops fought on the Eastern Front.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
I, genuinely, feel sorry for Charlotte as the first female official "spare" in recent memory.
In an institution that runs in generations, it's not that unusual. Margaret was effectively the 'spare', one way or another (as heir or would-be-regent), from her father becoming king until Anne turned 21, who then in turn filled the role for another ten years.
She will be knee-deep in paparazzi and social media trolls. They weren't.
There was an attempt to kidnap Princess Anne, so she wasn't without attention - and what Diana went through, only a few years later, was much worse than anything William's generation had to put up with. That said, social media may have changed the nature of coverage. Certainly not an easy gig for a young woman.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
Most eloquent, as ever
I’ve belatedly realised there simply isn’t an ideal climate for me. Hence my wandering
I want the tropics - especially Indochina - in winter. I want a bit of English spring in spring - but also Greece. A dash of the riviera in summer. Then london again. Perhaps Austria in high summer, New England in early fall, Mexico in later autumn etc etc
There is nowhere perfect. In my grizzled later years I will be delighted if I can shuffle between the languid backstreets of Phnom Penh in winter and the delights of Europe at other times
And now, some tv and then bed. Night night from Kampuchea
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade, And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten, And drank coffee, and talked for an hour. Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen, echt deutsch. And when we were children, staying at the archduke’s, My cousin’s, he took me out on a sled, And I was frightened. He said, Marie, Marie, hold on tight. And down we went. In the mountains, there you feel free. I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Permanent darkness? We've had a bright sunny day from breakfast to teatime. And that's right in the middle of your period.
QED: the ages of the royal kids. Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, 8, and Prince Louis, 5, as of December 2023
That’s THE most rewarding age of children from the perspective of a parent. The kids are fun, lively, amusing, talkative. Endlessly curious and interesting. Yes also hard work but crucial work - plus Kate has all the staff she needs
No mother would willingly be separated from kids that age for TWO WEEKS unless it was desperately necessary
I would just comment that my wife had a hysterectomy with our three children at similar ages and my Mother was absolutely wonderful, as my wife was in hospital for a similar time and a similar recovery period
I would just caveat that I have no idea what the Princess of Wales has had surgery for
The press release does say abdominal surgery, so an abdominal hysterectomy is quite possible. That would be a typical recovery period.
Obviously other abdominal surgery is possible, but we also know not cancerous.
My mother had 2 years in hospital at a similar age, with my dad and a series of Au Pairs looking after me and my sibs. Kids adapt well to these sorts of things in the main.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
I grant you that once you get to severely cold places, then you are less likely to see people.
Ireland prior to the potato famine?
It's warm and wet. Hence the blight, come to think of it. Blight doesn't like winters - hence the Scottish seed potato industry.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Permanent darkness? We've had a bright sunny day from breakfast to teatime. And that's right in the middle of your period.
Well said, though a little unnecessary to bring Algakirk's menstrual cycle into things.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
At the equinox.
Strictly speaking, not quite. Not just because of twilight giving effective light before dawn and after sunset but also because refraction means you actually get slightly more than 12 hours sun at the equinox. For example, the Spring equinox this year is at 0306 on 20 March but Edinburgh gets exactly 12 hours of daylight (to within a minute) on 17 March.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
At the equinox.
Thanks - I felt it was probably that.
The noticeable oddity of January is the lag between lengthening evenings and earlier mornings. I really noticed it today: still dark after 7am yet already light until about 4.30.
Earliest sunset 12th Dec, latest sunrise 2nd January. Which is why the run up to Christmas seems so dark and why January mornings are so difficult.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Permanent darkness? We've had a bright sunny day from breakfast to teatime. And that's right in the middle of your period.
Well said, though a little unnecessary to bring Algakirk's menstrual cycle into things.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Permanent darkness? We've had a bright sunny day from breakfast to teatime. And that's right in the middle of your period.
Well said, though a little unnecessary to bring Algakirk's menstrual cycle into things.
Er, indeed! Apols (just in case that's not a joke): should have said 'specified'.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
The cloud is a feature not a bug. Saves the poor Scots from sunburn, and provides lots of water. Very useful stuff, see how the Home Counties PBers complain about not having enough to wash their three cars and fill their swimming-pools.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
At the equinox.
