When the time comes many of them will somehow convince themselves that actually it's probably OK to vote Trump after all.
To paraphrase Olivia Rodrigo:
Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? ...whatever, it's fine
When the time comes many of them will somehow convince themselves that actually it's probably OK to vote Trump after all.
To paraphrase Olivia Rodrigo:
Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? ...whatever, it's fine
Agreed. Fooling themselves that there's a line Trump hasn't crossed, but if he did, then that would be too much, is a psychological coping mechanism to give themselves permission to support him now, even though he's crossed countless other lines that they would previously have considered beyond the pale.
If/when Trump is convicted then there will be another line drawn, further off, that he hasn't crossed yet.
I noted various UK articles yesterday saying Trump was going to appeal the cases.
Well he can’t do that without either paying the money to the court or finding someone (bail) willing to pay the money on his behalf.
Now Trump wasn’t able to find anyone willing to lend him the original $5m fine so there is little chance of him finding someone willing to stump up $540m or so and unless he does so the appeals won’t proceed any further
I noted various UK articles yesterday saying Trump was going to appeal the cases.
Well he can’t do that without either paying the money to the court or finding someone (bail) willing to pay the money on his behalf.
Now Trump wasn’t able to find anyone willing to lend him the original $5m fine so there is little chance of him finding someone willing to stump up $540m or so and unless he does so the appeals won’t proceed any further
He asked to be allowed to appeal the Carroll case without stumping up any money. The Court said no.
His lawyers have said they will appeal the New York fraud case, but he's not handed over any money yet. He could ask, again, to be allowed to appeal without doing so. That Court would likely also say no.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
if you're feeling unreasonably cheerful and need reminding that life and humanity can be dreadful
"Taken in 1996 photo of Dolly who was incarcerated in the Moor Psychiatric Hospital for having an illegitimate child in her early teens, she never left and died about a year after I took her photo."
When the time comes many of them will somehow convince themselves that actually it's probably OK to vote Trump after all.
To paraphrase Olivia Rodrigo:
Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right? ...whatever, it's fine
Agreed. Fooling themselves that there's a line Trump hasn't crossed, but if he did, then that would be too much, is a psychological coping mechanism to give themselves permission to support him now, even though he's crossed countless other lines that they would previously have considered beyond the pale.
If/when Trump is convicted then there will be another line drawn, further off, that he hasn't crossed yet.
Has been happening recently with the "one nation" group in the conservative party. They keep expressing outrage but doing nothing about it, unlike their more naturally rebellious counterparts on the right.
For some years I have thought this would be an apropriate punishment for Trump: He should be required to join one of those monastic orders that take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience -- and silence. (Especially the last.)
I noted various UK articles yesterday saying Trump was going to appeal the cases.
Well he can’t do that without either paying the money to the court or finding someone (bail) willing to pay the money on his behalf.
Now Trump wasn’t able to find anyone willing to lend him the original $5m fine so there is little chance of him finding someone willing to stump up $540m or so and unless he does so the appeals won’t proceed any further
The procedure seems quite complicated. There were time limits to appeal the decisions. The lodging of the appeals sets another clock running by which either the money or at least a bond has to be lodged for 110% of the award.
The time limit from the lodging of security for the appeal seems to be 30 days from the date of the appeal which, in the first case, expires on the first day of his criminal trial for the false records relating to the payments for Stormy Daniels or 8th March. My understanding is that if there is no payment or bond at that date the appeal is deemed to be abandoned and the creditors are free to enforce the judgments by seizing his assets. At which point any loans over those properties are very likely to be called in.
In the meantime he can apply to the court to either waive the bond or restrict the bond. His attempts to do that so far have failed.
I wonder if the 61% would be fine with a teacher or police officer having no doubt several dozen criminal convictions?
But a President similarly judged? No problem, apparently.
A mad world sometimes ...
The mere fact that so many are sticking with Trump despite mountains of evidence that he is a crook, liar, creep and plainly unfit for office is enough to say that no matter what happens in the US this November the country is screwed. Trump may fail but worse people will follow in his footsteps.
