Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Is Greater Manchester ready for Mayor Galloway? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,917
edited April 28 in General
Is Greater Manchester ready for Mayor Galloway? – politicalbetting.com

NEW: Rochdale's new MP @georgegalloway is considering standing against Andy Burnham to be Greater Manchester mayorQuite the story from @josephtiman for @MENnewsdesk https://t.co/RhMrfR1BVb

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,460
    edited March 15
    Second (first really, you all know it).
    Is their no end to the man's vanity?


    And what about that Galloway?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763

    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.

    For Gorgeous?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033

    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.

    For Gorgeous?
    Hell no.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085

    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.

    pm'd you btw.
  • Options
    This week's polling average



    Reform continue their remorseless rise.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,639
    Galloway trying his best to hand the mayor's job to the Tory candidate.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,639
    For some reason YouTube recommended this bit of poisonous crap from Andrea Jenkyns:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nX_fIVAOA

    I couldn't detect any hint of irony in the denunciation of people with "hate in their hearts and venomous tongues".
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546

    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.

    For Gorgeous?
    Hell no.
    Is it one of these elections where you get multiple goes at getting the right answer or are you going to have to hold your nose and vote for, ahem, the Labour candidate?
  • Options
    NickyBreakspearNickyBreakspear Posts: 733
    edited March 15
    So compared with 17 March 2023 last year.

    Con 23.7% (-4%)
    Lab 43.3% (-3.7%)
    Ref 12.7% (+6.9%)
    LD 10.2% (+1.5%)
    Green 5.5% (+0.7%)
    SNP 2.5% (-0.7%)

    The gap between Labour and Conservatives has hardly moved but both have lost votes.
    Reform has more than double their vote, with the Lib Dems and Green both slightly up.

    The effect of these movements is to make a Conservative drubbing more likely.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,639
    DavidL said:

    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.

    For Gorgeous?
    Hell no.
    Is it one of these elections where you get multiple goes at getting the right answer or are you going to have to hold your nose and vote for, ahem, the Labour candidate?
    The Tories have changed the rules to make these FPTP.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,131
    QTWTAIN
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 52,546
    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    His business practices clearly fit the term grifter, as does the way he exploits his supporters. Gold trainers? I mean, jeez.
    Trump University was fairly egregious grifting.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,460
    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    Recent times have seen the use of the term hustle - as in side-hustle, to mean something you do separate to your main employment to make money. I find it a bit weird, as I always associated hustle and hustling with illicit behaviour, whereas now selling your home made craft products on Etsy is your side-hustle.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pro_Rata said:

    isam said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: I am determined to outdo MoonRabbit in the wayward election predictions race by persisting in my (barking, and almost certainly disastrously wayward) belief that we're still heading for a hung Parliament.

    As for the date, I wouldn't be at all surprised by January, although husband heard a journalistic rumour about November on the radio yesterday. Something to do with postponement of an event in the City of London that month, though I was distracted when he mentioned it so can't recall the details of the story. But we shall see.

    That is a brave prediction.
    I agree it looks unlikely, but when was the last time the outcome that looked obvious six months before polling day actually came to pass?

    2019? Nope
    2017? Nope
    EU Ref? Nope
    2015? Nope
    2010? Perhaps

    I think the last four odds on favs at that distance from the GE were beaten (NOM, Con Maj, Remain & NOM)
    I think a decent question is, should we have known better:

    2015: possibly, the signs of Labour underperformance were there throughout, in LE rounds something nailed quite late in the day by the Matt Singh analysis.

    EU Ref: It was close, the assumption of Remain winning was a lazy, bubble assumption. We should have known better.

    2017: The genuine bolt from the blue result

    2019: Let's be honest it was anyone's guess but was clearly seriously at the mercy of a confusion of events. By the time Boris pulled it, politically, from the fire, the die was cast (mixed metaphors, maybe)

    The question is what, in 2024, can we not see? A reverse in leader ratings from 2019, some lack of Labour enthusiasm, but by-elections of a scale that substantial swing back can be absorbed, regional swing looking efficient for Labour.

    I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt.
    I backed Tory Maj in 2017 at about 1.17 I think. It seemed like it couldn’t be beaten, but it was. Labour are now 1.25 and seem even less likely to be beaten. I can’t see how it could possibly happen with Sunak as PM, even if Sir Keir flops during the campaign. I think Starmer has it in him to be as wooden as May, but Sunak is unlikely to motivate people the way Corbyn did.

  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,910
    edited March 15
    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    I suppose a grifter has to be someone who not only tells untruths but also knows they are untrue - such as a snake-oil salesman. I think Trump may actually believe his bullshit. Same with many on the extreme left; Robin Diangelo comes to mind.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Won't happen. For one thing, Andy Burnham remains quite popular.

    It would actually get me to vote Labour for only the second time in my life (I voted for Ken over Boris in London 2008).

    The 2017 GM mayoral election is actually the only election for which I've been eligible to vote where I haven't. TBF my wife was dealing with a different sort of labour at the time.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    True, though a lot of political rent-a-gobs tend to use their profile to make money off something or other (e.g. Alex Jones and his weird diet pills), or even just to make a living by spouting bollocks to fill the media's unquenchable thirst for ragebait.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,367
    FPT:

    AlsoLei said:

    Interesting commentary on Shelagh Fogarty on LBC. The main thrust is Hester affair has made the case to stop union funding of Labour.

    Er why?
    Limit single organisation donations to a specific figure. So if that's a thousand quid limit, that figure is £1000 per union.
    The problem isn't that Hester gave them more than a grand - it's that he's a racist who thinks a sitting MP should be shot.
    They were nasty words, but do you really think that he would like her to be shot? People talk a lot of rubbish, a lot of the time. Most of us have little need to curate what we say as we are not going to be the subject of the BBC news.
    Is he racist? Probably a bit - he's an old white Brit, and lots of old white Brits tend to be a bit racist (milder versions of Jim Davidson etc).
    I hope it was just a figure of speech. I imagine he has that swaggering type of personally that makes him prone to saying exaggerated stuff like this.

    I thought the story was mostly fluff and that it would blow over. He'd get some good advice, and craft a decent apology for what he'd said. Maybe even do something to demonstrate that he'd learned from the furore.

    But the Tories wobbled for ages before condemning his words. He issued a half-hearted apology that merely apologised for being rude. It turns out that there are other such incidents of him using 'colourful' language at staff meetings. And there's another £5m donation in progress that the party plan to accept, which will mean that he's the source of almost a third of their entire funding.

    So I think my initial thoughts were wrong. This isn't fluff. He hasn't apologised for the 'should be shot' comment, and as of this moment shouldn't be considered a fit and proper person to be wielding such a huge influence over our political system.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I think feminism has gone too far now. Why are todays women so unladylike?

    https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/24188220.ringwood-shop-worker-new-years-resolution-sex-child/
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    His business practices clearly fit the term grifter, as does the way he exploits his supporters. Gold trainers? I mean, jeez.
    Trump University was fairly egregious grifting.
    Yes, his prior business life was much closer to "grifting", I agree. But as a politician. nope. As others have noted, I think he actually believes most of what he says, indeed, some of what he says is awkwardly true - from Germany stupidly relying on Russian gas to the lab leak hypothesis. People react badly to it coz Trump says it, then it turns out Trump was right

    He's still a dangerous demagogue
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Pro_Rata FPT
    "I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt."

    If Starmer fails to win a majority the factors we will point to, which in hindsight will seem obvious, are:
    1. Starmer's personal ratings, which are dire, and compare very badly to Blair or Cameron, the only two opposition leaders to become PM in the last 44 years.
    2. The small proportion of direct Tory-Labour switchers, compared to the number of don't knows and switchers to Reform.
    3. The strength of Tory data-driven, highly-targeted online campaigning, which is very poorly regulated compared to leaflet deliveries and billboard posters.
    4. The volatility in the electorate that makes a large campaign turnaround possible (when Starmer flunks it in the campaign).
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,910
    edited March 15
    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 9,171
    Burnham got 63% and 67%, IIRC, in previous elections. He could lose 30% to Galloway and still win.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    TOPPING said:

    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.

    pm'd you btw.
    Replied.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    edited March 15
    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,767
    edited March 15
    isam said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    isam said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: I am determined to outdo MoonRabbit in the wayward election predictions race by persisting in my (barking, and almost certainly disastrously wayward) belief that we're still heading for a hung Parliament.