Strictly speaking, not quite. Not just because of twilight giving effective light before dawn and after sunset but also because refraction means you actually get slightly more than 12 hours sun at the equinox. For example, the Spring equinox this year is at 0306 on 20 March but Edinburgh gets exactly 12 hours of daylight (to within a minute) on 17 March.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
I think it was @Heathener who said the election to compare the next with is 2017, not 2019; the Tories have an unelected leader who doesn’t enthuse their voters, and there’s no major policy divide between the two major parties. Throw in the fact that no one thinks the LotO is a crank and you can see why Labour what seems an unassailable advantage
Its not entirely right as a theory though is it. There is an incumbency effect (assuming that a constituency hasn't been totally smashed in the review) and where the constituencies have been mashed, you can't compare it to any previous election.
The reality is that 14 years in the Tories look like a party who need a break, the country is sick of them, and even if things start to improve over the next six months the damage is baked in.
And yet you can still make 30% profit on a labour majority.
As I said yesterday, if Labour win a majority, it will be the first time in five major elections that the favourite at the beginning of the year has won. But I agree, there doesn’t seem any reason to vote for the Tories now really, unless you’re the type who always votes for the same team because you always have
Not one for backing big odds on, Sam, as you would appreciate, but am seriously tempted to have a couple of grand on Labour for either most seats or overall maj. The return is small but considerably better than the interest the money will accrue in the bank.
Wadyatink?
Am instinctively cautious on these things so I thought I'd run it past you. (Naturally no obligation or responsibilty on you if it goes nipples upwards.)
Both seem like they can’t get best don’t they? I find it hard to see how it could go wrong, but what puts me off is all the short priced favs turned over in recent GE’s and the referendum. I think I backed Con Maj in 2017 at 1.16! This time it really does feel different, but personally I’d be happy to let it go and not be upset if it wins. Not going to be a life changer
Thanks Sam.
No it won't be a lifechanger but then all I was looking for was a better rate of reurn. But I take you point. My biggest ever betting loss was GE 2010, when I assumed NOM was nailed on, so I know what you mean.
i think I'll follow the dictum of my favorite betting guru, Alan Potts -
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
At the equinox.
Strictly speaking, not quite. Not just because of twilight giving effective light before dawn and after sunset but also because refraction means you actually get slightly more than 12 hours sun at the equinox. For example, the Spring equinox this year is at 0306 on 20 March but Edinburgh gets exactly 12 hours of daylight (to within a minute) on 17 March.
But surely that's true in England too?
Indeed. Just saying that it happens a few days before the equinox.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
The Kenyan Highlands would be a good bet, or the High Veldt in South Africa.
The best climate that I have lived in was Christchurch NZ. Summer consistently like the best English summer days, winter frosts but warm enough for a t shirt by lunchtime. Rain for 2 days a fortnight for a bit of variety. Never too cold or too hot. Occasional earthquakes.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
Base your decision on the presence of native plants whose preferred habitat corresponds with your desiderata
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Megs would be an awesome Queen. I might even become a temporary royalist if she was on my telly every few days.
Bright braw cloudless nights that start at 5pm can lift tge spirits every bit as much as endless sunny days. In the minutes it's taken to leave the office and arrive home, dusk has been replaced by a cold bright icy night time, and it is glorious. Makes me glad to be alive, and young again. Ah, for that bright icy night walking across moonlit frozen fields to the 18th birthday party of a friend of a friend of a friend, the utter certainty of the possibility of the night almost tangible. I wouldn't swap this for some winterless clime.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
At the equinox.
Strictly speaking, not quite. Not just because of twilight giving effective light before dawn and after sunset but also because refraction means you actually get slightly more than 12 hours sun at the equinox. For example, the Spring equinox this year is at 0306 on 20 March but Edinburgh gets exactly 12 hours of daylight (to within a minute) on 17 March.
But surely that's true in England too?
Indeed. Just saying that it happens a few days before the equinox.
But also rays of sunlight go through a slightly thicker layer of atmosphere as you go further north. So the refraction effect is slightly stronger and the day length is a bit (but a pretty small bit) longer.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Only just looked in - thanks for the nod!
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate. I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
Ilkley has the disadvantage of being populated with the sort of twats who live in Ilkley. You can however wind them up by reminding them that Ilkley is part of Bradford. Otherwise, a lovely town. And if you don't want to shop in the local Booths there is a Waitrose down the road in Otley.
As a resident of Airedale I would agree that Airedale and Wharfedale are excellent choices. But avoid Keighley - except when visiting the KWVR.
However, I think the Dales get just as much rain as Manchester.
The UK has a brilliant climate. Bit wet of late but where isn't (and don't say Death Valley because you don't get amazing crisp, sharp, sunny mornings looking out over hill and dale in Death Valley).
Wouldn't be anywhere else, frankly.
