Howdy, Stranger!

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

It’s not easy being Green – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 24 in General
imageIt’s not easy being Green – politicalbetting.com

8% for the Greens seems too high to me (and it's not just with Opinium… YouGov and People Polling also tend to report quite high numbers).

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    And that's a first!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098
    Oh I don't know. All you need in Scotland is to be a raving lunatic obsessed with sex.
  • Is it a serious idea that Khan will lose in London? I have to say I thought it impossible but the briefings coming out of his team are not good.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098

    Is it a serious idea that Khan will lose in London? I have to say I thought it impossible but the briefings coming out of his team are not good.

    QTWTAIN

    He's fortunate. Getting re-elected after everyone learns that Starmer isn't really much of an improvement, say a year into a Labour government, would have been harder.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    DavidL said:

    Oh I don't know. All you need in Scotland is to be a raving lunatic obsessed with sex.

    That's about 48% of the population, and that's only the males - not counting the rest, or those south of the border.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Oh I don't know. All you need in Scotland is to be a raving lunatic obsessed with sex.

    That's about 48% of the population, and that's only the males - not counting the rest, or those south of the border.
    I'm not a raving lunatic (postings on here notwithstanding).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    On topic, yes this has been overlooked. Lots of suggestions that the Reform vote will all swing back to the Tories (it won't) but if the Greens end up on the 2.6% they got in 2019 the other 5% of their current polling is surely going to swing heavily to Labour or, tactically, to the LDs.

    I know there are Tory Greens but Sunak has stepped away from the green agenda to appease the RefUK mob and I suspect Con-leaning Greens will repay the compliment.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,593
    edited March 24
    @Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:
    • much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
    • human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
    • these characteristics are increasing
    The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

    None of those things are still wholly true

    It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129

    Is it a serious idea that Khan will lose in London? I have to say I thought it impossible but the briefings coming out of his team are not good.

    If that's the case then it's likely a result of complacency paranoia. The idea of the Tory candidate outpolling the Labour incumbent, in an FPTP vote in London, and especially under present conditions, is absurd.

    Johnson did it, of course, but that was a very different candidate at a very different time and in very different circumstances. Khan will win at a canter.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,796
    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Reminds me of people who complain about cuts in local council services but don't want to pay more council tax.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,593
    @Leon, as per Zeihan, like other countries Canada is trying to solve its demographic problem by importing lots and lots of people. However unlike US which attracts younger and poorer people, Canada attracts older and richer ones. That sounds good but a wealthy 45 yr old on the downslope contributes fewer children and person-years than a poor 25 yr old on the upslope. Consequently Canada has to import much more people than other countries.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,211
    DavidL said:

    Oh I don't know. All you need in Scotland is to be a raving lunatic obsessed with sex.

    Wait until you see the morning thread.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,211
    Well.

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski Is Considering Leaving The Republican Party

    “I wish that as Republicans, we had … a nominee that I could get behind."


    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/senator-lisa-murkowski-considering-leaving-republican-party_n_66003af7e4b09f0d72585aa4
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556

    DavidL said:

    Oh I don't know. All you need in Scotland is to be a raving lunatic obsessed with sex.

    Wait until you see the morning thread.
    Scotland or greens? The sex is obligatory, anyway.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,211
    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Oh I don't know. All you need in Scotland is to be a raving lunatic obsessed with sex.

    Wait until you see the morning thread.
    Scotland or greens? The sex is obligatory, anyway.
    Just the sex.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,593
    edited March 24
    "Is the British Military Ready for a Major War?", Warographics (that bald guy with a beard). Mar 23, 2024, YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DviYlz_d9oo

    TLDR: not enough people, shit kit and not enough of it. We spend lots of money but don't get much. You already know the tune.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,930
    The Green vote will be up on 2019 as some Corbyn supporters disillusioned with Starmer will vote for them.

    However in marginal seats yes Labour may be able to squeeze them to keep out the Tories
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,312
    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Yeah this is true... but listening in to the debate, I think that leaseholders complaining about the current system have unrealistic expectations. Even if they are emancipated from the freeholder there is still a managing agent and consequently broadly similar monthly costs, albeit a more complex collective decision making process with greater scope for conflict than would exist than if they were just dealing with a freeholder.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,327

    Is it a serious idea that Khan will lose in London? I have to say I thought it impossible but the briefings coming out of his team are not good.