    As for the date, I wouldn't be at all surprised by January, although husband heard a journalistic rumour about November on the radio yesterday. Something to do with postponement of an event in the City of London that month, though I was distracted when he mentioned it so can't recall the details of the story. But we shall see.

    That is a brave prediction.
    I agree it looks unlikely, but when was the last time the outcome that looked obvious six months before polling day actually came to pass?

    2019? Nope
    2017? Nope
    EU Ref? Nope
    2015? Nope
    2010? Perhaps

    I think the last four odds on favs at that distance from the GE were beaten (NOM, Con Maj, Remain & NOM)
    I think a decent question is, should we have known better:

    2015: possibly, the signs of Labour underperformance were there throughout, in LE rounds something nailed quite late in the day by the Matt Singh analysis.

    EU Ref: It was close, the assumption of Remain winning was a lazy, bubble assumption. We should have known better.

    2017: The genuine bolt from the blue result

    2019: Let's be honest it was anyone's guess but was clearly seriously at the mercy of a confusion of events. By the time Boris pulled it, politically, from the fire, the die was cast (mixed metaphors, maybe)

    The question is what, in 2024, can we not see? A reverse in leader ratings from 2019, some lack of Labour enthusiasm, but by-elections of a scale that substantial swing back can be absorbed, regional swing looking efficient for Labour.

    I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt.
    I backed Tory Maj in 2017 at about 1.17 I think. It seemed like it couldn’t be beaten, but it was. Labour are now 1.25 and seem even less likely to be beaten. I can’t see how it could possibly happen with Sunak as PM, even if Sir Keir flops during the campaign. I think Starmer has it in him to be as wooden as May, but Sunak is unlikely to motivate people the way Corbyn did.

    My central doubt about Labour is the retail offer. It's wafer thin. A lot of vague guff about reform but almost no action on redistribution and very conservative attitudes towards public spending. They're essentially going to try to fight a change election whilst simultaneously pledging to change almost nothing. Taken together with the prevailing public mood of cynicism and hopelessness and it's a recipe for a record low turnout and a record high average age for those who do bother to vote, which strongly favours the Tories.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    Looks like Bibi has decided to pull the trigger on his ground assault on Rafah.

    https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/israels-netanyahu-approves-rafah-offensive-plan-despite-intl-outcry-17372276
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    His business practices clearly fit the term grifter, as does the way he exploits his supporters. Gold trainers? I mean, jeez.
    Trump University was fairly egregious grifting.
    Lest we forget, Donald J. Trump made himself an US national joke in the early 1990s, as confirmed by manifold jokes at his expense in multiple contemporary sitcoms. (Saw/heard one such example just the other day, via a "Designing Women" re-run.)

    Grifting a'plenty documents by DJT's wiki page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    In news that may please PB, I am actually going to stop talking about AI, at least for today, and restrict my conversations about it to Reddit, where there are people with IQs over 58 that understand it


  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    DavidL said:

    I can get the vote in this election so I will vote.

    For Gorgeous?
    Hell no.
    Is it one of these elections where you get multiple goes at getting the right answer or are you going to have to hold your nose and vote for, ahem, the Labour candidate?
    FPTP thanks to Boris.

    So not only do I have to vote Labour I also have to vote for an Evertonian to boot to stop Galloway.

    Please don’t run Mr Galloway to stop me being placed in this invidious position.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    Leon is thick.

    Sorry to be brutal but that’s the reality.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    pigeon said:

    isam said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    isam said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: I am determined to outdo MoonRabbit in the wayward election predictions race by persisting in my (barking, and almost certainly disastrously wayward) belief that we're still heading for a hung Parliament.

    As for the date, I wouldn't be at all surprised by January, although husband heard a journalistic rumour about November on the radio yesterday. Something to do with postponement of an event in the City of London that month, though I was distracted when he mentioned it so can't recall the details of the story. But we shall see.

    That is a brave prediction.
    I agree it looks unlikely, but when was the last time the outcome that looked obvious six months before polling day actually came to pass?

    2019? Nope
    2017? Nope
    EU Ref? Nope
    2015? Nope
    2010? Perhaps

    I think the last four odds on favs at that distance from the GE were beaten (NOM, Con Maj, Remain & NOM)
    I think a decent question is, should we have known better:

    2015: possibly, the signs of Labour underperformance were there throughout, in LE rounds something nailed quite late in the day by the Matt Singh analysis.

    EU Ref: It was close, the assumption of Remain winning was a lazy, bubble assumption. We should have known better.

    2017: The genuine bolt from the blue result

    2019: Let's be honest it was anyone's guess but was clearly seriously at the mercy of a confusion of events. By the time Boris pulled it, politically, from the fire, the die was cast (mixed metaphors, maybe)

    The question is what, in 2024, can we not see? A reverse in leader ratings from 2019, some lack of Labour enthusiasm, but by-elections of a scale that substantial swing back can be absorbed, regional swing looking efficient for Labour.

    I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt.
    I backed Tory Maj in 2017 at about 1.17 I think. It seemed like it couldn’t be beaten, but it was. Labour are now 1.25 and seem even less likely to be beaten. I can’t see how it could possibly happen with Sunak as PM, even if Sir Keir flops during the campaign. I think Starmer has it in him to be as wooden as May, but Sunak is unlikely to motivate people the way Corbyn did.

    My central doubt about Labour is the retail offer. It's wafer thin. A lot of vague guff about reform but almost no action on redistribution and very conservative attitudes towards public spending. They're essentially going to try to fight a change election whilst simultaneously pledging to change almost nothing. Taken together with the prevailing public mood of cynicism and hopelessness and it's a recipe for a record low turnout and a record high average age for those who do bother to vote, which strongly favours the Tories.
    You may be correct, but on the other hand utter detestation for the Tories may stir the idle youth to head to the polling station.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 117,033
    edited March 15
    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    edited March 15
    On topic, Mark Steel, whom I usually find about as funny as a stomach ache, does do an excellent Galloway impression.
    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1766035642625020203
  • Options

    Burnham got 63% and 67%, IIRC, in previous elections. He could lose 30% to Galloway and still win.

    Burnham won every single ward in all 10 boroughs last time.

    He's probably even stronger now than last time as well.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,767

    pigeon said:

    isam said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    isam said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: I am determined to outdo MoonRabbit in the wayward election predictions race by persisting in my (barking, and almost certainly disastrously wayward) belief that we're still heading for a hung Parliament.

    As for the date, I wouldn't be at all surprised by January, although husband heard a journalistic rumour about November on the radio yesterday. Something to do with postponement of an event in the City of London that month, though I was distracted when he mentioned it so can't recall the details of the story. But we shall see.

    That is a brave prediction.
    I agree it looks unlikely, but when was the last time the outcome that looked obvious six months before polling day actually came to pass?

    2019? Nope
    2017? Nope
    EU Ref? Nope
    2015? Nope
    2010? Perhaps

    I think the last four odds on favs at that distance from the GE were beaten (NOM, Con Maj, Remain & NOM)
    I think a decent question is, should we have known better:

    2015: possibly, the signs of Labour underperformance were there throughout, in LE rounds something nailed quite late in the day by the Matt Singh analysis.

    EU Ref: It was close, the assumption of Remain winning was a lazy, bubble assumption. We should have known better.

    2017: The genuine bolt from the blue result

    2019: Let's be honest it was anyone's guess but was clearly seriously at the mercy of a confusion of events. By the time Boris pulled it, politically, from the fire, the die was cast (mixed metaphors, maybe)

    The question is what, in 2024, can we not see? A reverse in leader ratings from 2019, some lack of Labour enthusiasm, but by-elections of a scale that substantial swing back can be absorbed, regional swing looking efficient for Labour.

    I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt.
    I backed Tory Maj in 2017 at about 1.17 I think. It seemed like it couldn’t be beaten, but it was. Labour are now 1.25 and seem even less likely to be beaten. I can’t see how it could possibly happen with Sunak as PM, even if Sir Keir flops during the campaign. I think Starmer has it in him to be as wooden as May, but Sunak is unlikely to motivate people the way Corbyn did.

    My central doubt about Labour is the retail offer. It's wafer thin. A lot of vague guff about reform but almost no action on redistribution and very conservative attitudes towards public spending. They're essentially going to try to fight a change election whilst simultaneously pledging to change almost nothing. Taken together with the prevailing public mood of cynicism and hopelessness and it's a recipe for a record low turnout and a record high average age for those who do bother to vote, which strongly favours the Tories.
    You may be correct, but on the other hand utter detestation for the Tories may stir the idle youth to head to the polling station.
    Depends how motivated they are to vote for more of the same presided over by a different collection of empty suits. It's a recipe for sitting on hands. Or voting Green.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    Leon is thick.