Wouldn't miss this at any time of year. I mean and that's just an insta-google ffs.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
Base your decision on the presence of native plants whose preferred habitat corresponds with your desiderata
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
But for the mountains, I'd say that sounds like The Isle of Wight.
What a cruel institution the Royal Family is, forcing its members top live their lives in a goldfish bowl in sickness and in health. Most of its members have no choice but to be in it. Kate and fam deserve peace – not every royal-bothering fucker in the land speculating on her health.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Megs would be an awesome Queen. I might even become a temporary royalist if she was on my telly every few days.
I see a future for them to return as working Royals having kissed the sausage fingers of Charles. I don't see much of a future for them in the US given that they seem less popular there than a dose of the clap. There will need to be a gradual rebuilding of trust, otherwise the rest of the family will just think they're back to collect fresh supplies of racism stories.
Just want to say, Three large well-made gin and tonics, in a leafy and chic tropical lane, surrounded by fun little cafes and boutiques, with a sweet al fresco scene… and all of this right next to Wat Botum (pol pot’s temple, 15th century) and 300 yards from the Khmer royal palace, a deeply charming tropical urban environment, like taking the nicest bits of Bangkok and Luang Prabang and Hanoi and putting them all together but making it as quiet as a particularly hedonistic village
Those three gin and tonics have cost me $10…. total. RIDIC
I think it was @Heathener who said the election to compare the next with is 2017, not 2019; the Tories have an unelected leader who doesn’t enthuse their voters, and there’s no major policy divide between the two major parties. Throw in the fact that no one thinks the LotO is a crank and you can see why Labour what seems an unassailable advantage
Its not entirely right as a theory though is it. There is an incumbency effect (assuming that a constituency hasn't been totally smashed in the review) and where the constituencies have been mashed, you can't compare it to any previous election.
The reality is that 14 years in the Tories look like a party who need a break, the country is sick of them, and even if things start to improve over the next six months the damage is baked in.
And yet you can still make 30% profit on a labour majority.
As I said yesterday, if Labour win a majority, it will be the first time in five major elections that the favourite at the beginning of the year has won. But I agree, there doesn’t seem any reason to vote for the Tories now really, unless you’re the type who always votes for the same team because you always have
Not one for backing big odds on, Sam, as you would appreciate, but am seriously tempted to have a couple of grand on Labour for either most seats or overall maj. The return is small but considerably better than the interest the money will accrue in the bank.
Wadyatink?
Am instinctively cautious on these things so I thought I'd run it past you. (Naturally no obligation or responsibilty on you if it goes nipples upwards.)
Both seem like they can’t get best don’t they? I find it hard to see how it could go wrong, but what puts me off is all the short priced favs turned over in recent GE’s and the referendum. I think I backed Con Maj in 2017 at 1.16! This time it really does feel different, but personally I’d be happy to let it go and not be upset if it wins. Not going to be a life changer
Thanks Sam.
No it won't be a lifechanger but then all I was looking for was a better rate of reurn. But I take you point. My biggest ever betting loss was GE 2010, when I assumed NOM was nailed on, so I know what you mean.
i think I'll follow the dictum of my favorite betting guru, Alan Potts -
The UK has a brilliant climate. Bit wet of late but where isn't (and don't say Death Valley because you don't get amazing crisp, sharp, sunny mornings looking out over hill and dale in Death Valley).
Wouldn't be anywhere else, frankly.
Wouldn't miss this at any time of year. I mean and that's just an insta-google ffs.
I think it was @Heathener who said the election to compare the next with is 2017, not 2019; the Tories have an unelected leader who doesn’t enthuse their voters, and there’s no major policy divide between the two major parties. Throw in the fact that no one thinks the LotO is a crank and you can see why Labour what seems an unassailable advantage
Its not entirely right as a theory though is it. There is an incumbency effect (assuming that a constituency hasn't been totally smashed in the review) and where the constituencies have been mashed, you can't compare it to any previous election.
The reality is that 14 years in the Tories look like a party who need a break, the country is sick of them, and even if things start to improve over the next six months the damage is baked in.
And yet you can still make 30% profit on a labour majority.
As I said yesterday, if Labour win a majority, it will be the first time in five major elections that the favourite at the beginning of the year has won. But I agree, there doesn’t seem any reason to vote for the Tories now really, unless you’re the type who always votes for the same team because you always have
Not one for backing big odds on, Sam, as you would appreciate, but am seriously tempted to have a couple of grand on Labour for either most seats or overall maj. The return is small but considerably better than the interest the money will accrue in the bank.