For some years I have thought this would be an apropriate punishment for Trump: He should be required to join one of those monastic orders that take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience -- and silence. (Especially the last.)
Seems a little cruel and unusual for the other monks to be punished that way.
I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??
Conviction of a criminal offence wouldn't see Republican voters leave Trump but it could cost him support from Independents who are crucial in the general election
Todays story of a Tory politician lying about what they can and can’t do while standing for election
If re-elected Ben Houchen has pledged to bring flights to Malaga and Tenerife to Teesside Airport.
Last year TVCA told me he "does not have any operational role at Teesside Airport and is not party to any such decisions relating to commercial agreements"
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
It's entirely plausible. Trump can win with about 7m fewer votes than Biden - and can Biden get his 2020 vote out again given his physical and mental state, and with the Trump machine constantly hammering those points (as well as on regular political topics, whether true, exaggerated or wholly fabricated)?
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
This was his first novel, from 1975, and at 166 pages it only just qualifies as a novel, albeit those 166 pages read like 500 in terms of what they give the reader.. It doesn't have the depth or give the satisfaction of the Aegypt cycle, but it is gnomic and dense, in some ways more like a prose poem than a novel with a plot and characters. Supposedly somewhat inspired by the Wars of the Roses (or the reign of Edward II), it in no way resembles an historical novel.
Comparisons have been made with Game of Thrones. A note to those who make such comparisons: if one was written in 1975, and the other begun in 1996, then it's the latter that resembles the former, _not_ the other way around. Idiots. It does not have much in common with GoT, other than its alleged historical inspiration, but (much as I love GoT) the 166 pages of this have more going on, more to chew on and reflect on, than the 4000+ and counting pages of the latter. But GRRM undoubtedly knows The Deep, and Crowley.
What is it like? It's a bit like the Gormenghast books, but less grounded. It's a bit like Jack Vance's Dying Earth, but better written. Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun owes a fair bit to this book, and I bet Crowley and Wolfe love each other's work.
There are hints as to a possible interpreation of the story, but even at this stage of his career, Crowley is clearly cautioning against taking anything at face value. I loved it. I don't know what it means. He's worth reading, every page.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party.
It's possibly not even that, although no doubt some of the protagonists' feelings play a part. The issue is that the Conservative party sees some electoral gain in indulging other people's latent Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred.
It feels opportunistic, as do most of their statements these days, rather than particularly heartfelt.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
My wife wears a cross as a necklace, a legacy from her grandmother. Her family were definitely not Catholic; in fact as a child she was discouraged from playing with Catholic children. The only time anybody has suggested she was Catholic was about 20 years ago in Sri Lanka!
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
I would have thought the first amendment would protect wearing a cross in the US
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yup - that 36% is roughly the demographic who aren't going to vote for Trump even if he is not (yet) convicted come the election. So while a conviction might cement whatever proportion of that cohort are "waverers" I think the damage is already done.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
It will be about turnout, rather than an unlikely number of Biden to Trump switchers.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.
Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?
Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.
Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?
Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.
Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?
Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
We're back to the classic Presidential election discriminator of "(S)he who has the biggest clown shoes, loses."
I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??
If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.
But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.
As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?
Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?
Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.
I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.
Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?
Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.
Biden wins by default.
It happened in 2016. People insisted Trump couldn't possibly win, they ignored Clinton's negatives, Trump won.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
Trump outperformed his polling average in 2016 and 2020.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.
Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?
Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.
Biden wins by default.
It happened in 2016. People insisted Trump couldn't possibly win, they ignored Clinton's negatives, Trump won.
Look at Biden's ratings. They're awful.
Trump's aren't much better and Biden did win the rustbelt swing states unlike Hillary
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
Trump outperformed his polling average in 2016 and 2020.
But in the last few years, the GOP vote has underperformed the polling average, and explicitly Trump backed candidates have underperformed that. So I think we are in a different phase.
ETA: I'm by no means saying that Trump is going to lose. Just that we have to be cautious with any prior assumptions.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
Well, what is Jim worried about then?
Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??
If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.
But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.
As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?
Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?
Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.