    Sorry to be brutal but that’s the reality.
    I prefer to think of him as having a slightly eccentric world view.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,500
    Even if he ran he wouldn't beat Burnham, Gter Manchester overall is solid Labour and it doesn't have a big enough Muslim vote like Rochdale did over all of it as a base to win either
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,460
    pigeon said:

    isam said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    isam said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: I am determined to outdo MoonRabbit in the wayward election predictions race by persisting in my (barking, and almost certainly disastrously wayward) belief that we're still heading for a hung Parliament.

    As for the date, I wouldn't be at all surprised by January, although husband heard a journalistic rumour about November on the radio yesterday. Something to do with postponement of an event in the City of London that month, though I was distracted when he mentioned it so can't recall the details of the story. But we shall see.

    That is a brave prediction.
    I agree it looks unlikely, but when was the last time the outcome that looked obvious six months before polling day actually came to pass?

    2019? Nope
    2017? Nope
    EU Ref? Nope
    2015? Nope
    2010? Perhaps

    I think the last four odds on favs at that distance from the GE were beaten (NOM, Con Maj, Remain & NOM)
    I think a decent question is, should we have known better:

    2015: possibly, the signs of Labour underperformance were there throughout, in LE rounds something nailed quite late in the day by the Matt Singh analysis.

    EU Ref: It was close, the assumption of Remain winning was a lazy, bubble assumption. We should have known better.

    2017: The genuine bolt from the blue result

    2019: Let's be honest it was anyone's guess but was clearly seriously at the mercy of a confusion of events. By the time Boris pulled it, politically, from the fire, the die was cast (mixed metaphors, maybe)

    The question is what, in 2024, can we not see? A reverse in leader ratings from 2019, some lack of Labour enthusiasm, but by-elections of a scale that substantial swing back can be absorbed, regional swing looking efficient for Labour.

    I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt.
    I backed Tory Maj in 2017 at about 1.17 I think. It seemed like it couldn’t be beaten, but it was. Labour are now 1.25 and seem even less likely to be beaten. I can’t see how it could possibly happen with Sunak as PM, even if Sir Keir flops during the campaign. I think Starmer has it in him to be as wooden as May, but Sunak is unlikely to motivate people the way Corbyn did.

    My central doubt about Labour is the retail offer. It's wafer thin. A lot of vague guff about reform but almost no action on redistribution and very conservative attitudes towards public spending. They're essentially going to try to fight a change election whilst simultaneously pledging to change almost nothing. Taken together with the prevailing public mood of cynicism and hopelessness and it's a recipe for a record low turnout and a record high average age for those who do bother to vote, which strongly favours the Tories.
    I kept banging on about this for a while a few months ago. Nothing is shifting the dial, labour are so far ahead that seat projections have the conservatives well into double figures (and often sub 50 seats) and yet you can still get (checks) Labour Majority at 1.24 on Betfair. It seems to be an easy shot at 24% interest in (at max 300 or so days). Not to be sniffed at.

    And yet.

    We all saw May's lead evaporate like an April frost when the sun comes up. We know that campaigns DO see shifts in polling. And we also know that Labour is trying desperately to avoid pledging ANYTHING, and just keep reminding the public - 'Aren't those Tories an absolute shower?!'

    And so it still sits there, that 24% profit.

    As ever DYOR and only bet what you can afford to lose, but why isn't everyone on Labour Majority?
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,131

    Pro_Rata FPT
    "I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt."

    If Starmer fails to win a majority the factors we will point to, which in hindsight will seem obvious, are:
    1. Starmer's personal ratings, which are dire, and compare very badly to Blair or Cameron, the only two opposition leaders to become PM in the last 44 years.
    2. The small proportion of direct Tory-Labour switchers, compared to the number of don't knows and switchers to Reform.
    3. The strength of Tory data-driven, highly-targeted online campaigning, which is very poorly regulated compared to leaflet deliveries and billboard posters.
    4. The volatility in the electorate that makes a large campaign turnaround possible (when Starmer flunks it in the campaign).

    1. OK, if we say these ratings are a reverse of 2019, I'll admit the difference is that Boris was already PM where as Starmer is LOTO.

    2. Don't agree. If you look at 1997, direct switching was only at slightly higher levels, and indirect swing (notably abstainers) was at least an equal driver of the overall result.

    3. Possibly, but some of the novelty we saw in 2015, has worn off.

    4. There has been lots of volatility but, as of this point, we do appear to be in a more settled pattern and Starmer is risk averse. Maybe, though.

    Like Isam says, leader change is a possible wildcard, but here In think the Tories are trawling the barely tested and likely inadequate and it is as likely to work against c them as for them.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 11,138
    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    In fairness most humans can't stack a dishwasher efficiently so if an AI robot can do it, it is definitely an improvement. I will be really impressed if at the same time it can fend off the dog from licking the plates. That takes some agility. The dog will sit if told to while the dishwasher is being loaded but seems to forget this at least 5 times during the endless rearranging of pots and plates in the dishwasher. Hopefully the AI robot will do it quicker than me.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
    You must be new here. The rest of us worked that out several regenerations back.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,520
    On topic, I suspect he won't stand. Burnham is relatively popular whereas Galloway's attraction is more niche. Furthermore, while you can throw Galloway a protest vote against the main parties in a by-election, where the winner is of little lasting consequence, who wins a mayoral election does matter. Do people really want Galloway exercising executive power? Or not exercising it and swanning around grandstanding when he should be exercising it? He did once stand for London mayor (in 2016), and polled a miserable 1.7%. The type of election matters.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    Pro_Rata said:

    Pro_Rata FPT
    "I expect the swing back, I expect a small-mid sized working majority, but I don't see what we should be looking at to put the overall outcome in doubt."

    If Starmer fails to win a majority the factors we will point to, which in hindsight will seem obvious, are:
    1. Starmer's personal ratings, which are dire, and compare very badly to Blair or Cameron, the only two opposition leaders to become PM in the last 44 years.
    2. The small proportion of direct Tory-Labour switchers, compared to the number of don't knows and switchers to Reform.
    3. The strength of Tory data-driven, highly-targeted online campaigning, which is very poorly regulated compared to leaflet deliveries and billboard posters.
    4. The volatility in the electorate that makes a large campaign turnaround possible (when Starmer flunks it in the campaign).

    1. OK, if we say these ratings are a reverse of 2019, I'll admit the difference is that Boris was already PM where as Starmer is LOTO.

    2. Don't agree. If you look at 1997, direct switching was only at slightly higher levels, and indirect swing (notably abstainers) was at least an equal driver of the overall result.

    3. Possibly, but some of the novelty we saw in 2015, has worn off.

    4. There has been lots of volatility but, as of this point, we do appear to be in a more settled pattern and Starmer is risk averse. Maybe, though.

    Like Isam says, leader change is a possible wildcard, but here In think the Tories are trawling the barely tested and likely inadequate and it is as likely to work against c them as for them.
    But Isam is recommending Johnson. Tried, tested and rejected!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    I think you're fundamentally wrong.
    The grift is absolutely a big part of the reason Trump is in politics. Indeed running against Clinton possibly saved his business at the time.
    The addiction to power is also part of it, but that doesn't invalidate the description.

    Likewise, and more purely so, RFK Jnr.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    In fairness most humans can't stack a dishwasher efficiently so if an AI robot can do it, it is definitely an improvement. I will be really impressed if at the same time it can fend off the dog from licking the plates. That takes some agility. The dog will sit if told to while the dishwasher is being loaded but seems to forget this at least 5 times during the endless rearranging of pots and plates in the dishwasher. Hopefully the AI robot will do it quicker than me.
    Just give it an extra arm to hold off the dog.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,367
    Kemi complaining that the Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill was talked out - she blames Labour, but more Tories spoke in the preceding debate and seemed to be going even slower. A good example of her shit-stirring Culture War stuff whilst trying to paint her side of the argument as the victims.