Wadyatink?
Am instinctively cautious on these things so I thought I'd run it past you. (Naturally no obligation or responsibilty on you if it goes nipples upwards.)
Both seem like they can’t get best don’t they? I find it hard to see how it could go wrong, but what puts me off is all the short priced favs turned over in recent GE’s and the referendum. I think I backed Con Maj in 2017 at 1.16! This time it really does feel different, but personally I’d be happy to let it go and not be upset if it wins. Not going to be a life changer
Thanks Sam.
No it won't be a lifechanger but then all I was looking for was a better rate of reurn. But I take you point. My biggest ever betting loss was GE 2010, when I assumed NOM was nailed on, so I know what you mean.
i think I'll follow the dictum of my favorite betting guru, Alan Potts -
'No bet is no problem.'
2015
Sorry, that's right. Typo this time rather than my ailing memory.
The UK has a brilliant climate. Bit wet of late but where isn't (and don't say Death Valley because you don't get amazing crisp, sharp, sunny mornings looking out over hill and dale in Death Valley).
Wouldn't be anywhere else, frankly.
Wouldn't miss this at any time of year. I mean and that's just an insta-google ffs.
Just want to say, Three large well-made gin and tonics, in a leafy and chic tropical lane, surrounded by fun little cafes and boutiques, with a sweet al fresco scene… and all of this right next to Wat Botum (pol pot’s temple, 15th century) and 300 yards from the Khmer royal palace, a deeply charming tropical urban environment, like taking the nicest bits of Bangkok and Luang Prabang and Hanoi and putting them all together but making it as quiet as a particularly hedonistic village
Those three gin and tonics have cost me $10…. total. RIDIC
How many weeks are you staying there?
I was meant to be back in Bangkok. But I keep extending. Honestly, PP is that good, right now
Jeremy Wright KC(Tory MP): We wouldn't have accepted the Houthis unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law.. we wouldn't accept a Russian legislative act... that the invasion of Ukraine... was in compliance with Russia's intl. law responsibilities
Jeremy Wright KC(Tory MP): We wouldn't have accepted the Houthis unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law.. we wouldn't accept a Russian legislative act... that the invasion of Ukraine... was in compliance with Russia's intl. law responsibilities
Jeremy Wright KC(Tory MP): We wouldn't have accepted the Houthis unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law.. we wouldn't accept a Russian legislative act... that the invasion of Ukraine... was in compliance with Russia's intl. law responsibilities
Jeremy Wright KC(Tory MP): We wouldn't have accepted the Houthis unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law.. we wouldn't accept a Russian legislative act... that the invasion of Ukraine... was in compliance with Russia's intl. law responsibilities
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
Yes, probably the higher parts of Provence. High country Alpes-Maritimes.
The UK has a brilliant climate. Bit wet of late but where isn't (and don't say Death Valley because you don't get amazing crisp, sharp, sunny mornings looking out over hill and dale in Death Valley).
Wouldn't be anywhere else, frankly.
Wouldn't miss this at any time of year. I mean and that's just an insta-google ffs.
Just want to say, Three large well-made gin and tonics, in a leafy and chic tropical lane, surrounded by fun little cafes and boutiques, with a sweet al fresco scene… and all of this right next to Wat Botum (pol pot’s temple, 15th century) and 300 yards from the Khmer royal palace, a deeply charming tropical urban environment, like taking the nicest bits of Bangkok and Luang Prabang and Hanoi and putting them all together but making it as quiet as a particularly hedonistic village
Those three gin and tonics have cost me $10…. total. RIDIC
How many weeks are you staying there?
I was meant to be back in Bangkok. But I keep extending. Honestly, PP is that good, right now
Spent many a night building up an appetite in Red Fox bar before heading to Topaz or Malis for high class scoff. Evening ends in Top Banana bar. But I expect you’ve found all those already.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
But for the mountains, I'd say that sounds like The Isle of Wight.
I photoshopped a view of the Alps from my Merano hotel window onto the background of a photo of my home town. Which I thought would be just perfect. But I can’t find it. So this photo, which says ‘why do we need mountains?’, will have to do…
Jeremy Wright KC(Tory MP): We wouldn't have accepted the Houthis unilateral declaration that they were in compliance with international law.. we wouldn't accept a Russian legislative act... that the invasion of Ukraine... was in compliance with Russia's intl. law responsibilities
It’s like saying, ‘well, SCOTUS said Trump didn’t commit insurrection merely because he tried to overthrow the government.’
