OT Oddschecker has introduced a £9.99/month subscription.
Lol, because scraping a bunch of public websites and ordering the output definitely isn’t something that a junior dev couldn’t knock up in a few days.
Maybe I should register checktheodds.com?
@rcs1000 might have been involved in a previous rival, now you come to mention it (and if I'm not misremembering). The writing was on the wall when Oddschecker was sold to a PE group.
That says a lot about both PE and internet advertising, both of which appear to now be quite broken industries.
PE doesn’t know what to do with high interest rates, except to double down on trying to monetise every penny of their investment. Why they would ever invest in such an easily-replicable business model in the first place is another question, but we still have Uber and a dozen food delivery apps that will never make a return.
Internet advertising rates have fallen off a cliff due to a lack of demand, although they might recover as the US election draws closer. Google and Facebook have pretty much a duopoly, and have both been unable to hold rates up. Youtube advertiser revenue in particular has taken a big hit, as people aggressively block the ads, and many creators who for years were able to make a living from ad revenue now find that income has been cut in half since the height of the pandemic.
OT Oddschecker has introduced a £9.99/month subscription.
Lol, because scraping a bunch of public websites and ordering the output definitely isn’t something that a junior dev couldn’t knock up in a few days.
Maybe I should register checktheodds.com?
@rcs1000 might have been involved in a previous rival, now you come to mention it (and if I'm not misremembering). The writing was on the wall when Oddschecker was sold to a PE group.
That says a lot about both PE and internet advertising, both of which appear to now be quite broken industries.
PE doesn’t know what to do with high interest rates, except to double down on trying to monetise every penny of their investment. Why they would ever invest in such an easily-replicable business model in the first place is another question, but we still have Uber and a dozen food delivery apps that will never make a return.
Internet advertising rates have fallen off a cliff due to a lack of demand, although they might recover as the US election draws closer. Google and Facebook have pretty much a duopoly, and have both been unable to hold rates up. Youtube advertiser revenue in particular has taken a big hit, as people aggressively block the ads, and many creators who for years were able to make a living from ad revenue now find that income has been cut in half since the height of the pandemic.
Yes, it is their online advertising duopoly that will dictate the future of Google and Facebook, and not which AI model Leon prefers. On Youtube I am not sure what is going on. Advertising has become far more intrusive which, one would have thought, would have led to more people blocking adverts, even if Google is trying to make this harder on its Chrome browser. I suppose the plan might be to sell more Youtube subscriptions.
Wandering off on a tangent, Youtube's recommendation algorithm seems to have been tweaked lately and in the process, broken. It now appears to have extreme biases to short (Tiktok-like) and recently viewed content.
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
Peston ( I know) suggesting Hunt is to abolish non dom status
Given that Labour has spent that money several times over and it props up some of the few remaining promises of significance in its intended manifesto, that would be political genius from the Tories, even if they do it in a way that ensures nothing changes until after the election
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
This is the first explanation of the Rayner controversy I have heard by Kate McCann and apparently Starmer has felt the need to express full confidence in Rayner tonight
OT Oddschecker has introduced a £9.99/month subscription.
Lol, because scraping a bunch of public websites and ordering the output definitely isn’t something that a junior dev couldn’t knock up in a few days.
Maybe I should register checktheodds.com?
@rcs1000 might have been involved in a previous rival, now you come to mention it (and if I'm not misremembering). The writing was on the wall when Oddschecker was sold to a PE group.
That says a lot about both PE and internet advertising, both of which appear to now be quite broken industries.
PE doesn’t know what to do with high interest rates, except to double down on trying to monetise every penny of their investment. Why they would ever invest in such an easily-replicable business model in the first place is another question, but we still have Uber and a dozen food delivery apps that will never make a return.
Internet advertising rates have fallen off a cliff due to a lack of demand, although they might recover as the US election draws closer. Google and Facebook have pretty much a duopoly, and have both been unable to hold rates up. Youtube advertiser revenue in particular has taken a big hit, as people aggressively block the ads, and many creators who for years were able to make a living from ad revenue now find that income has been cut in half since the height of the pandemic.
It hasn't helped that Youtube and others have adopted an aggressive policy of demonitising a lot of very popular youtube channels for seemingly minor infractions. This has had little effect on the popularity of those channels but a lot on the revenue streams.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Jesus is one part of the Holy Trinity that is God, surely.
Not all Christians believe this either.
So long as you define whether someone is a Christian by whether they believe in the Holy Trinity, then yes they do.
Not so long since doing otherwise was seriously subversive treason in England (not sure about rUK). Unitarian churches had to call themselves Presbyterian as protective camouflage. Confused me badly when doing genealogical research once.