    Just now Labour MPs prevented debate on a new law to protect children and single sex spaces.
    Instead they used parliamentary time to discuss ferret name choices.

    https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1768647056111861760

    (I also note that she's incorrectly using that South African 'just now' phrasing that we were discussing yesterday. Perhaps Kemi should grow up right now.)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Nigelb said:

    On topic, Mark Steel, whom I usually find about as funny as a stomach ache, does do an excellent Galloway impression.
    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1766035642625020203

    Also, possibly better, a recent News Quiz - about 16 minutes in:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001wy2d
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085
    Nigelb said:

    On topic, Mark Steel, whom I usually find about as funny as a stomach ache, does do an excellent Galloway impression.
    https://twitter.com/RosieisaHolt/status/1766035642625020203

    He’s politically the opposite end of the spectrum to me but he can be amusing. His radio 4 series “Mark Steel’s in town” is charmingly funny where he goes to all sorts of random places, gets shown round, finds out the quirks and rivalries and does a stand up show based on what he’s found out.
  • Options
    DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,048
    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    I suppose a grifter has to be someone who not only tells untruths but also knows they are untrue - such as a snake-oil salesman. I think Trump may actually believe his bullshit. Same with many on the extreme left; Robin Diangelo comes to mind.
    I agree with you on the definition, Trump doesn't really believe in some of his stated positions but the core one "Things would be better if I was in charge" is one that I believe he sincerely holds and if it makes him money that's just a side benefit. Tucker Carlson, based on the emails that came out in the Dominion lawsuit clearly doesn't believe the nonsense he comes out with in public. If the political terrain was different in the US, then I could imagine Carlson parroting liberal soundbites all day, it's just that at the moment, most of the money available is on the right wing.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,763
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    Oh behave, DJT is a classic grifter and a smelly orange one at that.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
    Last night @rcs1000 - who I have met, and who is a lovely human being and extremely clever - tried to lecture me about Dall-e and GPT

    This is our conversation

    I said:

    "It’s 8pm in Colombia and I need to eat, but image creation was an emergent property of the early GPTs. The first Dall-e was a remake of GPT3 I think"

    A casual remark made as I went to the kitchen to cook up a steak, I didn't check it or anything

    He came back, haughtily:

    "That's simply not true. I've explained how Dall-E has worked many times before. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and like ChatGPT it uses a neural net.

    But Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems."

    Why is this interesting? Because he is completely wrong. Dall-E is an evolution of GPTs, indeed GPT3, as I said.


    Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

    "The first generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model was initially developed by OpenAI in 2018,[16] using a Transformer architecture. The first iteration, GPT-1,[17] was scaled up to produce GPT-2 in 2019;[18] in 2020, it was scaled up again to produce GPT-3, with 175 billion parameters.[19][5][20]

    DALL·E's model is a multimodal implementation of GPT-3[21] with 12 billion parameters[5] which "swaps text for pixels," trained on text–image pairs from the Internet"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DALL-E

    Don't believe Wiki? Then try OpenAI who actually made both these machines:

    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Case closed, m'Lud

    What is compelling here is that this is @rcs1000's JOB. He works in software and, I believe, studied Machine Learning at Cambridge. He knows top people in AI. He is very very bright. I owe him a dry martini. But how could he get that so wrong?

    It's no crime. We all make errors, I know I do. But it is still noteworthy that on the subject of AI the clever people at PB are consistently clueless and unable to extrapolate or comprehend what is going on, and some of the discourse is cringeworthy

    But I've said I shall shut the feck up about AI, at least for today, I know it annoys people - and so I will. Coda

    I also have to go and look at Bolivar's deathplace. Hasta Luego, amigos
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690
    Acme of YouTube grifter fakery?

    My nomineee is a YT channel that's started poping up on my feed, namely "American Express Club" which clearly IMHO has ZERO connection with the real American Express.

    "American Express Club" is currently pumping out at an amazing rate poor quality videos (apparently captured by old-school home VCR machine) of "New Perry Mason" made-for-TV movies first broadcast 1973-74.

    So note anything a weeeeeee bit OFF about THIS typical blub, that "AEC" is using to promote it's offerings:

    "Perry Mason - Collection 45 - Best Crime Movie TV Series Premiere 2024"

    > NOT "Perry Mason" the original classic late 1950s - early 1960s TV show (based on novels of Earl Stanley Gardner) but rather the rather crappy 1970s "New Perry Mason".

    > Episodes of "NPM" premiered in 1973-74 and NOT 2024.

    > Visual stills (or whatever they call 'em) used to advertise this on YT feature AI-enhanced (I think) still from the ORIGINAL "Perry Mason", they are definitely NOT from "New Perry Mason".

    Total freaking fraudistry.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    Oh behave, DJT is a classic grifter and a smelly orange one at that.
    The classic grifter is pretty low rent.
    Trump is no classier, but operates on a much larger scale.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Absolutely scathing (though polite) letter from the White House.

    White House Counsel letter today to Speaker Johnson:

    “It is clear the House Republican impeachment is over. It is obviously time to move on.”

    “There is too much important work to be done for the American people to continue wasting time on this charade.”

    https://twitter.com/IanSams46/status/1768573442310181026

    Full text at the link.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    DM_Andy said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    I suppose a grifter has to be someone who not only tells untruths but also knows they are untrue - such as a snake-oil salesman. I think Trump may actually believe his bullshit. Same with many on the extreme left; Robin Diangelo comes to mind.
    I agree with you on the definition, Trump doesn't really believe in some of his stated positions but the core one "Things would be better if I was in charge" is one that I believe he sincerely holds and if it makes him money that's just a side benefit. Tucker Carlson, based on the emails that came out in the Dominion lawsuit clearly doesn't believe the nonsense he comes out with in public. If the political terrain was different in the US, then I could imagine Carlson parroting liberal soundbites all day, it's just that at the moment, most of the money available is on the right wing.
    Carlson is closer to being a grifter, he clearly doesn't believe much of the crap he spouts (esp re Trump, as you say)

    He's also a clever and open minded journalist, and sometimes bang on the money

    A peculiar case. For me he is worth watching, but do it with great skepticism
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,520
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    I think you're fundamentally wrong.
    The grift is absolutely a big part of the reason Trump is in politics. Indeed running against Clinton possibly saved his business at the time.
    The addiction to power is also part of it, but that doesn't invalidate the description.

    Likewise, and more purely so, RFK Jnr.
    We need to differentiate between grifting, corruption, abuse of office, and use of office to write tax changes that are self-beneficial. Trump has done all of those but not every action that was one also necessarily falls under another.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708
    Hmm, why should not Mr Galloway jack in being a MP if he wins? He's an urban by birth and career (Dundee, Glasgow, etc.) Rochdale is small town compared to Manchester (though only relatively, about half the population). And it would really get up SKS's nose a second time.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    edited March 15

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    I think you're fundamentally wrong.
    The grift is absolutely a big part of the reason Trump is in politics. Indeed running against Clinton possibly saved his business at the time.
    The addiction to power is also part of it, but that doesn't invalidate the description.

    Likewise, and more purely so, RFK Jnr.
    We need to differentiate between grifting, corruption, abuse of office, and use of office to write tax changes that are self-beneficial. Trump has done all of those but not every action that was one also necessarily falls under another.
    Well indeed.
    He is a very well rounded villain.

    The soliciting of political donations for his personal use is unquestionably grift, though.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    HYUFD said:

    Even if he ran he wouldn't beat Burnham, Gter Manchester overall is solid Labour and it doesn't have a big enough Muslim vote like Rochdale did over all of it as a base to win either

    The local independent in Rochdale was a significant factor too.

    But agree for a large number of reasons there is no way that Galloway will come close to winning GM mayor (and he wouldn't want the job anyway).
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,290
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    Oh behave, DJT is a classic grifter and a smelly orange one at that.
    The classic grifter is pretty low rent.
    Trump is no classier, but operates on a much larger scale.

    Boris Johnson is a grifter. Donald Trump is an out and out crook.

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708
    Ghedebrav said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even if he ran he wouldn't beat Burnham, Gter Manchester overall is solid Labour and it doesn't have a big enough Muslim vote like Rochdale did over all of it as a base to win either

    The local independent in Rochdale was a significant factor too.

    But agree for a large number of reasons there is no way that Galloway will come close to winning GM mayor (and he wouldn't want the job anyway).
    Why shouldn't he want the job? Look at the shining example of one Mr B. Johnson. Also, to be fair, Mr K. Livingstone.
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,367
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    Oh behave, DJT is a classic grifter and a smelly orange one at that.
    The classic grifter is pretty low rent.
    Trump is no classier, but operates on a much larger scale.
    My understanding of the term is that 'grift' implies something fairly low-level or petty; it's what distinguishes it from 'scam'.