I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)
It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it
And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch
It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
Well, what is Jim worried about then?
Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
"In 25 special elections since Nov. 7 (there were no specials between Sept. 19 and Nov. 7), Republicans have won by an average of 3 points. The districts in which the elections were held had an average base partisanship of R+2, meaning that, over the last few months, it’s actually Republicans who have been overperforming in special elections, albeit by an average of just 1 point. That’s exactly what the polls are saying right now."
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
Well, what is Jim worried about then?
Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
But Yazidis aren't Christian. They're Yazidi.
They very definitely are NOT Christian. Arguably, they worship the Christian Devil, or some ur-God that eventually became the Christian Devil. Their fascinating and crazy religion long predates Christianity, indeed it might be the oldest surviving religion in the world
This alleged "devil worship" is just one reason they have been brutally persecuted by Christians AND Muslims, over the centuries
They are some of the most interesting people on earth. May God, of whatever variety, protect them
Re: folks wearing crosses or other religious symbols (ditto political/ideological symbols/slogans) perhaps they should remember, that IF they behave in a un-Christian (or whatever) manner, then others, especially those on receiving end, are highly likely to consider them and/or their beliefs, to be a crock of shit.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
I think it's a mistake to think of things as step functions. Many - perhaps most - of those who say today that they won't vote Trump if he's convicted, will indeed, vote for him.
But there will be plenty for whom it will have some impact. They might still like him more than Biden... but the motivation to go down to the polling station and vote Trump will be that little bit less than it was. And at the margin, he will lose a few votes to NOTA.
Of course, Trump's conviction will no doubt motivate a few people too: among left wingers, there will be some who prefer Stein but who might be tipped into voting Biden to prevent Trump's return. And there will be some on the right who see this all as a big conspiracy, and will be more motivated to go out and vote Trump than they might otherwise be.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
"In 25 special elections since Nov. 7 (there were no specials between Sept. 19 and Nov. 7), Republicans have won by an average of 3 points. The districts in which the elections were held had an average base partisanship of R+2, meaning that, over the last few months, it’s actually Republicans who have been overperforming in special elections, albeit by an average of just 1 point. That’s exactly what the polls are saying right now."
Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.
Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
Well, what is Jim worried about then?
Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
But Yazidis aren't Christian. They're Yazidi.
They very definitely are NOT Christian. Arguably, they worship the Christian Devil, or some ur-God that eventually became the Christian Devil. Their fascinating and crazy religion long predates Christianity, indeed it might be the oldest surviving religion in the world
This alleged "devil worship" is just one reason they have been brutally persecuted by Christians AND Muslims, over the centuries
They are some of the most interesting people on earth. May God, of whatever variety, protect them
IIRC they find the devil worship claim highly offensive.
In the Iraqi Parliament, again IIRC, some traditional exclamations about “going to the devil” or similar were banned because of association with attacks on Yazidis. Racist language….
Religion is a protected category in most US civil rights laws. But organizations dominated by cultural leftists discriminate against those believers regularly, without any fear of punishment.
And the Democratic Party often caters to them. For example, I can not imagine Washington state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, defending that hypothetical young Catholic woman I mentioned.
But don't ask me: Ask Google, and Apple, and the rest, whether those traditional groups constitute about 40 percent of their employees.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.
Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?
Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.
Biden wins by default.
It happened in 2016. People insisted Trump couldn't possibly win, they ignored Clinton's negatives, Trump won.
Look at Biden's ratings. They're awful.
Trump's aren't much better and Biden did win the rustbelt swing states unlike Hillary
HY, you are back on the side of the good and the righteous. I am rather relieved.
Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.
Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566
Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.
Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566
Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...
The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also
The postmasters must be gobsmacked
Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...
That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
I know plenty of people who fall into those categories who are rather more liberal on - say - gay marriage, than their religion. It's a mistake to assume that all adherents are of one mind.
It's also important to note that age plays a role: older people are much less likely to be in favor of gay marriage. They are also much less likely to work for Google. But that's not because Google is discriminating against those views, so much as the fact that they are much more likely to hire young people.
Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.
Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566
Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...