    His team have a serious incentive to talk up his prospects of losing given his biggest enemy is complacency and a bad turnout among Labour supporters or left-leaning voters who think he's a bit 'meh'.

    You can only scare people with the prospect of Mayor Susan Hall if they take that possibility seriously.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,930

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,473
    edited March 24
    edit
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 413
    viewcode said:

    @Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

    • much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
    • human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
    • these characteristics are increasing
    The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

    None of those things are still wholly true

    It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.
    Or in short:

    image

    Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    Well, yes and no. The Green vote may well be hard to squeeze in Labour safe seats, but so what?

    It's squeezing it in Con held seats that matters, and that will be more straightforward to stress in leaflets, though the Green vote has held up well in recent byelections.

    The Greens have a 4 seat strategy for the GE. Brighton, Bristol Central, Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire. The latter two should be safe Tory seats, but does such a thing still exist? It wouldn't surprise me if Lab and LD didn't run more than a token campaign in these two seats as part of a tacit deal.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    Donkeys said:

    viewcode said:

    @Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

    • much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
    • human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
    • these characteristics are increasing
    The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

    None of those things are still wholly true

    It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.
    Or in short:

    image

    Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)
    Are we not men? We are Devo!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,593
    Foxy said:

    Donkeys said:

    viewcode said:

    @Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

    • much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
    • human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
    • these characteristics are increasing
    The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

    None of those things are still wholly true

    It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.
    Or in short:

    image

    Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)
    Are we not men? We are Devo!
    dee-ee-vee-oh. We are Devo.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166
    A
    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 413
    edited March 24

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    What is leftwing about a train of thought that says that now that the extremely rich are concentrating the proportion of wealth that's in their hands to an ever greater degree, degrading conditions for most of the rest of us, let's vote for the we're all in it together, corporate social responsibility, and "people, planet, profit" ticket?

    I'm leftwing but prefer the Tories to the greens. Just thought I would let you know that this attitude exists towards the heirs of Darré.

    With the Labour party the way it currently is, I can't see the point in voting at all. There's practically no difference between any of the major parties' programmes. I'm fucked if I'll vote for a colour, let alone for the colour of bullshit which is what green is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,930
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    Well, yes and no. The Green vote may well be hard to squeeze in Labour safe seats, but so what?

    It's squeezing it in Con held seats that matters, and that will be more straightforward to stress in leaflets, though the Green vote has held up well in recent byelections.

    The Greens have a 4 seat strategy for the GE. Brighton, Bristol Central, Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire. The latter two should be safe Tory seats, but does such a thing still exist? It wouldn't surprise me if Lab and LD didn't run more than a token campaign in these two seats as part of a tacit deal.
    I agree the Green vote may be squeezed a bit in Tory held marginals but even there will probably still be higher than 2017 or 2019 due to Corbyn no longer being Labour leader.

    I would also agree Labour and the LDs will largely leave the Greens to target the 2 Tory seats they are targeting but there will be a big Labour v Green battle in Brighton especially
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166

    Is it a serious idea that Khan will lose in London? I have to say I thought it impossible but the briefings coming out of his team are not good.

    Decent opinion polls have not been wrong by a margin vaguely big enough to see Khan defeated, in the modern era.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166
    darkage said:

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Yeah this is true... but listening in to the debate, I think that leaseholders complaining about the current system have unrealistic expectations. Even if they are emancipated from the freeholder there is still a managing agent and consequently broadly similar monthly costs, albeit a more complex collective decision making process with greater scope for conflict than would exist than if they were just dealing with a freeholder.
    There are always idiots who think that the Tax Gap is real or similar. There is no free money.

    This doesn’t mean that we can’t actually improve things.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129
    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

    There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,563

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Well I've managed to persuade one eco-authoritarian green zealot to vote Labour in May and in the GE.

    Having Philip Davies as the Conservative candidate does make it an easier sell.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    Well, yes and no. The Green vote may well be hard to squeeze in Labour safe seats, but so what?

    It's squeezing it in Con held seats that matters, and that will be more straightforward to stress in leaflets, though the Green vote has held up well in recent byelections.