    Perhaps he was previously a grifter but, on becoming President, surely he graduated to become a scammer?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 41,708
    At a time when some of PB debates whether wagyu or something else is the best beef, I'm finding myself wondering if school meals are climbing the agenda (warning: photos in first report are not for the sensitive):

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/13/how-difficult-is-it-to-bake-a-potato-head-hits-out-at-school-caterers-southampton

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/15/i-cant-make-them-eat-it-teachers-and-parents-share-concerns-over-school-lunches-in-england

  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,449
    edited March 15
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
    Last night @rcs1000 - who I have met, and who is a lovely human being and extremely clever - tried to lecture me about Dall-e and GPT

    This is our conversation

    I said:

    "It’s 8pm in Colombia and I need to eat, but image creation was an emergent property of the early GPTs. The first Dall-e was a remake of GPT3 I think"

    A casual remark made as I went to the kitchen to cook up a steak, I didn't check it or anything

    He came back, haughtily:

    "That's simply not true. I've explained how Dall-E has worked many times before. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and like ChatGPT it uses a neural net.

    But Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems."

    Why is this interesting? Because he is completely wrong. Dall-E is an evolution of GPTs, indeed GPT3, as I said.


    Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

    "The first generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model was initially developed by OpenAI in 2018,[16] using a Transformer architecture. The first iteration, GPT-1,[17] was scaled up to produce GPT-2 in 2019;[18] in 2020, it was scaled up again to produce GPT-3, with 175 billion parameters.[19][5][20]

    DALL·E's model is a multimodal implementation of GPT-3[21] with 12 billion parameters[5] which "swaps text for pixels," trained on text–image pairs from the Internet"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DALL-E

    Don't believe Wiki? Then try OpenAI who actually made both these machines:

    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Case closed, m'Lud

    What is compelling here is that this is @rcs1000's JOB. He works in software and, I believe, studied Machine Learning at Cambridge. He knows top people in AI. He is very very bright. I owe him a dry martini. But how could he get that so wrong?

    It's no crime. We all make errors, I know I do. But it is still noteworthy that on the subject of AI the clever people at PB are consistently clueless and unable to extrapolate or comprehend what is going on, and some of the discourse is cringeworthy

    But I've said I shall shut the feck up about AI, at least for today, I know it annoys people - and so I will. Coda

    I also have to go and look at Bolivar's deathplace. Hasta Luego, amigos
    In fact, you are both sort of right.

    The thing that underlies both Dall.E and GPT-X is a domain agnostic transformer. When it is trained on a big old set of data, it produces a model (e.g. Dall.E or GPT-3) that takes streams of input data and transforms it into streams of output data. The crucial thing is that it does not care *what* the streams of input data might be.

    But training the model is not a hands off affair. It involves a lot of tweaking and special casing.

    The initially slightly surprising thing is that when the input was changed from pure text to text and streams of pixel data, it produced a model whose output that was "quite reasonable" streams of text and output pixel data (once a bit of jiggery pokery was applied to make the pixel data a valid image).

    Likewise with video - it was assumed that too much jiggery pokery would be needed to make that work reasonably well. But it turns out you can get ok results for short clips with only "a lot" of effort rather than insurmountable effort.

    The confusion arises because in their marketing material, OpenAI sometimes refer to an actual trained model as GPT-X, sometimes the general domain agnostic transformer, and sometimes the product(s) that wrap up the trained models.
  • Options
    DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,048
    Carnyx said:

    Hmm, why should not Mr Galloway jack in being a MP if he wins? He's an urban by birth and career (Dundee, Glasgow, etc.) Rochdale is small town compared to Manchester (though only relatively, about half the population). And it would really get up SKS's nose a second time.

    Galloway would have to resign as an MP if he were to win the Greater Manchester Metro Mayor position, but that presumes that he would still be an MP the other side of the general election.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    I'm not a fan of Sinema, but this is an absolutely baleful development.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/15/kyrsten-sinema-super-pac-00147081
    ..For years, Sinema was on the receiving end of a relatively unusual political-money phenomenon in the capital’s politics industry: the single-target PAC, an outfit geared towards creating precisely the outcome that became real when the senator announced her exit.

    For better or worse, it is a model that probably won’t stay rare for long. And whatever you think of Sinema, the effort against her is also likely to speed up some of the most brutal trends in politics, another way for deep-pocketed donors to further wage permanent war on rivals who might not always make such obvious targets.

    Other political committees might beat up on a senator in the name of an issue or to help a particular rival. The Replace Sinema super PAC, by contrast, existed solely to run robust oppo research on, buy ads against, pitch unflattering media stories about and otherwise hound, harry and hector one solitary elected official: Sinema..


    Campaigning against an elected representative you want to oust is a reasonable activity - but coupled with the unlimited expenditure available without oversight or real limits in the US, it morphs into something much more destructive of democratic politics.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,224
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    It's an evolution of the word for use in the political sphere.

    Eg Nigel Farage. For years a genuine fighter for a genuine cause (Brexit) he genuinely believed in. Mr Genuine. Surprised that wasn't his nickname.

    But now (let's assume for the sake of this illustration) knocking on, Brexit done, no longer interested in changing the world, instead content to exploit his personal brand for pure gratification and profit (GBNews, AskFarage, TalkingPints, BrexitCords, StripalongaNigel etc), this is a different NF, clearly, and what is it that he has become?

    Yep. You got it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    Carnyx said:

    At a time when some of PB debates whether wagyu or something else is the best beef, I'm finding myself wondering if school meals are climbing the agenda (warning: photos in first report are not for the sensitive):

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/13/how-difficult-is-it-to-bake-a-potato-head-hits-out-at-school-caterers-southampton

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/15/i-cant-make-them-eat-it-teachers-and-parents-share-concerns-over-school-lunches-in-england

    Yet again private contractors profiteering. Same old same old.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 16,690
    An echo of UK's monarchical transition?

    Seattle Times is informing me, that based on 2023 population estimates released by US Census Bureau, King County WA has just passed Queens County NY (aka NYC Borough of Queens) as USA's 12th-largest county.

    Queens now 13th place, where King was last year.

    HOWEVER, note that Kings County NY (aka NYC Borough of Brooklyn) is still larger in 9th place.

    Here is current Top 12 list

    1. Los Angeles Co CA
    2. Cook Co IL (Chicago)
    3. Harris Co TX (Houston)
    4. Maricopa Co AZ (Phoenix)
    5. San Diego Co CA
    6. Orange Co CA (Anaheim-Irvine-Santa Ana)
    7. Miami-Dade Co FL
    8. Dallas Co TX
    9. Kings Co NY (Brooklyn)
    10. Riverside Co CA
    11. Clark Co NV (Las Vegas)
    12. King Co WA (Seattle)
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    I see Galloway vastly overestimates himself once more.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,449
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
    Last night @rcs1000 - who I have met, and who is a lovely human being and extremely clever - tried to lecture me about Dall-e and GPT

    This is our conversation

    I said:

    "It’s 8pm in Colombia and I need to eat, but image creation was an emergent property of the early GPTs. The first Dall-e was a remake of GPT3 I think"

    A casual remark made as I went to the kitchen to cook up a steak, I didn't check it or anything

    He came back, haughtily:

    "That's simply not true. I've explained how Dall-E has worked many times before. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and like ChatGPT it uses a neural net.

    But Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems."

    Why is this interesting? Because he is completely wrong. Dall-E is an evolution of GPTs, indeed GPT3, as I said.


    Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

    "The first generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model was initially developed by OpenAI in 2018,[16] using a Transformer architecture. The first iteration, GPT-1,[17] was scaled up to produce GPT-2 in 2019;[18] in 2020, it was scaled up again to produce GPT-3, with 175 billion parameters.[19][5][20]

    DALL·E's model is a multimodal implementation of GPT-3[21] with 12 billion parameters[5] which "swaps text for pixels," trained on text–image pairs from the Internet"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DALL-E

    Don't believe Wiki? Then try OpenAI who actually made both these machines:

    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Case closed, m'Lud

    What is compelling here is that this is @rcs1000's JOB. He works in software and, I believe, studied Machine Learning at Cambridge. He knows top people in AI. He is very very bright. I owe him a dry martini. But how could he get that so wrong?

    It's no crime. We all make errors, I know I do. But it is still noteworthy that on the subject of AI the clever people at PB are consistently clueless and unable to extrapolate or comprehend what is going on, and some of the discourse is cringeworthy

    But I've said I shall shut the feck up about AI, at least for today, I know it annoys people - and so I will. Coda

    I also have to go and look at Bolivar's deathplace. Hasta Luego, amigos
    In fact, you are both sort of right.