The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also
The postmasters must be gobsmacked
Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...
That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
Staunton is just like the crapulent investigators previously exposed. He seems to think that any responsibility for his own actions lies with other people.
61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
"In 25 special elections since Nov. 7 (there were no specials between Sept. 19 and Nov. 7), Republicans have won by an average of 3 points. The districts in which the elections were held had an average base partisanship of R+2, meaning that, over the last few months, it’s actually Republicans who have been overperforming in special elections, albeit by an average of just 1 point. That’s exactly what the polls are saying right now."
Have you over-discounted the anti-correlation of the special election figures? Or have I over-emphasised it?
I'm not sure. I think you can see some positive signs for Dems if you want to, but it's a long way to go, and there are plenty of bad signs for Biden's chances too. I agree with the conclusion to the first article:
"All signs right now point to an election that could go either way, and if I had to guess, I don’t think that will change by November."
I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??
If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.
But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.
As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?
Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?
Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.
I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)
It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it
And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch
It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
I play a bit of guitar and know the most basic bits of music theory. You don't really need any theory to play guitar - learn a few basic chord shapes and put the hours in and get the muscle memory and you can play 95% of popular music pretty easily.
Hey man, the chicks dig it.
But the problem with not knowing any theory is you don't know why you're doing what you're doing. You're just playing chord progressions (usually the same chord progressions over and over again) and notes you've learnt by rote, but you don't understand why they fit together. Or why they shouldn't but it sounds amazing anyway.
Even with my severely limited musical knowledge, you do recognise certain things that crop up again and again, little tricks that everyone uses, that once you see the trick you can't unsee it - the magic has gone. And I wonder if AI is just picking up on these common tropes, these hackneyed techniques, your brain's heard a thousand times before, and which always sound good to us.
I'm not saying AI won't know theory - it's not that hard, it's just tricky to memorise it all, I bet AI knows it now. But is AI currently relying on those common tropes? It might well be now, but in 5 years time? Even in 6 months time? Who knows? At some point it will become a very sophisticated composer, probably much sooner rather than later.
I think it's really exciting. Most of it might be garbage. But it's going to be really interesting.
Hello @Leon@rcs1000 and the PB gang. I want to get up to speed on AI, where would you recommend I start. I have a moderately strong, but clearly outdated, tech literacy. I can deal with pop science books to more instructive content for how it actually works.
Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.
Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566
Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...
The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also
The postmasters must be gobsmacked
Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...
That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
I listened to the whole testimony and the looks of incredulity by the mps and those behind him said it all
He was all over the place and he seemed to 'protest too much '
To be honest Badenoch took the correct decision in sacking him, certainly on the way he presented himself today, but frankly the whole lot of them should be sacked and the matter taken completely out of the Post Office's hands
I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??
If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.
But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.
As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?
Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?
Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.
I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)
It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it
And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch
It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
I play a bit of guitar and know the most basic bits of music theory. You don't really need any theory to play guitar - learn a few basic chord shapes and put the hours in and get the muscle memory and you can play 95% of popular music pretty easily.
Hey man, the chicks dig it.
But the problem with not knowing any theory is you don't know why you're doing what you're doing. You're just playing chord progressions (usually the same chord progressions over and over again) and notes you've learnt by rote, but you don't understand why they fit together. Or why they shouldn't but it sounds amazing anyway.
Even with my severely limited musical knowledge, you do recognise certain things that crop up again and again, little tricks that everyone uses, that once you see the trick you can't unsee it - the magic has gone. And I wonder if AI is just picking up on these common tropes, these hackneyed techniques, your brain's heard a thousand times before, and which always sound good to us.
I'm not saying AI won't know theory - it's not that hard, it's just tricky to memorise it all, I bet AI knows it now. But is AI currently relying on those common tropes? It might well be now, but in 5 years time? Even in 6 months time? Who knows? At some point it will become a very sophisticated composer, probably much sooner rather than later.
I think it's really exciting. Most of it might be garbage. But it's going to be really interesting.
I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.
Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.
And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise. To do anything else is to anywhere abrogate my responsibility to my shareholders.