    The Greens have a 4 seat strategy for the GE. Brighton, Bristol Central, Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire. The latter two should be safe Tory seats, but does such a thing still exist? It wouldn't surprise me if Lab and LD didn't run more than a token campaign in these two seats as part of a tacit deal.
    I agree the Green vote may be squeezed a bit in Tory held marginals but even there will probably still be higher than 2017 or 2019 due to Corbyn no longer being Labour leader.

    I would also agree Labour and the LDs will largely leave the Greens to target the 2 Tory seats they are targeting but there will be a big Labour v Green battle in Brighton especially
    Likely that Lab will win in Brighton, but Bristol Central may well go Green. Pity as I like Thangham Debonnaire, not least for choosing such a splendid name.

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,927

    A

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).
    Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

    So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

    And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

    Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019
    edited March 24

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    I've never heard the Green vote described as sticky before. Perhaps the 1-2% who have resisted the squeeze are by definition sticky, but, generally, my impression is that possible Green voters have been easily persuaded by tactical voting arguments. Maybe those voters just look like Labour voters to you, because they've always voted Labour to keep the Tories out?

    A lot of the Green polling is of those voters. They like Green policies, but they can count, and seeing that the Greens are not likely to win in their seat they're easily persuaded to vote anti-Tory.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,563
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

    There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.
    If people want to vote Green because of a lack of commitment to environmentalism in Labour's manifesto then fair play to them, and we will deserve it.

    If people want to vote Green because they have a random dislike for Starmer and don't have the option of SWP on the ballot, then I just think that they've lost the plot.
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 413
    edited March 24
    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    Donkeys said:

    viewcode said:

    @Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

    • much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
    • human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
    • these characteristics are increasing
    The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

    None of those things are still wholly true

    It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.
    Or in short:

    image

    Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)
    Are we not men? We are Devo!
    dee-ee-vee-oh. We are Devo.
    Ah, you are both supporting the hypothesis and so succinctly and wittily too.

    The internet is very much the place for such comments.

    I mean if someone was in a proper conversation and made a contribution by suddenly breaking into song, emitting words they'd heard somewhere that included one or two syllables that sounded like what the other person had said, they'd probably, shall we say, not be viewed as taking themselves seriously.

    Try it at a bus stop and see what I mean.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166
    kyf_100 said:

    A

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).
    Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

    So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

    And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

    Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro
    Yup

    Bigger bills are *better* for those in the chain of contracts - X% of a larger Y.

    I think we replaced the managing agent once, in my old block, in about 15 years. Nice chap but after he retired, his successor in the company couldn’t deliver value for money. The prices drifted up and the quality drifted down.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,126
    Volodymyr Zelenskyy agrees with the header - "It's not easy being green"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

    There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.
    If people want to vote Green because of a lack of commitment to environmentalism in Labour's manifesto then fair play to them, and we will deserve it.

    If people want to vote Green because they have a random dislike for Starmer and don't have the option of SWP on the ballot, then I just think that they've lost the plot.
    Ditto if they vote against a government that has done more to generate green energy than any government in our history of course.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

    There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.
    If people want to vote Green because of a lack of commitment to environmentalism in Labour's manifesto then fair play to them, and we will deserve it.

    If people want to vote Green because they have a random dislike for Starmer and don't have the option of SWP on the ballot, then I just think that they've lost the plot.
    Spare Labour used to be the LibDems. Now it’s the Greens.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098
    geoffw said:

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy agrees with the header - "It's not easy being green"

    I thought it was the only fashionable colour in Ukraine these days.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,126
    edited March 24
    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy agrees with the header - "It's not easy being green"

    I thought it was the only fashionable colour in Ukraine these days.
    It's nominatively determining in Ukranian
    and life is definitely not easy for Mr Green

  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

    There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.
    If people want to vote Green because of a lack of commitment to environmentalism in Labour's manifesto then fair play to them, and we will deserve it.

    If people want to vote Green because they have a random dislike for Starmer and don't have the option of SWP on the ballot, then I just think that they've lost the plot.
    There is a world of difference between being a Trot and asking nicely for something that bears a passing resemblance to social democracy. The Not Tory Party might be an improvement on yet more of the Tory Party, but if it's not going to do very much that's different then some voters' enthusiasm for the Non-Changey Change option will be understandably limited.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,126
    As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones
  • In most seats where it will make a difference the next GE will largely be a referendum on - 1) Mr Sunak and 2) the local Con MP. I suspect Lab will be hitting both groups pretty hard on the Govt's anti-environment agenda.