Was Jesus particularly interested in dogma ?
He preferred Clerks.
It’s such a shame that Weinstein bought that copyright personally rather than through Miramax. Never gets shown as a result
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
The decision to hear the case necessarily implies they (or rather a majority on the court) takes seriously Trump’s assertion that not only is he entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of his intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment in question.
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President.
That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
Disagree. It’s a crazy claim but one that should be ruled on by the Supreme Court
An S92 has gone down off Norway. Thankfully they have picked up the 6 crew/passengers from the sea and taken them to hospital but Bristows have immediately grounded all S92s in Norway and the UK.
Not what you want to hear when you are stuck on a rig in the North Atlantic and the S92 is the only avalable means of getting home. I am half way through a 3 week hitch so hoping they will have sorted it by the time I am due to crew change but they won't let them fly again until they know exactly what has happened.
If they can’t replace you, presumably you have to keep on working. Does that count as overtime…
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
The decision to hear the case necessarily implies they (or rather a majority on the court) takes seriously Trump’s assertion that not only is he entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of his intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment in question.
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President. That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
I dispute that sentence.
Taney at least had some logic on his side.
This Supreme Court has not thought the matter through (assuming Thomas and Alito are capable of thinking). If they declare absolute immunity for the president, four of them will be in jail that same evening.
So they won't do it.
So why hear it?
Because, as I've said all along, they're crooks on Trump's side.
*allegedly* Ukraine shot down another SU-34 this morning. They're basically running at one claimed shootdown per day on average, for almost the last couple of weeks.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
The decision to hear the case necessarily implies they (or rather a majority on the court) takes seriously Trump’s assertion that not only is he entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of his intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment in question.
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President.
That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
Disagree. It’s a crazy claim but one that should be ruled on by the Supreme Court
But delaying it to April 22nd? They could hear this in five minutes if they weren't playing silly buggers.
Not, bluntly, that I agree. There is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on obvious nonsense. They would not, for example, be required to rule on whether radishes could be President.
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Back to the discussion on marriage on the previous thread...
My niece (and now nephew-in-law) had two wedding ceremonies. Firstly, a Sikh ceremony and, the following week, a humanist ceremony.
Later we discovered that neither of these was their actual wedding - they'd been to the registry office the week before it all kicked off with parents and siblings to do the official stuff.
Is a registry office not a humanist? Or does humanist count as religious?
My view FWIW, is that we now have a bizarre mix of regulations. Gay marriage, straight marriage, civil partnership. I would have abolished everything except CP and used it as the sole official recognition of a relationship.
For the religious only marriage is valid, civil partnerships are fine for the non religious. Indeed personally I would have had civil partnerships for the divorced and same sex couples and heterosexual non religious couples (with marriage remaining a religious institution with blessings offered in churches for the divorced in civil unions and same sex couples who were Christian)
"[blather] marriage remaining a religious institution [blather]"
You do know that register offices have existed since 1837?
I do and in my opinion they should have only performed civil unions from their creation
But they have. They're called civil marriages.
So still have the word 'marriage' in them then
So marriage has not been a "religious institution" in this country since 1837.
Quite unbelievable that anyone in this day and age would have banned people from getting married unless they were "religious".
Marriage still is a religious institution, it was created by religions after all and for most it is limited only to one man and woman for life.
Civil unions would have been fine for the non religious and those who did not meet the above criteria
Maybe there's a valid distinction between marriage and holy matrimony?
Which is the C of E argument with only the latter applying to a man and woman ideally for life
How is that a Christian argument and not just bigotry
Read Christ's definition of marriage in the Bible
Christ's parents weren't married to one another.
They were certainly at least betrothed
The Lord God was definitely NOT married to the mother of His only begotten son.
Hyufd has definitely not understood this Christianity lark. Tush tush.
It was a virgin birth, so still no sex before marriage
Er, how can virgins give birth?
As Jesus was the son of God
Not all Christians believe this.
Seems pretty fundamental to the definition of the faith to me. The clue being in the title.
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
The decision to hear the case necessarily implies they (or rather a majority on the court) takes seriously Trump’s assertion that not only is he entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of his intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment in question.
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President.
That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
Disagree. It’s a crazy claim but one that should be ruled on by the Supreme Court
But delaying it to April 22nd? They could hear this in five minutes if they weren't playing silly buggers.
Not, bluntly, that I agree. There is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on obvious nonsense. They would not, for example, be required to rule on whether radishes could be President.
When are the court sessions?