    The thing that underlies both Dall.E and GPT-X is a domain agnostic transformer. When it is trained on a big old set of data, it produces a model (e.g. Dall.E or GPT-3) that takes streams of input data and transforms it into streams of output data. The crucial thing is that it does not care *what* the streams of input data might be.

    But training the model is not a hands off affair. It involves a lot of tweaking and special casing.

    The initially slightly surprising thing is that when the input was changed from pure text to text and streams of pixel data, it produced a model whose output that was "quite reasonable" streams of text and output pixel data (once a bit of jiggery pokery was applied to make the pixel data a valid image).

    Likewise with video - it was assumed that too much jiggery pokery would be needed to make that work reasonably well. But it turns out you can get ok results for short clips with only "a lot" of effort rather than insurmountable effort.

    The confusion arises because in their marketing material, OpenAI sometimes refer to an actual trained model as GPT-X, sometimes the general domain agnostic transformer, and sometimes the product(s) that wrap up the trained models.
    I should say, therefore ... GPT-3 (the model you use for text) is not *remotely* the same as Dall.E (the model you use for images) but they were both created using the same kind of underlying technology. And in fact there are *other models* trained using different data and being used for other purposes, from the same engine.

    Even more confusingly, you can use data produced by a GPT-type model to train a different GPT-type model (often focused on a simpler task).
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,449
    Foxy said:

    I see Galloway vastly overestimates himself once more.

    The people of Rochdale must really feel he has their interests at heart, as he sort-of-announces his intent to leave them in the lurch about 5 minutes after he is elected.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,202
    Ahhhhh. 🐎 not again 🙇‍♀️
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,224
    Yes, to be clear, Trump is a grifter but he's plenty of other things too.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    At a time when some of PB debates whether wagyu or something else is the best beef, I'm finding myself wondering if school meals are climbing the agenda (warning: photos in first report are not for the sensitive):

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/13/how-difficult-is-it-to-bake-a-potato-head-hits-out-at-school-caterers-southampton

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/15/i-cant-make-them-eat-it-teachers-and-parents-share-concerns-over-school-lunches-in-england

    Yet again private contractors profiteering. Same old same old.
    At around £2.50 per meal in funding, I don't think they're making a huge fortune, though.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
    Last night @rcs1000 - who I have met, and who is a lovely human being and extremely clever - tried to lecture me about Dall-e and GPT

    This is our conversation

    I said:

    "It’s 8pm in Colombia and I need to eat, but image creation was an emergent property of the early GPTs. The first Dall-e was a remake of GPT3 I think"

    A casual remark made as I went to the kitchen to cook up a steak, I didn't check it or anything

    He came back, haughtily:

    "That's simply not true. I've explained how Dall-E has worked many times before. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and like ChatGPT it uses a neural net.

    But Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems."

    Why is this interesting? Because he is completely wrong. Dall-E is an evolution of GPTs, indeed GPT3, as I said.


    Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

    "The first generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model was initially developed by OpenAI in 2018,[16] using a Transformer architecture. The first iteration, GPT-1,[17] was scaled up to produce GPT-2 in 2019;[18] in 2020, it was scaled up again to produce GPT-3, with 175 billion parameters.[19][5][20]

    DALL·E's model is a multimodal implementation of GPT-3[21] with 12 billion parameters[5] which "swaps text for pixels," trained on text–image pairs from the Internet"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DALL-E

    Don't believe Wiki? Then try OpenAI who actually made both these machines:

    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Case closed, m'Lud

    What is compelling here is that this is @rcs1000's JOB. He works in software and, I believe, studied Machine Learning at Cambridge. He knows top people in AI. He is very very bright. I owe him a dry martini. But how could he get that so wrong?

    It's no crime. We all make errors, I know I do. But it is still noteworthy that on the subject of AI the clever people at PB are consistently clueless and unable to extrapolate or comprehend what is going on, and some of the discourse is cringeworthy

    But I've said I shall shut the feck up about AI, at least for today, I know it annoys people - and so I will. Coda

    I also have to go and look at Bolivar's deathplace. Hasta Luego, amigos
    In fact, you are both sort of right.

    The thing that underlies both Dall.E and GPT-X is a domain agnostic transformer. When it is trained on a big old set of data, it produces a model (e.g. Dall.E or GPT-3) that takes streams of input data and transforms it into streams of output data. The crucial thing is that it does not care *what* the streams of input data might be.

    But training the model is not a hands off affair. It involves a lot of tweaking and special casing.

    The initially slightly surprising thing is that when the input was changed from pure text to text and streams of pixel data, it produced a model whose output that was "quite reasonable" streams of text and output pixel data (once a bit of jiggery pokery was applied to make the pixel data a valid image).

    Likewise with video - it was assumed that too much jiggery pokery would be needed to make that work reasonably well. But it turns out you can get ok results for short clips with only "a lot" of effort rather than insurmountable effort.

    The confusion arises because in their marketing material, OpenAI sometimes refer to an actual trained model as GPT-X, sometimes the general domain agnostic transformer, and sometimes the product(s) that wrap up the trained models.
    No, I am right, and he is wrong

    Go back to the original statements, they are blunt. I said Dall-e came out of GPT, he said

    "Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems"

    He is wrong

    Dall-e is an evolution of "image GPT" - ie, GPT

    They first experimented with GPT2

    "Notably, we achieved our results by directly applying the GPT-2 language model to image generation."

    https://openai.com/research/image-gpt

    (look how shite the images are, that was just four years ago: scary)

    Then they finessed it and span Dall-e out of GPT3, as they clearly say in their OWN blog


    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Cooroboration:


    "How does Dall-E work?

    Dall-E works by using a number of technologies including natural language processing (NLP), large language models (LLMs) and diffusion processing.

    Dall-E was built using a subset of the GPT-3 LLM. Instead of the full 175 billion parameters that GPT-3 provides, Dall-E uses only 12 billion parameters in an approach that was designed to be optimized for image generation. Just like the GPT-3 LLM, Dall-E also makes use of a transformer neural network -- also simply referred to as a transformer -- to enable the model to create and understand connections between different concepts."

    https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/Dall-E

    They are NOT two entirely different systems, it is not true to say they have no relationship. That is simply untrue. A non true statement. An error of fact. Wrong

    And now, I will make good on my promise and STFU




  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    Foxy said:

    I see Galloway vastly overestimates himself once more.

    "Let me put it to you, you vulpine pill pedlar..."
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,449
    edited March 15
    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
    Last night @rcs1000 - who I have met, and who is a lovely human being and extremely clever - tried to lecture me about Dall-e and GPT

    This is our conversation

    I said:

    "It’s 8pm in Colombia and I need to eat, but image creation was an emergent property of the early GPTs. The first Dall-e was a remake of GPT3 I think"

    A casual remark made as I went to the kitchen to cook up a steak, I didn't check it or anything

    He came back, haughtily:

    "That's simply not true. I've explained how Dall-E has worked many times before. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and like ChatGPT it uses a neural net.

    But Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems."

    Why is this interesting? Because he is completely wrong. Dall-E is an evolution of GPTs, indeed GPT3, as I said.


    Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

    "The first generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model was initially developed by OpenAI in 2018,[16] using a Transformer architecture. The first iteration, GPT-1,[17] was scaled up to produce GPT-2 in 2019;[18] in 2020, it was scaled up again to produce GPT-3, with 175 billion parameters.[19][5][20]

    DALL·E's model is a multimodal implementation of GPT-3[21] with 12 billion parameters[5] which "swaps text for pixels," trained on text–image pairs from the Internet"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DALL-E

    Don't believe Wiki? Then try OpenAI who actually made both these machines:

    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Case closed, m'Lud

    What is compelling here is that this is @rcs1000's JOB. He works in software and, I believe, studied Machine Learning at Cambridge. He knows top people in AI. He is very very bright. I owe him a dry martini. But how could he get that so wrong?

    It's no crime. We all make errors, I know I do. But it is still noteworthy that on the subject of AI the clever people at PB are consistently clueless and unable to extrapolate or comprehend what is going on, and some of the discourse is cringeworthy

    But I've said I shall shut the feck up about AI, at least for today, I know it annoys people - and so I will. Coda

    I also have to go and look at Bolivar's deathplace. Hasta Luego, amigos
    In fact, you are both sort of right.

    The thing that underlies both Dall.E and GPT-X is a domain agnostic transformer. When it is trained on a big old set of data, it produces a model (e.g. Dall.E or GPT-3) that takes streams of input data and transforms it into streams of output data. The crucial thing is that it does not care *what* the streams of input data might be.