Sure, but Russia and the Houthi group are our geopolitical antagonists, of course we wouldn't accept their declarations - Rwanda is about the UK Courts accepting UK Government declarations. That is completely different, so the comparison makes about as much sense as anything else on Twitter.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
For @StillWaters - on Nick Read not knowing that an NDA and a settlement agreement with a confidentiality clause are the same, the Solicitors' Regulation Authority warning notice about them says this:
"This warning notice covers the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and we use this term to include any form of agreement or contract, or a clause within a wider agreement or contract, under which it is agreed that certain information will be kept confidential."
Nick Read was wrong. (And I was right in my criticism of him.) God knows what his GC, Ben Foat, thinks he is doing.
SNP MP Alison Thewliss says the UK's "forced movement of people from here to Rwanda is nothing less than state sponsored people trafficking", and claims the government is a "criminal gang".
"People moved against their will with no regard for their safety, no recourse to appeal, to a country they do not know, involving money and profits. Well that sounds like people smuggling to me."
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
You just need reading glasses. Seriously. I thought I had given up on reading, having spent a lifetime devouring books almost as soon as they arrived. Then I realised it was because I couldn’t focus as close up as I used to. Get reading glasses, and you’ll be reading again.
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
That doesn’t stand up to even thirty seconds of analysis.
I refer you to the honourable @cookie who recently came up with the startling statistic that only 2% of the world lives north of the latitude of Manchester (or south of the equivalent). Apols if I’ve got some of the deets wrong but that was the thrust
The population of the UK is abnormally large for a nation with our inclement climate. Its coz we were first to industrialise etc
Errr, no.
Britain does not have a climate that matches it's latitude, so that comparison is specious.
It's also the case that islands are usually more populated than, say, deserts, plains, tundra, etc.
Greenland, Iceland, Spitzbergen, New Zealand, Novaya Zemlya. Population all a bit on the sparse side.
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Summer nights are lighter for longer though, so great for beers in the garden till the wee hours. Not an altogether brilliant trade off, but grimly fair as a feature of our latitude. I'm not sure when crossover happens and it's officially lighter in Scotland.
The problem with the Scottish climate for me is not the dark or the cold but the cloud. And the midges (are midges climate? Not really.) Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Best climate year round is a hard one. If you couldn’t travel where would be the best compromise? Somewhere with plenty of sunshine but enough rain to have some greenery, lots of warm outdoors months but not stiflingly hot, and with sufficient winter interest to get occasional snow and a few frosts each year. Lowing humidity but not lip-chappingly so.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
But for the mountains, I'd say that sounds like The Isle of Wight.
I photoshopped a view of the Alps from my Merano hotel window onto the background of a photo of my home town. Which I thought would be just perfect. But I can’t find it. So this photo, which says ‘why do we need mountains?’, will have to do…
Ooh, that must be taken from Hanover Point? Of the Cretaceous logjam and dinofootprints.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Megs would be an awesome Queen. I might even become a temporary royalist if she was on my telly every few days.
I see a future for them to return as working Royals having kissed the sausage fingers of Charles. I don't see much of a future for them in the US given that they seem less popular there than a dose of the clap. There will need to be a gradual rebuilding of trust, otherwise the rest of the family will just think they're back to collect fresh supplies of racism stories.
There can't be many working Royals at the moment. Charles, Kate & William are off sick; Andrew is banished; Harry & Meghan are in exile. Yet the King wants to slim down the Royal Family.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
You just need reading glasses. Seriously. I thought I had given up on reading, having spent a lifetime devouring books almost as soon as they arrived. Then I realised it was because I couldn’t focus as close up as I used to. Get reading glasses, and you’ll be reading again.
Same here, with close up work, etc. Mrs C spotted the reason and dragged me to the optician. Huge improvement. Definitely worth checking that possibility.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
You just need reading glasses. Seriously. I thought I had given up on reading, having spent a lifetime devouring books almost as soon as they arrived. Then I realised it was because I couldn’t focus as close up as I used to. Get reading glasses, and you’ll be reading again.
Thanks for the thought but I’ve needed specs for reading since I was a sprog! Getting the old national healthers on before picking up a book was part of the ritual.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
Especially when a lot of libraries are practically giving books away for free, (because they think they have too many, and are often clearing them out to make room for other things).
Best of British to Big G, and indeed all PB-ers suffering through the miseries of the British winter
And all best from a sultry wine bar in soft, languid, central Phnom Penh, 500 yards from the Royal Palace, where we sit outside and drink perfect lemongrass scented gin and tonics. Ahhhhhh. It is bliss. I cannot deny, and so cheap!