It’s beginning of March. 3 weeks before Easter break and then they are reviewing it 2 weeks after they return. That’s not much time for the paper arguments that come before the hearing date
An S92 has gone down off Norway. Thankfully they have picked up the 6 crew/passengers from the sea and taken them to hospital but Bristows have immediately grounded all S92s in Norway and the UK.
Not what you want to hear when you are stuck on a rig in the North Atlantic and the S92 is the only avalable means of getting home. I am half way through a 3 week hitch so hoping they will have sorted it by the time I am due to crew change but they won't let them fly again until they know exactly what has happened.
If they can’t replace you, presumably you have to keep on working. Does that count as overtime…
Nope. As a contractor I just get paid for the days I work. No overtime or other bonus. And yes the work will continue until we run up against needing a crucial person we can't get out to the rig.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
The decision to hear the case necessarily implies they (or rather a majority on the court) takes seriously Trump’s assertion that not only is he entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of his intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment in question.
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President.
That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
Disagree. It’s a crazy claim but one that should be ruled on by the Supreme Court
But delaying it to April 22nd? They could hear this in five minutes if they weren't playing silly buggers.
Not, bluntly, that I agree. There is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on obvious nonsense. They would not, for example, be required to rule on whether radishes could be President.
When are the court sessions?
It’s beginning of March. 3 weeks before Easter break and then they are reviewing it 2 weeks after they return. That’s not much time for the paper arguments that come before the hearing date
You mean, like they took three months to hear Bush v Gore?
I'd also point out they had the chance to hear it in January and declined. Procedurally, that was fair enough. But this is just foot dragging.
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
Does Russia fly flags from the Kremlin? I've not been to Moscow and my mental image of the Kremlin from news reports is all of the same view but are there flags there? (Not that it is relevant to your point about pilots.)
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
Air France has really good cheese, wine and charcuterie in its CDG biz lounge. Just sayin’
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
Does Russia fly flags from the Kremlin? I've not been to Moscow and my mental image of the Kremlin from news reports is all of the same view but are there flags there? (Not that it is relevant to your point about pilots.)
Ha. I think it’s mostly the red, white and blue one these days, but it used to be a very large Soviet flag.
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
Does Russia fly flags from the Kremlin? I've not been to Moscow and my mental image of the Kremlin from news reports is all of the same view but are there flags there? (Not that it is relevant to your point about pilots.)
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
Air France has really good cheese, wine and charcuterie in its CDG biz lounge. Just sayin’
They also killed 109 people on an overloaded Concorde that took off downwind, and 228 more when the pilots flew a perfectly serviceable Airbus A330 into the middle of the Atlantic.
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
Air France has really good cheese, wine and charcuterie in its CDG biz lounge. Just sayin’
They also killed 109 people on an overloaded Concorde that took off downwind, and 228 more when the pilots flew a perfectly serviceable Airbus A330 into the middle of the Atlantic.
I've just put a bet on Galloway for Rochdale. I can't see the 'Candidate With No Party' standing much chance and in a two horse race that leaves Gorgeous.
I really would like to think that he is a spent force these days. But somebody's got to win it. My guess is that the Labour candidate will win without party backing.
Have to say that’s who I’d back. Stopping Galloway would be a priority.
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash: " Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
That’s a seriously third-world operation. What the hell were they thinking, that plane would have been screaming at them to go-around for at least a couple of minutes before they hit the runway, then they did go around knowing their engines were on the deck and going to be trashed.
It sounds to me as though they were two individuals, doing two individual things. They weren't arguing (at least until things really went wrong), but neither were they operating as a team. Which is what aircrew need to do.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
Yes, the accident started years before it happened, with two totally unsuitable pilots allowed to be in their positions in the first place. Getting a third psych to over-rule two others on the suitability of a captain to fly the plane, should have been a red flag big enough to fly on the top of the Kremlin.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
Does Russia fly flags from the Kremlin? I've not been to Moscow and my mental image of the Kremlin from news reports is all of the same view but are there flags there? (Not that it is relevant to your point about pilots.)
Yes, but not many
Much of the Kremlin is religious = no flags
Usually 2- the national flag on the grand Palace and the Presidential banner if the B@#%&#@ is in residence.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
NY Times
They seem to have decided to delay Trump’s trial in order to give him a chance of pardoning himself. Why they felt a case of such importance and urgency should be delayed for two months - other than sheer cynicism - I can’t say.
His criminal case for falsifying business records still starts next month though, remember Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in the end rather than all his other gangster activities
Sure, but of all the cases that one is the most minor, and apparently the one on trickiest ground, legally speaking.