    But training the model is not a hands off affair. It involves a lot of tweaking and special casing.

    The initially slightly surprising thing is that when the input was changed from pure text to text and streams of pixel data, it produced a model whose output that was "quite reasonable" streams of text and output pixel data (once a bit of jiggery pokery was applied to make the pixel data a valid image).

    Likewise with video - it was assumed that too much jiggery pokery would be needed to make that work reasonably well. But it turns out you can get ok results for short clips with only "a lot" of effort rather than insurmountable effort.

    The confusion arises because in their marketing material, OpenAI sometimes refer to an actual trained model as GPT-X, sometimes the general domain agnostic transformer, and sometimes the product(s) that wrap up the trained models.
    No, I am right, and he is wrong

    Go back to the original statements, they are blunt. I said Dall-e came out of GPT, he said

    "Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems"

    He is wrong

    Dall-e is an evolution of "image GPT" - ie, GPT

    They first experimented with GPT2

    "Notably, we achieved our results by directly applying the GPT-2 language model to image generation."

    https://openai.com/research/image-gpt

    (look how shite the images are, that was just four years ago: scary)

    Then they finessed it and span Dall-e out of GPT3, as they clearly say in their OWN blog


    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Cooroboration:


    "How does Dall-E work?

    Dall-E works by using a number of technologies including natural language processing (NLP), large language models (LLMs) and diffusion processing.

    Dall-E was built using a subset of the GPT-3 LLM. Instead of the full 175 billion parameters that GPT-3 provides, Dall-E uses only 12 billion parameters in an approach that was designed to be optimized for image generation. Just like the GPT-3 LLM, Dall-E also makes use of a transformer neural network -- also simply referred to as a transformer -- to enable the model to create and understand connections between different concepts."

    https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/Dall-E

    They are NOT two entirely different systems, it is not true to say they have no relationship. That is simply untrue. A non true statement. An error of fact. Wrong

    And now, I will make good on my promise and STFU




    "it is not true to say they have no relationship" is correct.

    "They are NOT two entirely different systems" is only correct if "entirely" is taken to mean "share no commonality at all", but they are two entirely different models built using (evolutions of) the same underlying technology.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    It's an evolution of the word for use in the political sphere.

    Eg Nigel Farage. For years a genuine fighter for a genuine cause (Brexit) he genuinely believed in. Mr Genuine. Surprised that wasn't his nickname.

    But now (let's assume for the sake of this illustration) knocking on, Brexit done, no longer interested in changing the world, instead content to exploit his personal brand for pure gratification and profit (GBNews, AskFarage, TalkingPints, BrexitCords, StripalongaNigel etc), this is a different NF, clearly, and what is it that he has become?

    Yep. You got it.
    Leon not infrequently comes over all Académie Française, when it comes to word use by anyone else but him.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    It's an evolution of the word for use in the political sphere.

    Eg Nigel Farage. For years a genuine fighter for a genuine cause (Brexit) he genuinely believed in. Mr Genuine. Surprised that wasn't his nickname.

    But now (let's assume for the sake of this illustration) knocking on, Brexit done, no longer interested in changing the world, instead content to exploit his personal brand for pure gratification and profit (GBNews, AskFarage, TalkingPints, BrexitCords, StripalongaNigel etc), this is a different NF, clearly, and what is it that he has become?

    Yep. You got it.
    Apart from anything else, "grifter" is being so overused it is losing any impact, so you really should desist, and save it for actual grifters

    English has the richest vocabulary of any language on earth: exploit it!
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    edited March 15
    isam said:

    I think feminism has gone too far now. Why are todays women so unladylike?

    https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/24188220.ringwood-shop-worker-new-years-resolution-sex-child/

    Who is being helped when a newspaper writes a sentence like, "exposed her penis" in a court report about someone convicted of possession of child abuse images?

    Why are so many paedophiles claiming to be trans?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    edited March 15
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Stocky said:

    Leon said:

    rkrkrk said:
    Wow wow wow wow

    I've seen stills from this video, but not the video. That is INCREDIBLE. That is Arthur C Clarke's "technology sufficiently advanced it is indistinguishable from magic"

    I also remember one of the Luddites on here, @Benpointer, airily dismissing AI (about 6 months ago, lol) and saying "get back to me when a robot can stack my dishwasher". That was literally his definition of AI

    Well, there is it Ben. A robot that will stack your dishwasher - and also do maths and make music and tell you jokes and answer puzzles and have all the info in the known world inside its net-accessible brain
    It could only stack a dishwasher if it was programmes to stack a dishwasher. By a human. It is a 'clever' robot.
    A human can only stack a dishwasher if it is conceived and birthed by humans and then raised to adulthood and taught dexterity with dishes by humans. So a human is a clever robot?

    Honestly, I don't want to bang on again, but PB's AI discourse is some sad-ass primary school shit
    I see you don’t do self awareness.
    Last night @rcs1000 - who I have met, and who is a lovely human being and extremely clever - tried to lecture me about Dall-e and GPT

    This is our conversation

    I said:

    "It’s 8pm in Colombia and I need to eat, but image creation was an emergent property of the early GPTs. The first Dall-e was a remake of GPT3 I think"

    A casual remark made as I went to the kitchen to cook up a steak, I didn't check it or anything

    He came back, haughtily:

    "That's simply not true. I've explained how Dall-E has worked many times before. It's brilliant in its simplicity, and like ChatGPT it uses a neural net.

    But Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems."

    Why is this interesting? Because he is completely wrong. Dall-E is an evolution of GPTs, indeed GPT3, as I said.


    Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

    "The first generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) model was initially developed by OpenAI in 2018,[16] using a Transformer architecture. The first iteration, GPT-1,[17] was scaled up to produce GPT-2 in 2019;[18] in 2020, it was scaled up again to produce GPT-3, with 175 billion parameters.[19][5][20]

    DALL·E's model is a multimodal implementation of GPT-3[21] with 12 billion parameters[5] which "swaps text for pixels," trained on text–image pairs from the Internet"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DALL-E

    Don't believe Wiki? Then try OpenAI who actually made both these machines:

    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Case closed, m'Lud

    What is compelling here is that this is @rcs1000's JOB. He works in software and, I believe, studied Machine Learning at Cambridge. He knows top people in AI. He is very very bright. I owe him a dry martini. But how could he get that so wrong?

    It's no crime. We all make errors, I know I do. But it is still noteworthy that on the subject of AI the clever people at PB are consistently clueless and unable to extrapolate or comprehend what is going on, and some of the discourse is cringeworthy

    But I've said I shall shut the feck up about AI, at least for today, I know it annoys people - and so I will. Coda

    I also have to go and look at Bolivar's deathplace. Hasta Luego, amigos
    In fact, you are both sort of right.

    The thing that underlies both Dall.E and GPT-X is a domain agnostic transformer. When it is trained on a big old set of data, it produces a model (e.g. Dall.E or GPT-3) that takes streams of input data and transforms it into streams of output data. The crucial thing is that it does not care *what* the streams of input data might be.

    But training the model is not a hands off affair. It involves a lot of tweaking and special casing.

    The initially slightly surprising thing is that when the input was changed from pure text to text and streams of pixel data, it produced a model whose output that was "quite reasonable" streams of text and output pixel data (once a bit of jiggery pokery was applied to make the pixel data a valid image).

    Likewise with video - it was assumed that too much jiggery pokery would be needed to make that work reasonably well. But it turns out you can get ok results for short clips with only "a lot" of effort rather than insurmountable effort.

    The confusion arises because in their marketing material, OpenAI sometimes refer to an actual trained model as GPT-X, sometimes the general domain agnostic transformer, and sometimes the product(s) that wrap up the trained models.
    No, I am right, and he is wrong

    Go back to the original statements, they are blunt. I said Dall-e came out of GPT, he said

    "Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems"

    He is wrong

    Dall-e is an evolution of "image GPT" - ie, GPT

    They first experimented with GPT2

    "Notably, we achieved our results by directly applying the GPT-2 language model to image generation."

    https://openai.com/research/image-gpt

    (look how shite the images are, that was just four years ago: scary)

    Then they finessed it and span Dall-e out of GPT3, as they clearly say in their OWN blog


    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    https://openai.com/research/dall-e

    Cooroboration:


    "How does Dall-E work?

    Dall-E works by using a number of technologies including natural language processing (NLP), large language models (LLMs) and diffusion processing.