Religion is a protected category in most US civil rights laws. But organizations dominated by cultural leftists discriminate against those believers regularly, without any fear of punishment.
And the Democratic Party often caters to them. For example, I can not imagine Washington state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, defending that hypothetical young Catholic woman I mentioned.
But don't ask me: Ask Google, and Apple, and the rest, whether those traditional groups constitute about 40 percent of their employees.
FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
I know plenty of people who fall into those categories who are rather more liberal on - say - gay marriage, than their religion. It's a mistake to assume that all adherents are of one mind.
It's also important to note that age plays a role: older people are much less likely to be in favor of gay marriage. They are also much less likely to work for Google. But that's not because Google is discriminating against those views, so much as the fact that they are much more likely to hire young people.
Probably Google isn't refusing to hire people because they have "traditional religious ideas about sex". But everybody has affinity bias. I'm just wondering how people responsible for hiring at Google know whether candidates have traditional religious ideas about sex, or is it just a general correlation with how people look/dress, or specifically religious dress code like wearing a burqa? The example was someone wearing a cross when going for a job at Disney - is there any research on the effect of wearing a cross at job interviews?
He really is a genius at being able to find the jokes in the worst of circumstances, and is going to be a massive personality as the US election draws closer. Well worth 15m of everyone’s time to watch it, no matter your view of the war. Not afraid to call a spade, which is something most American commentators have forgotten in the past eight years.
I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??
If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.
But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.
As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?
Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?
Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.
I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)
It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it
And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch
It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
I play a bit of guitar and know the most basic bits of music theory. You don't really need any theory to play guitar - learn a few basic chord shapes and put the hours in and get the muscle memory and you can play 95% of popular music pretty easily.
Hey man, the chicks dig it.
But the problem with not knowing any theory is you don't know why you're doing what you're doing. You're just playing chord progressions (usually the same chord progressions over and over again) and notes you've learnt by rote, but you don't understand why they fit together. Or why they shouldn't but it sounds amazing anyway.
Even with my severely limited musical knowledge, you do recognise certain things that crop up again and again, little tricks that everyone uses, that once you see the trick you can't unsee it - the magic has gone. And I wonder if AI is just picking up on these common tropes, these hackneyed techniques, your brain's heard a thousand times before, and which always sound good to us.
I'm not saying AI won't know theory - it's not that hard, it's just tricky to memorise it all, I bet AI knows it now. But is AI currently relying on those common tropes? It might well be now, but in 5 years time? Even in 6 months time? Who knows? At some point it will become a very sophisticated composer, probably much sooner rather than later.
I think it's really exciting. Most of it might be garbage. But it's going to be really interesting.
I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.
Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.
And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise. To do anything else is to anywhere abrogate my responsibility to my shareholders.
but presumably you would try not to discriminate against a sikh man wearing a turban, for example?
I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.
Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.
And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise...
Hello @Leon@rcs1000 and the PB gang. I want to get up to speed on AI, where would you recommend I start. I have a moderately strong, but clearly outdated, tech literacy. I can deal with pop science books to more instructive content for how it actually works.
How technical/mathematical are you? Which bits are you most interested in?
Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.
Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566
Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...
The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also
The postmasters must be gobsmacked
Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...
That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
I listened to the whole testimony and the looks of incredulity by the mps and those behind him said it all
He was all over the place and he seemed to 'protest too much '
To be honest Badenoch took the correct decision in sacking him, certainly on the way he presented himself today, but frankly the whole lot of them should be sacked and the matter taken completely out of the Post Office's hands
Shame Kemi didn't sack herself too. Utterly out of her depth.
I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.
Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.
And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise. To do anything else is to anywhere abrogate my responsibility to my shareholders.
I don't think your "responsibility to your shareholders" would hold up in court as a defence against unlawful direct discrimination.
Comments
To paraphrase Olivia Rodrigo:
Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
...whatever, it's fine
If/when Trump is convicted then there will be another line drawn, further off, that he hasn't crossed yet.
Well he can’t do that without either paying the money to the court or finding someone (bail) willing to pay the money on his behalf.