    I still think the Greens have a reasonable chance in Brighton. I can't see them losing that but gaining Bristol Central. If the GE is perceived as close then they will lose both. If it is seen as a Lab coronation then the Greens may well win both.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478
    Donkeys said:

    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    Donkeys said:

    viewcode said:

    @Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

    • much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
    • human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
    • these characteristics are increasing
    The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

    None of those things are still wholly true

    It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.
    Or in short:

    image

    Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)
    Are we not men? We are Devo!
    dee-ee-vee-oh. We are Devo.
    Ah, you are both supporting the hypothesis and so succinctly and wittily too.

    The internet is very much the place for such comments.

    I mean if someone was in a proper conversation and made a contribution by suddenly breaking into song, emitting words they'd heard somewhere that included one or two syllables that sounded like what the other person had said, they'd probably, shall we say, not be viewed as taking themselves seriously.

    Try it at a bus stop and see what I mean.
    Devo doesn't just sound like the theory of Devolution, that is why they named the band, more than 50 years ago:

    https://profward.com/profward/web/devo/v_jockohomo.html#:~:text=D evo co-founder Mark,out the story right there.

    Though I am a fan of their music, not of their philosophy.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,478

    In most seats where it will make a difference the next GE will largely be a referendum on - 1) Mr Sunak and 2) the local Con MP. I suspect Lab will be hitting both groups pretty hard on the Govt's anti-environment agenda.

    I still think the Greens have a reasonable chance in Brighton. I can't see them losing that but gaining Bristol Central. If the GE is perceived as close then they will lose both. If it is seen as a Lab coronation then the Greens may well win both.

    That is very possible, but I think that in Brighton the council hasn't helped the Greens. Both places might like the novelty of having Green MPs.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787

    kyf_100 said:

    A

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).
    Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

    So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

    And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

    Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro
    Yup

    Bigger bills are *better* for those in the chain of contracts - X% of a larger Y.

    I think we replaced the managing agent once, in my old block, in about 15 years. Nice chap but after he retired, his successor in the company couldn’t deliver value for money. The prices drifted up and the quality drifted down.
    The ability to remove the freeholder and this type of escalating service charge situation already exists - through the right to manage system. But you have to get the leaseholders to engage with the process to make it happen.

    Regarding the £625 per month; I think this was a tall building managed by a housing association. A situation where there is a lot of extra cost due to the type of development and no incentive to keep costs down.

    In my current situation the building is too small for any managing agent to be interested in.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098
    geoffw said:

    As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

    Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

    So they can have more than 1 each.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,677
    No insight but I suspect Scottish Greens won't stand aside to lend a hand to the SNP. They aren't much interested in Westminster but I doubt they feel any obligation to the SNP.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,348
    Donkeys said:

    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    Donkeys said:

    viewcode said:

    @Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

    • much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
    • human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
    • these characteristics are increasing
    The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

    None of those things are still wholly true

    It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.
    Or in short:

    image

    Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)
    Are we not men? We are Devo!
    dee-ee-vee-oh. We are Devo.
    Ah, you are both supporting the hypothesis and so succinctly and wittily too.

    The internet is very much the place for such comments.

    I mean if someone was in a proper conversation and made a contribution by suddenly breaking into song, emitting words they'd heard somewhere that included one or two syllables that sounded like what the other person had said, they'd probably, shall we say, not be viewed as taking themselves seriously.

    Try it at a bus stop and see what I mean.
    This is fairly standard conversational practice IRL.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,126
    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

    Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

    So they can have more than 1 each.
    I always thought that forty shades was an underestimate, but 4.5m is (literally) incredible. A year ago I had a cataract operation and the eye that received the artificial lens now sees blues - and anything containing blue, such as green - more intensively than before and differently from the other eye. So I would say that "the human eye" must vary with the human concerned. I have always called certain shades like turquoise "blue" which my wife insists are green

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,593
    geoffw said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

    Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

    So they can have more than 1 each.
    I always thought that forty shades was an underestimate, but 4.5m is (literally) incredible. A year ago I had a cataract operation and the eye that received the artificial lens now sees blues - and anything containing blue, such as green - more intensively than before and differently from the other eye. So I would say that "the human eye" must vary with the human concerned. I have always called certain shades like turquoise "blue" which my wife insists are green

    https://petapixel.com/2012/04/17/the-human-eye-can-see-in-ultraviolet-when-the-lens-is-removed/

    The lens of the eye has a layer that blocks out UV. Older artificial lenses did not reproduce this layer and the patient could "see" ultraviolet (there's some debate about whether this was just due to greater intensity). Newer ones reduce this.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,927
    darkage said:


    kyf_100 said:

    A

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).
    Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

    So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

    And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

    Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro
    Yup

    Bigger bills are *better* for those in the chain of contracts - X% of a larger Y.