So notwithstanding difficulties in the civil judgements against him Trump is having a very good time when it comes to his criminal cases at the moment - one has very little chance of happening before the election, another may go that way depending on much the SC drag their feet (and they'd probably love for the question to be made moot), another wasn't due to start until August anyway and is being bogged down at the moment, and the one remaining one is risky, but Trump's best chance of avoiding a conviction out of the four cases.
So really a very bad day in terms of determining whether or not Trump will face consequences ahead of the election, and therefore a good day for his prospects of re-election - much easier to argue malicious prosecution when the casual Trump fan can close their ears to it because it's not being blasted out day in day out of a trial.
The paritcular decision today seems to have caught more optimistic commentators by surprise, I think they were really thinking a trial might happen in June or early July, and now that one is August or later.
The decision to hear the case necessarily implies they (or rather a majority on the court) takes seriously Trump’s assertion that not only is he entitled to absolute presidential immunity, but that the immunity applied regardless of his intent in engaging in the conduct described in the indictment in question.
The flies in the face of the Constitution, and the lower appeals court rejected the idea out of hand.
Note that you don’t have to believe Trump guilty of the charges to be horrified by this decision. Trump’s immunity argument says in plain terms that even if he were guilty of subverting an election, his is immune from any charges simply by virtue of having been President.
That the Supreme Court is taking that claim seriously marks them as the worst court since the days of Chief Justice Roger B Taney.
Disagree. It’s a crazy claim but one that should be ruled on by the Supreme Court
But delaying it to April 22nd? They could hear this in five minutes if they weren't playing silly buggers.
Not, bluntly, that I agree. There is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on obvious nonsense. They would not, for example, be required to rule on whether radishes could be President.
When are the court sessions?
It’s beginning of March. 3 weeks before Easter break and then they are reviewing it 2 weeks after they return. That’s not much time for the paper arguments that come before the hearing date
You mean, like they took three months to hear Bush v Gore?
I'd also point out they had the chance to hear it in January and declined. Procedurally, that was fair enough. But this is just foot dragging.
Depends what else is on the docket. Courts don’t shift timetables just because
Comments
PE doesn’t know what to do with high interest rates, except to double down on trying to monetise every penny of their investment. Why they would ever invest in such an easily-replicable business model in the first place is another question, but we still have Uber and a dozen food delivery apps that will never make a return.
Internet advertising rates have fallen off a cliff due to a lack of demand, although they might recover as the US election draws closer. Google and Facebook have pretty much a duopoly, and have both been unable to hold rates up. Youtube advertiser revenue in particular has taken a big hit, as people aggressively block the ads, and many creators who for years were able to make a living from ad revenue now find that income has been cut in half since the height of the pandemic.
Wandering off on a tangent, Youtube's recommendation algorithm seems to have been tweaked lately and in the process, broken. It now appears to have extreme biases to short (Tiktok-like) and recently viewed content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haBxjK70yt0
Basically: the pilots flew a perfectly good airplane into the runway, coming in too high, too fast, and at the wrong nose angle, without the landing gear down. They scrape the engines along the runway for a long distance, then take off again. When the engines fail, they are doomed.
A terrible performance by both pilots, and by extension Pakistain airlines.
Chaos occurred even after the crash:
" Edhi Foundation has reported about 19 bodies being taken away by relatives by force from its morgue, without providing proof to establish identity or waiting for identification through DNA testing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_International_Airlines_Flight_8303
If she has not paid due tax it’s a real problem.
I don’t think she’ll be able to get away with the “I’m not telling you” defence but let’s see if it gets traction
Taney at least had some logic on his side.
This Supreme Court has not thought the matter through (assuming Thomas and Alito are capable of thinking). If they declare absolute immunity for the president, four of them will be in jail that same evening.
So they won't do it.
So why hear it?
Because, as I've said all along, they're crooks on Trump's side.
No corroboration yet.
Not, bluntly, that I agree. There is no need for the Supreme Court to rule on obvious nonsense. They would not, for example, be required to rule on whether radishes could be President.
IIRC from the video, the pilot was initially rejected by the airline's psychiatrist before that decision was overruled by a ?military? psychiatrist.
That lunch is going to taste bitter, even though as somebody who spent eight years as a student I normally love free food.
PIA join Air France and Ryanair on my personal no-fly list, although thankfully I don’t intend to go to Pakistan any time soon.
It’s beginning of March. 3 weeks before Easter break and then they are reviewing it 2 weeks after they return. That’s not much time for the paper arguments that come before the hearing date
I'd also point out they had the chance to hear it in January and declined. Procedurally, that was fair enough. But this is just foot dragging.
20 years old today!
Much of the Kremlin is religious = no flags
But hey, good cheese and wine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
NEW THREAD