Now Trump wasn’t able to find anyone willing to lend him the original $5m fine so there is little chance of him finding someone willing to stump up $540m or so and unless he does so the appeals won’t proceed any further
His lawyers have said they will appeal the New York fraud case, but he's not handed over any money yet. He could ask, again, to be allowed to appeal without doing so. That Court would likely also say no.
But a President similarly judged? No problem, apparently.
A mad world sometimes ...
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4490047-trump-holds-6-point-lead-over-biden-despite-legal-woes-poll/
Trump - 48
Biden - 42
"Taken in 1996 photo of Dolly who was incarcerated in the Moor Psychiatric Hospital for having an illegitimate child in her early teens, she never left and died about a year after I took her photo."
https://x.com/IanBeesleyphoto/status/1762216625518891090?s=20
The time limit from the lodging of security for the appeal seems to be 30 days from the date of the appeal which, in the first case, expires on the first day of his criminal trial for the false records relating to the payments for Stormy Daniels or 8th March. My understanding is that if there is no payment or bond at that date the appeal is deemed to be abandoned and the creditors are free to enforce the judgments by seizing his assets. At which point any loans over those properties are very likely to be called in.
In the meantime he can apply to the court to either waive the bond or restrict the bond. His attempts to do that so far have failed.
https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12
Like the man said: Someone had to say it
That's been me for the last 5 minutes. Not sure if he will reply to my fanmail, tho
If re-elected Ben Houchen has pledged to bring flights to Malaga and Tenerife to Teesside Airport.
Last year TVCA told me he "does not have any operational role at Teesside Airport and is not party to any such decisions relating to commercial agreements"
An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)
(Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)
Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.
No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
On balance, he's the more likely.
Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.
If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
This was his first novel, from 1975, and at 166 pages it only just qualifies as a novel, albeit those 166 pages read like 500 in terms of what they give the reader.. It doesn't have the depth or give the satisfaction of the Aegypt cycle, but it is gnomic and dense, in some ways more like a prose poem than a novel with a plot and characters. Supposedly somewhat inspired by the Wars of the Roses (or the reign of Edward II), it in no way resembles an historical novel.
Comparisons have been made with Game of Thrones. A note to those who make such comparisons: if one was written in 1975, and the other begun in 1996, then it's the latter that resembles the former, _not_ the other way around. Idiots. It does not have much in common with GoT, other than its alleged historical inspiration, but (much as I love GoT) the 166 pages of this have more going on, more to chew on and reflect on, than the 4000+ and counting pages of the latter. But GRRM undoubtedly knows The Deep, and Crowley.
What is it like? It's a bit like the Gormenghast books, but less grounded. It's a bit like Jack Vance's Dying Earth, but better written. Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun owes a fair bit to this book, and I bet Crowley and Wolfe love each other's work.
There are hints as to a possible interpreation of the story, but even at this stage of his career, Crowley is clearly cautioning against taking anything at face value. I loved it. I don't know what it means. He's worth reading, every page.
It feels opportunistic, as do most of their statements these days, rather than particularly heartfelt.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/a-bit-fruity-with-matt-bernstein/id1693739175?i=1000647191757
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination
Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
Senate GOP fears Speaker Johnson headed toward shutdown wreck
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4490424-senate-gop-fears-speaker-johnson-headed-toward-shutdown-wreck/
Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?
Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
Biden wins by default.
If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.
But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.
As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?
Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?
Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.
I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
Look at Biden's ratings. They're awful.
You're famous! Was this after your recent roadtrip?
https://app.suno.ai/song/dd0a0c35-3249-4014-9d54-9f12249607c1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68414864
ETA: I'm by no means saying that Trump is going to lose. Just that we have to be cautious with any prior assumptions.
It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it
And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch
It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-predictor-polls-special-elections/story?id=107369614 suggests you wrong
"In 25 special elections since Nov. 7 (there were no specials between Sept. 19 and Nov. 7), Republicans have won by an average of 3 points. The districts in which the elections were held had an average base partisanship of R+2, meaning that, over the last few months, it’s actually Republicans who have been overperforming in special elections, albeit by an average of just 1 point. That’s exactly what the polls are saying right now."