    I think we replaced the managing agent once, in my old block, in about 15 years. Nice chap but after he retired, his successor in the company couldn’t deliver value for money. The prices drifted up and the quality drifted down.
    The ability to remove the freeholder and this type of escalating service charge situation already exists - through the right to manage system. But you have to get the leaseholders to engage with the process to make it happen.

    Regarding the £625 per month; I think this was a tall building managed by a housing association. A situation where there is a lot of extra cost due to the type of development and no incentive to keep costs down.

    In my current situation the building is too small for any managing agent to be interested in.
    Well you need a 51% majority, and getting them to engage with the process is somewhat challenging when there are 200 of them and many of them are (often) foreign investors renting out the flats they've bought. Meaning many are completely uncontactable, many more are completely disengaged.

    Add to that you have to be a 'qualifying' leaseholder (shared homeowners weren't considered 'qualifying' until a bunch of them took it to court in 2023), the fact the freeholder has any number of loopholes they can challenge you on (mounting legal fees), plus the sheer cost in terms of time and money in setting up the RTM means most people, in practice, don't have the ability to do so. Oh, and the rules are different if you have mixed use, i.e. shops or something at ground level, which a lot of new developments in London have.

    What it all amounts to is yes, you have the right to manage, but only if you can find and secure agreement from a majority of leaseholders who are scattered globally, and have the time and money to jump through all the hoops required, and aren't caught out by one of the many caveats the freeholder can challenge you on.

    It's all a bit Hitchhiker's Guide, with the planning documents on display in the locked filing cabinet in the basement with no stairs behind the sign that says 'beware of the leopard'.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,143
    Rewards for failure, Example 4,782 -


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

    Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak
    Well, yes and no. The Green vote may well be hard to squeeze in Labour safe seats, but so what?

    It's squeezing it in Con held seats that matters, and that will be more straightforward to stress in leaflets, though the Green vote has held up well in recent byelections.

    The Greens have a 4 seat strategy for the GE. Brighton, Bristol Central, Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire. The latter two should be safe Tory seats, but does such a thing still exist? It wouldn't surprise me if Lab and LD didn't run more than a token campaign in these two seats as part of a tacit deal.
    I agree the Green vote may be squeezed a bit in Tory held marginals but even there will probably still be higher than 2017 or 2019 due to Corbyn no longer being Labour leader.

    I would also agree Labour and the LDs will largely leave the Greens to target the 2 Tory seats they are targeting but there will be a big Labour v Green battle in Brighton especially
    Likely that Lab will win in Brighton, but Bristol Central may well go Green. Pity as I like Thangham Debonnaire, not least for choosing such a splendid name.

    Especially as it is spelt Debbonaire just to keep us all on our toes.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,518
    edited March 24
    On the Green vote, Brighton is instructive. There are three Brighton constituencies (Pavilion, Kemptown and Hove). All three are chock-full of Green sympathisers, as evidenced by council election results. But here's the thing: Greens will vote tactically to keep the Tories out. Look at the Green vote at 2019 GE:

    Pavilion: 57.2% (Lucas)
    Kemptown: 4.6%
    Hove: 4.4%.

    The ridiculously low Green vote in the last two demonstrates that, as the Greens had no chance of winning either, the Green-inclined voted Labour to make absolutely sure that the Tories had no chance (in seats that they won not that long ago). Huge Labour majorities resulted in both - one moderate (Peter Kyle in Hove), and one proper leftie (Russell-Moyle in Kemptown).

    I know it's only one area, but it rather suggests that many Greens prioritise keeping Tories out. Pavilion will be interesting, but I can't see the Greens winning Debbonnaire's seat.
  • #BREAKING: Israel has agreed to release between 700-800 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for 40 hostages.