I think the time is coming for me to move semi-permanently from the UK. Just can’t do the climate. My bones are too old. My aged ribs crave the ancestral warmth of the African plains (or Caucasian valleys)n where we evolved. Man was not meant to live in Manchester
That's not completely convincing.
Since we came originally from a wet, cold, foggy environment at the start of our evolution process, Manchester is *precisely* where you should be going.
Leon's claiming to be a throwback to the proto-humans, perhaps ?
I always wonder about bullshit like this. We have been evolving since the start (slime, then Cambrian explosion, then mammals, huge asteroid etc). Why should the conditions for a tiny fragment of that time be what conditions what we like now? Humans have been in Europe plenty long enough to have evolved to suit it (even if part of that is brains and the ability to make clothes).
It's an interesting topic that I'm not sure has been dealt with in popular science writing yet. There's a lot out there that waxes lyrical about our evolutionary hunter gatherer origins without much evidence, but nothing I can think of that impartially examines the question of what we are, in our current bodies, best adapted to. What era? 30,000 years ago when we were hunter-gatherers? 6,000 to about 500 years ago when we had agrarian lifestyles and diets? The industrialised urbanised world? People have been dying from being ill suited to their environment right up to today. For example might populations be evolving in some industrial regions to be resistant to the effects of air pollution?
I do, completely unscientifically, enjoy those episodes of WDYTYA where the celebrity declares they have an affinity with, say, the Irish coast or Scandinavia and then the researchers reveal that hey presto their great great great grandparents lived in a small cottage in Galway or were ladies in waiting at the Royal Danish court. There was an episode with Jeremy Irons which had probably the best example. hey traced ancestors back to the Irish seaside village where he has his holiday home. All sleight of hand of course, but if I were a celeb invited on to the programme (surely the best TV perk of being a celebrity, better than getting on Strictly or celebrity Masterchef) I'd be hoping to find my ancestors were Burgundian winemakers.
Considering that neolithic human remains exist everywhere between the Arctic circle and the hottest deserts, it does seem that we are evolved to flexibly adapt to almost any environment. Same as rats.
Nonetheless the concentration of populations suggests that most humans like to live in places where the weather isn’t totally shit 5-6 months of the year
Britain is an interesting case because in many respects our climate and weather are mild and boring but in one respect - our line of latitude - we are quite an outlier. The gulf stream means we don't pay the price for it except the one aspect it can't ameliorate - the amount of winter sunlight. It doesn't bother me much because I'm used to it - and it's not as bad in London as where I grew up - but when I'm in sunnier climes I do feel a little more vital and alive.
I’m pretty sure I am an actual case of SAD. It’s taken me decades to accept it and understand it - and also decades to earn the money or employment where I can go to nice sunny places in the European winter, to realise the difference
But there is no question. I feel more vital and alive in the sun, and much less depressive than I would be, enduring a British January and February
My soul almost literally lightens when I step out into the soft summery warmth of a tropical evening
My sister-in-law comes out in a rash if she doesn't sleep in sheets of the finest Egyptian cotton.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Megs would be an awesome Queen. I might even become a temporary royalist if she was on my telly every few days.
I see a future for them to return as working Royals having kissed the sausage fingers of Charles. I don't see much of a future for them in the US given that they seem less popular there than a dose of the clap. There will need to be a gradual rebuilding of trust, otherwise the rest of the family will just think they're back to collect fresh supplies of racism stories.
They might have a future in a sideline role in the Commonwealth doing some tours there but they clearly have no interest in returning to be full time working roles and certainly not in the UK
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
To my surprise I have found reading in bed, first thing in the morning, to be particularly satisfying. Managed several pages of the Duchess of Malfi this morning - Jacobean tragedy not apt to be the easiest of reads, but in the clear-headed light of morning it all made sense. BTW - it has a cast of blokes so venal as to make even Donald Trump blush.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
Try Audible. There are many books, many "free" with Audible Plus. I listen to them while commuting or walking the pup, doing chores etc.
FPT Dolly Parton has sent 5 million books to children in the UK. How do we have so many homes where a child doesn't have a single book?
When she was head of a local primary, Mrs Capitano gave every kid an individually chosen book for Christmas. For several of them it was the only book they had at home. And this isn't even in a desperately poor area.
I saw an article the other day that comprehension and retention is much better with physical books than with articles read on screen.
I read it on screen (maybe The Atlantic?) so inevitably can't recall where...