This alleged "devil worship" is just one reason they have been brutally persecuted by Christians AND Muslims, over the centuries
They are some of the most interesting people on earth. May God, of whatever variety, protect them
Just sayin'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68404704
Bad news in itself, and it also means recent graduates face even more competition for jobs.
Please refer yourself to the moderators for appropriate actions.
But there will be plenty for whom it will have some impact. They might still like him more than Biden... but the motivation to go down to the polling station and vote Trump will be that little bit less than it was. And at the margin, he will lose a few votes to NOTA.
Of course, Trump's conviction will no doubt motivate a few people too: among left wingers, there will be some who prefer Stein but who might be tipped into voting Biden to prevent Trump's return. And there will be some on the right who see this all as a big conspiracy, and will be more motivated to go out and vote Trump than they might otherwise be.
Have you over-discounted the anti-correlation of the special election figures? Or have I over-emphasised it?
The full thing is paywalled but there are clips on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_8no_RFCjw
Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566
Perhaps the biggest claim is that "it's Nick Read [the PO chief exec] who is subject to misconduct inquiry, not him" - this directly contradicts what Badenoch's been saying.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63
And now, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister appears to have all but confirmed this, saying "that it was “entirely inappropriate” for Henry Staunton to talk to the Commons business committee about Nick Read, the chief executive, being investigated over a misconduct complaint."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63
Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...
In the Iraqi Parliament, again IIRC, some traditional exclamations about “going to the devil” or similar were banned because of association with attacks on Yazidis. Racist language….
And the Democratic Party often caters to them. For example, I can not imagine Washington state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, defending that hypothetical young Catholic woman I mentioned.
But don't ask me: Ask Google, and Apple, and the rest, whether those traditional groups constitute about 40 percent of their employees.
One or two others are still shilling for Satan!
The postmasters must be gobsmacked
Sad but true.
That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
It's also important to note that age plays a role: older people are much less likely to be in favor of gay marriage. They are also much less likely to work for Google. But that's not because Google is discriminating against those views, so much as the fact that they are much more likely to hire young people.
"All signs right now point to an election that could go either way, and if I had to guess, I don’t think that will change by November."
Hey man, the chicks dig it.
But the problem with not knowing any theory is you don't know why you're doing what you're doing. You're just playing chord progressions (usually the same chord progressions over and over again) and notes you've learnt by rote, but you don't understand why they fit together. Or why they shouldn't but it sounds amazing anyway.
Even with my severely limited musical knowledge, you do recognise certain things that crop up again and again, little tricks that everyone uses, that once you see the trick you can't unsee it - the magic has gone. And I wonder if AI is just picking up on these common tropes, these hackneyed techniques, your brain's heard a thousand times before, and which always sound good to us.
I'm not saying AI won't know theory - it's not that hard, it's just tricky to memorise it all, I bet AI knows it now. But is AI currently relying on those common tropes? It might well be now, but in 5 years time? Even in 6 months time? Who knows? At some point it will become a very sophisticated composer, probably much sooner rather than later.
I think it's really exciting. Most of it might be garbage. But it's going to be really interesting.
He was all over the place and he seemed to 'protest too much '
To be honest Badenoch took the correct decision in sacking him, certainly on the way he presented himself today, but frankly the whole lot of them should be sacked and the matter taken completely out of the Post Office's hands
I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.
Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.
And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise. To do anything else is to anywhere abrogate my responsibility to my shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_a_Computer_Scientist_Rarely_Talks_About
But there is very likely something of an inverse correlation between religious fundamentalism and being a tech nerd.
I think you need to show your workings.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=K2zbN3AuHG8
He really is a genius at being able to find the jokes in the worst of circumstances, and is going to be a massive personality as the US election draws closer. Well worth 15m of everyone’s time to watch it, no matter your view of the war. Not afraid to call a spade, which is something most American commentators have forgotten in the past eight years.
I would probably start with Stephen Wolfram's piece on how LLMs work: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/