    The terrorists agreed upon for release by Israel include hundreds who are serving life sentences for murdering Israelis in terror attacks.

    https://x.com/avivaklompas/status/1771963763345801539
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,098
    Watching episode 2 of 3 body problem.
    I mean bloody hell, this is weird and I love Sci Fi.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,290
    Cyclefree said:

    Rewards for failure, Example 4,782 -


    James Stupidly; couldn't run a bath.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,155

    On the Green vote, Brighton is instructive. There are three Brighton constituencies (Pavilion, Kemptown and Hove). All three are chock-full of Green sympathisers, as evidenced by council election results. But here's the thing: Greens will vote tactically to keep the Tories out. Look at the Green vote at 2019 GE:

    Pavilion: 57.2% (Lucas)
    Kemptown: 4.6%
    Hove: 4.4%.

    The ridiculously low Green vote in the last two demonstrates that, as the Greens had no chance of winning either, the Green-inclined voted Labour to make absolutely sure that the Tories had no chance (in seats that they won not that long ago). Huge Labour majorities resulted in both - one moderate (Peter Kyle in Hove), and one proper leftie (Russell-Moyle in Kemptown).

    I know it's only one area, but it rather suggests that many Greens prioritise keeping Tories out. Pavilion will be interesting, but I can't see the Greens winning Debbonnaire's seat.

    Debbonaire has a personal vote, and the Greens basically have to justify why effectively removing her from Starmer's cabinet would be a good thing. Central may well vulnerable in the GE afterwards, but not this one.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,327
    Foxy said:

    In most seats where it will make a difference the next GE will largely be a referendum on - 1) Mr Sunak and 2) the local Con MP. I suspect Lab will be hitting both groups pretty hard on the Govt's anti-environment agenda.

    I still think the Greens have a reasonable chance in Brighton. I can't see them losing that but gaining Bristol Central. If the GE is perceived as close then they will lose both. If it is seen as a Lab coronation then the Greens may well win both.

    That is very possible, but I think that in Brighton the council hasn't helped the Greens. Both places might like the novelty of having Green MPs.
    One point on Brighton - Labour's got a very strong candidate in Tom Gray from Gomez. He's also been backed by Feargal Sharkey. Normally you'd say celeb endorsements don't matter, but he's Mr Environment these days. So pretty significant he's backing a Labour candidate against the Greens in a Green seat. Gray's also led campaigns for better payment for musicians so is popular in the arts.

    Siân Berry may also suffer somewhat in comparison to Lucas, who has carved out a distinctive role as a Green MP. Less guarantee what you are getting.

    Could be interesting.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    edited March 24
    Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

    Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

    3 classic exemplars:

    Coldplay: Politic
    Snow Patrol: Run
    Keane: Somewhere only we know

    There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    In most seats where it will make a difference the next GE will largely be a referendum on - 1) Mr Sunak and 2) the local Con MP. I suspect Lab will be hitting both groups pretty hard on the Govt's anti-environment agenda.

    I still think the Greens have a reasonable chance in Brighton. I can't see them losing that but gaining Bristol Central. If the GE is perceived as close then they will lose both. If it is seen as a Lab coronation then the Greens may well win both.

    That is very possible, but I think that in Brighton the council hasn't helped the Greens. Both places might like the novelty of having Green MPs.
    One point on Brighton - Labour's got a very strong candidate in Tom Gray from Gomez. He's also been backed by Feargal Sharkey. Normally you'd say celeb endorsements don't matter, but he's Mr Environment these days. So pretty significant he's backing a Labour candidate against the Greens in a Green seat. Gray's also led campaigns for better payment for musicians so is popular in the arts.

    Siân Berry may also suffer somewhat in comparison to Lucas, who has carved out a distinctive role as a Green MP. Less guarantee what you are getting.

    Could be interesting.
    Feargal Sharkey is going to have outsize influence in the locals. The Lib Dems have been working closely with him in much of the blue wall. He’s the local environmental activist’s Martin Lewis.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:


    kyf_100 said:

    A

    Carnyx said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

    I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

    Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.
    Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).
    Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

    So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

    And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

    Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro
    Yup

    Bigger bills are *better* for those in the chain of contracts - X% of a larger Y.