I make a point of only reading fiction on my kindle. If I want any other genre, I have to buy it in old skool paper format. Unfortunately, that often means Amazon but I have started looking in charity shops, where you find some absolute gems. I can't find Sled Driver anywhere though 😕
I always read books on paper; I largely put this down to a forty decade habit being hard to break... Logically I know kindle and the like have a lot of practical advantages (especially for reading in a foreign language where the built in dictionary makes looking up the odd unknown word trivial), but I have too many fond memories of leafing through dead trees to want to change now :-)
Out of deeply ingrained habit I still buy (& have bought for me) paper books, I just don't read them One of the minor tragedies of my life.
Why don’t you read them?
Internet I suppose though I don’t spend anything like the time online as I did reading. Simplistically I used to be in love with reading and it was a great consolation to me, now I’m not and it isn’t.
That’s sad. However I’ve also been there, it it’s any help? I’ve gone a year or two without really reading a book - apart from crap I had to read for work - and then it has suddenly reappeared, and it is again a great pleasure
I’m reading a lot at the moment - I read kindle and e books on the road; I listen to audiobooks when my hands are full; I read paper books last thing at night when I need to calm down. And I do feel mentally better for it. Nourished
I hope the habit returns for you. Maybe try a new genre? Something entirely out of the ordinary?
Thanks.
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
You just need reading glasses. Seriously. I thought I had given up on reading, having spent a lifetime devouring books almost as soon as they arrived. Then I realised it was because I couldn’t focus as close up as I used to. Get reading glasses, and you’ll be reading again.
Same here, with close up work, etc. Mrs C spotted the reason and dragged me to the optician. Huge improvement. Definitely worth checking that possibility.
Just to add. Regular eye tests when you do get readers is vital. My prescription changes every year, and my first glasses from four years ago are virtually useless now. Just got a new scrip before Xmas, and the difference is quite staggering.
My word, now the King will attend hospital next week.
What's the big deal? Up and down the land, countless families are facing similar and worse. If only the rest of the population could get the healthcare the royals are experiencing.
We need to get ready for King Harry and Queen Meghan. .
Megs would be an awesome Queen. I might even become a temporary royalist if she was on my telly every few days.
I see a future for them to return as working Royals having kissed the sausage fingers of Charles. I don't see much of a future for them in the US given that they seem less popular there than a dose of the clap. There will need to be a gradual rebuilding of trust, otherwise the rest of the family will just think they're back to collect fresh supplies of racism stories.
They might have a future in a sideline role in the Commonwealth doing some tours there but they clearly have no interest in returning to be full time working roles and certainly not in the UK
It beats a career in the US on QVC or doing the D-list circuit. I agree about the Commonwealth being the best option. If the Royals have any interest in continuing to be the Heads of State of some of the Southern Hemisphere countries, they could do worse than base Harry and Meghan in Aus.
Comments
I would just caveat that I have no idea what the Princess of Wales has had surgery for
@paulwaugh
@timfarron
tells MPs that the Rwanda bill declaring Rwanda safe via UK legislation is ridiculous/dangerous misuse of Parliament when the courts should decide.
If Rwanda is safe, he says, "I declare Blackburn Rovers back in the Premier League."
Braverman tries to relaunch her leadership bid with same "Who Governs Britain?" speech that was largely ignored last time, with added far-right oomph.
Claims that the ECHR "does not share British values", "undermines national security", and a load of other pretty mad stuff. ~AA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlPUzXb0_4U
That will be just fine.
The Labour MP Sir Tony Lloyd has died. His family has issued this statement.
https://twitter.com/tony4rochdale/status/1747647516118561001
Which might possibly by prelude to rise to power reminiscent of Louis Napoleon > Napoleon III but am NOT predicting that!
Perhaps slightly better odds, for Meghan ending up as the Empress Eugenie of early 3rd millennium?
I buy the argument that you have cause and effect the wrong way around there - we were first to industrialise because we were so damn fecund that we could no longer feed everyone without enclosures, etc, which created a large surplus population for urban labour. Which in turn is because Britain is pretty fertile, despite its northerly climate. (But it's a view I've not put a lot of research into so don't shout at me if you disagree).
In general, you're right: humans like to live in places where the weather isn't awful - but I think there's a middle step: it's because those places are able to produce the most food.
But I disagree about weather the weather is 'bad' in Britain; there's not a lot of really horrible weather - we rarely fry or freeze or drown. Drizzle is more typical. But you'd be hard pushed to say the weather is ever good, either. Daylight is one thing, and daylight balances out, but we get a lot more cloud than most places, and leaden skies rarely make the spirits soar. I'll back the British climate with the defensive fervour of anyone trying to earnestly to make the best of what he's got, but even I prefer sunny days to cloudy ones.