    Dall-E was built using a subset of the GPT-3 LLM. Instead of the full 175 billion parameters that GPT-3 provides, Dall-E uses only 12 billion parameters in an approach that was designed to be optimized for image generation. Just like the GPT-3 LLM, Dall-E also makes use of a transformer neural network -- also simply referred to as a transformer -- to enable the model to create and understand connections between different concepts."

    https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/Dall-E

    They are NOT two entirely different systems, it is not true to say they have no relationship. That is simply untrue. A non true statement. An error of fact. Wrong

    And now, I will make good on my promise and STFU




    "it is not true to say they have no relationship" is correct.

    "They are NOT two entirely different systems" is only correct if "entirely" is taken to mean "share no commonality at all", but they are two entirely different models built using (evolutions of) the same underlying technology.
    I really don't want this argument to go on. I've made my point. It is fairly clear

    Robert Smithson said:

    "Dall-E did not come out of GPT. They are two, entirely different systems"

    Whereas OpenAI, who actually made Dall-e and GPT (unlike Robert Smithson) say this:


    "DALL·E is a 12-billion parameter version of GPT-3 trained to generate images from text descriptions, using a dataset of text–image pairs"

    Now that really is it. Finito. Manana. Kiss kiss
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    This week's polling average



    Reform continue their remorseless rise.

    Reform’s line has all the hallmarks of a minor party bubble. We’ve seen enough of these, notably in 2019, to know what goes up that quickly comes down with a similar bump.

    Which means the Tory position actually looks better than last year. RefCon combined is 2.7% higher than a year ago while LLG is 1.5% lower.
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,907
    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known


    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.


    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this. The word is surely more applicable to people in financial services (sorry @kinabalu) than it is to politicians, especially if you see City-style financial dealing as somehow evil (like @kinabalu)

    I guess Trump might be metaphorically shoehorned into the first definition - but it is still not an easy fit

    Trump is much better characterised as what he is: a ranting egotist and a scheming demagogue. There are plenty of bad labels we can apply to The Donald without having to misapply wrong ones

    Good movie, though.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    It's an evolution of the word for use in the political sphere.

    Eg Nigel Farage. For years a genuine fighter for a genuine cause (Brexit) he genuinely believed in. Mr Genuine. Surprised that wasn't his nickname.

    But now (let's assume for the sake of this illustration) knocking on, Brexit done, no longer interested in changing the world, instead content to exploit his personal brand for pure gratification and profit (GBNews, AskFarage, TalkingPints, BrexitCords, StripalongaNigel etc), this is a different NF, clearly, and what is it that he has become?

    Yep. You got it.
    Leon not infrequently comes over all Académie Française, when it comes to word use by anyone else but him.
    I think I might be the only person on here who is paid to use the English language, creatively, albeit in my second job? Might that not explain why I am particularly interested in it?

    We did have another writer, @Mysticrose?

    I miss her. She was fun. She was NOT me, btw
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    edited March 15
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    It's an evolution of the word for use in the political sphere.

    Eg Nigel Farage. For years a genuine fighter for a genuine cause (Brexit) he genuinely believed in. Mr Genuine. Surprised that wasn't his nickname.

    But now (let's assume for the sake of this illustration) knocking on, Brexit done, no longer interested in changing the world, instead content to exploit his personal brand for pure gratification and profit (GBNews, AskFarage, TalkingPints, BrexitCords, StripalongaNigel etc), this is a different NF, clearly, and what is it that he has become?

    Yep. You got it.
    Leon not infrequently comes over all Académie Française, when it comes to word use by anyone else but him.
    I think I might be the only person on here who is paid to use the English language, creatively, albeit in my second job? Might that not explain why I am particularly interested in it?

    We did have another writer, @Mysticrose?

    I miss her. She was fun. She was NOT me, btw
    I'm not decrying your interest, which is admirable.
    It's just when you come over all faux pedant.
  • Options
    MJWMJW Posts: 1,576
    More chance of Jamie Carragher being elected Mayor of Manchester than Galloway. Look at his result in London (in theory much more fertile ground given had lived there and communities more demographically 'favourable' to him). Be very funny if he did run though.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    MJW said:

    More chance of Jamie Carragher being elected Mayor of Manchester than Galloway. Look at his result in London (in theory much more fertile ground given had lived there and communities more demographically 'favourable' to him). Be very funny if he did run though.

    Didn't Carragher just make some massive gaffe on American soccer telly? I believe he did

    https://theathletic.com/5338544/2024/03/14/carragher-cbs-abdo-football-coverage/
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    It's an evolution of the word for use in the political sphere.

    Eg Nigel Farage. For years a genuine fighter for a genuine cause (Brexit) he genuinely believed in. Mr Genuine. Surprised that wasn't his nickname.

    But now (let's assume for the sake of this illustration) knocking on, Brexit done, no longer interested in changing the world, instead content to exploit his personal brand for pure gratification and profit (GBNews, AskFarage, TalkingPints, BrexitCords, StripalongaNigel etc), this is a different NF, clearly, and what is it that he has become?

    Yep. You got it.
    Leon not infrequently comes over all Académie Française, when it comes to word use by anyone else but him.
    I think I might be the only person on here who is paid to use the English language, creatively, albeit in my second job? Might that not explain why I am particularly interested in it?

    We did have another writer, @Mysticrose?

    I miss her. She was fun. She was NOT me, btw
    You’re forgetting malcolmg, who wrote Trainspotting.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,429
    Ghedebrav said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even if he ran he wouldn't beat Burnham, Gter Manchester overall is solid Labour and it doesn't have a big enough Muslim vote like Rochdale did over all of it as a base to win either

    The local independent in Rochdale was a significant factor too.

    But agree for a large number of reasons there is no way that Galloway will come close to winning GM mayor (and he wouldn't want the job anyway).
    Plus Burnham is popular in the city - seen as a good major who has represented the city well.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 65,908
    MJW said:

    More chance of Jamie Carragher being elected Mayor of Manchester than Galloway. Look at his result in London (in theory much more fertile ground given had lived there and communities more demographically 'favourable' to him). Be very funny if he did run though.

    Steel's description, "both hilarious and awful", is spot on.
    A campaign he's almost certain to lose could be quite entertaining.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 51,187
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on the meaning of grifter. Here is the internet definition, and this is the one I have always known

    Grifter

    noun; slang.

    1. a person who operates a side show at a circus, fair, etc., especially a gambling attraction.

    2. a swindler, dishonest gambler, or the like.

    The second is clearly an evolution of the first

    I do not see the political side to this...

    Have you not been watching how Trump has enriched himself through his electoral activities ?
    And you're surely not arguing he's honest ?
    I am certainly not defending Trump, he's a wanker in multiple ways

    I just like to utilise the English language precisely, and I don't think he is a classic"grifter" as the word should be employed. It is a useful and clever word, but it is being stretched in its meaning to basically include "anyone I don't like", that's a shame, to my mind, because then the original precise meaning is lost
    It's an evolution of the word for use in the political sphere.

    Eg Nigel Farage. For years a genuine fighter for a genuine cause (Brexit) he genuinely believed in. Mr Genuine. Surprised that wasn't his nickname.

    But now (let's assume for the sake of this illustration) knocking on, Brexit done, no longer interested in changing the world, instead content to exploit his personal brand for pure gratification and profit (GBNews, AskFarage, TalkingPints, BrexitCords, StripalongaNigel etc), this is a different NF, clearly, and what is it that he has become?

    Yep. You got it.
    Leon not infrequently comes over all Académie Française, when it comes to word use by anyone else but him.
    I think I might be the only person on here who is paid to use the English language, creatively, albeit in my second job? Might that not explain why I am particularly interested in it?

    We did have another writer, @Mysticrose?

    I miss her. She was fun. She was NOT me, btw
    You’re forgetting malcolmg, who wrote Trainspotting.
    also that classic of hoteliering literature:

    The Lost Art of Scottish Hospitality

    Chapter one: Greeting Guests
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    TimS said:

    This week's polling average



    Reform continue their remorseless rise.

    Reform’s line has all the hallmarks of a minor party bubble. We’ve seen enough of these, notably in 2019, to know what goes up that quickly comes down with a similar bump.

    Which means the Tory position actually looks better than last year. RefCon combined is 2.7% higher than a year ago while LLG is 1.5% lower.
    Certainly what goes up may come down, but that may well not be to the Tories. It was a mistake to think UKIP were Tories on holiday too.
This discussion has been closed.