Today's been lovely though. Clear bright skies, snow still lying on the hills, that weird and magical pinkening winter light you get on a clear January evening. I'll happily take early evenings if these are the days which precede them. Though I'll be happier once light comes before breakfast.
I reckon my ideal is England, but somewhere slightly further north and slightly drier and slightly higher than here. Ilkley, say. Or Skipton. Or Harrogate.
I can deal with Mancunian rain without complaint, but the brevity of the snow here makes me sad.
I should just say that my wife's hysterotomy was in 1979
Scotland of course has more or less permanent darkness for about 6 months of the year, and a summer that lasts a fortnight in June. Which may be why no-one lives there.
Ireland prior to the potato famine?
I’ve belatedly realised there simply isn’t an ideal climate for me. Hence my wandering
I want the tropics - especially Indochina - in winter. I want a bit of English spring in spring - but also Greece. A dash of the riviera in summer. Then london again. Perhaps Austria in high summer, New England in early fall, Mexico in later autumn etc etc
There is nowhere perfect. In my grizzled later years I will be delighted if I can shuffle between the languid backstreets of Phnom Penh in winter and the delights of Europe at other times
And now, some tv and then bed. Night night from Kampuchea
A Jewish charity to help disaffected young boys has been mobbed by a mob of masked men after the address was posted by a provocative social media activist.
Disturbing footage shows the crowd abusing Jewish passers-by in Hendon while being blocked by police.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_participation_on_the_Eastern_Front
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke’s,
My cousin’s, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
Royal or PBer or none-of-the-above, whatever: please get well soon.
AND if you are touched by this AND wish to send me a gift box or similar token of appreciation . . .
Obviously other abdominal surgery is possible, but we also know not cancerous.
My mother had 2 years in hospital at a similar age, with my dad and a series of Au Pairs looking after me and my sibs. Kids adapt well to these sorts of things in the main.
Though all other things being equal, Scotland all the way up to about Dundee would probably suit my preferences better than anywhere south of Congleton.
Earliest sunset 12th Dec, latest sunrise 2nd January. Which is why the run up to Christmas seems so dark and why January mornings are so difficult.
I think sub-Mediterranean climates in Northern Iberia and the southern foothills of the Alps or Pyrenees, or similar spots in Chile or California probably get closest. Mountains are useful sources of climate interest.
No it won't be a lifechanger but then all I was looking for was a better rate of reurn. But I take you point. My biggest ever betting loss was GE 2010, when I assumed NOM was nailed on, so I know what you mean.
i think I'll follow the dictum of my favorite betting guru, Alan Potts -
'No bet is no problem.'
The best climate that I have lived in was Christchurch NZ. Summer consistently like the best English summer days, winter frosts but warm enough for a t shirt by lunchtime. Rain for 2 days a fortnight for a bit of variety. Never too cold or too hot. Occasional earthquakes.
As a resident of Airedale I would agree that Airedale and Wharfedale are excellent choices. But avoid Keighley - except when visiting the KWVR.
However, I think the Dales get just as much rain as Manchester.
Wouldn't be anywhere else, frankly.
Wouldn't miss this at any time of year. I mean and that's just an insta-google ffs.
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1747621849704362311
It’s like saying, ‘well, SCOTUS said Trump didn’t commit insurrection merely because he tried to overthrow the government.’
I flatter myself that I have/had pretty Catholic tastes when it came to books so I don’t think I was stuck in a rut. I remember very fondly the warm feeling of surrender when you get into the meat of a good book and the feverish excitement of discovering a writer new to you, hopefully they’ll return.
I have a cracking reread list prepared for when the empty days of retirement come. Let’s hope the predisposition to dementia of one half of my family doesn’t strike first..
"This warning notice covers the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and we use this term to include any form of agreement or contract, or a clause within a wider agreement or contract, under which it is agreed that certain information will be kept confidential."
Nick Read was wrong. (And I was right in my criticism of him.) God knows what his GC, Ben Foat, thinks he is doing.
"People moved against their will with no regard for their safety, no recourse to appeal, to a country they do not know, involving money and profits. Well that sounds like people smuggling to me."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68001957
Regular eye tests when you do get readers is vital.
My prescription changes every year, and my first glasses from four years ago are virtually useless now.
Just got a new scrip before Xmas, and the difference is quite staggering.
Pathetic.