    I think we replaced the managing agent once, in my old block, in about 15 years. Nice chap but after he retired, his successor in the company couldn’t deliver value for money. The prices drifted up and the quality drifted down.
    The ability to remove the freeholder and this type of escalating service charge situation already exists - through the right to manage system. But you have to get the leaseholders to engage with the process to make it happen.

    Regarding the £625 per month; I think this was a tall building managed by a housing association. A situation where there is a lot of extra cost due to the type of development and no incentive to keep costs down.

    In my current situation the building is too small for any managing agent to be interested in.
    Well you need a 51% majority, and getting them to engage with the process is somewhat challenging when there are 200 of them and many of them are (often) foreign investors renting out the flats they've bought. Meaning many are completely uncontactable, many more are completely disengaged.

    Add to that you have to be a 'qualifying' leaseholder (shared homeowners weren't considered 'qualifying' until a bunch of them took it to court in 2023), the fact the freeholder has any number of loopholes they can challenge you on (mounting legal fees), plus the sheer cost in terms of time and money in setting up the RTM means most people, in practice, don't have the ability to do so. Oh, and the rules are different if you have mixed use, i.e. shops or something at ground level, which a lot of new developments in London have.

    What it all amounts to is yes, you have the right to manage, but only if you can find and secure agreement from a majority of leaseholders who are scattered globally, and have the time and money to jump through all the hoops required, and aren't caught out by one of the many caveats the freeholder can challenge you on.

    It's all a bit Hitchhiker's Guide, with the planning documents on display in the locked filing cabinet in the basement with no stairs behind the sign that says 'beware of the leopard'.
    I can see it is easy to do in a small block; not so much in the situation described above.

    Another comment I would make on this is that I am familiar with Finland where you have a theoretically ideal system of management - every block is a company and there are shareholders and regulations that govern how they are managed, there is even a state fund which you can borrow from to do maintainence work etc. However they still have monthly charges of on average 300-400 euros for maintainence (for an older 1 bed flat) and major works bills on top of that - the major works (pipe replacement, electrics, recladding) involve vacating the building for 6 months at a time every decade or so. A large part of the problem with flats in the UK is that people just don't want to pay that kind of money or do that kind of work.




  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787

    On the Green vote, Brighton is instructive. There are three Brighton constituencies (Pavilion, Kemptown and Hove). All three are chock-full of Green sympathisers, as evidenced by council election results. But here's the thing: Greens will vote tactically to keep the Tories out. Look at the Green vote at 2019 GE:

    Pavilion: 57.2% (Lucas)
    Kemptown: 4.6%
    Hove: 4.4%.

    The ridiculously low Green vote in the last two demonstrates that, as the Greens had no chance of winning either, the Green-inclined voted Labour to make absolutely sure that the Tories had no chance (in seats that they won not that long ago). Huge Labour majorities resulted in both - one moderate (Peter Kyle in Hove), and one proper leftie (Russell-Moyle in Kemptown).

    I know it's only one area, but it rather suggests that many Greens prioritise keeping Tories out. Pavilion will be interesting, but I can't see the Greens winning Debbonnaire's seat.

    And Labour will still never do any deal - or work with - the Green Party
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166
    viewcode said:

    geoffw said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

    Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

    So they can have more than 1 each.
    I always thought that forty shades was an underestimate, but 4.5m is (literally) incredible. A year ago I had a cataract operation and the eye that received the artificial lens now sees blues - and anything containing blue, such as green - more intensively than before and differently from the other eye. So I would say that "the human eye" must vary with the human concerned. I have always called certain shades like turquoise "blue" which my wife insists are green

    https://petapixel.com/2012/04/17/the-human-eye-can-see-in-ultraviolet-when-the-lens-is-removed/

    The lens of the eye has a layer that blocks out UV. Older artificial lenses did not reproduce this layer and the patient could "see" ultraviolet (there's some debate about whether this was just due to greater intensity). Newer ones reduce this.
    In digital photography, it's long been a thing that camera sensors can seen outside the visible (to humans) spectrum - usually infra-red. Moding cameras (for astronomy etc) by removing the filters that exclude the frequencies from the sensors is also a thing.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,556
    DavidL said:

    Watching episode 2 of 3 body problem.
    I mean bloody hell, this is weird and I love Sci Fi.

    Mm. Have you read the books?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,211
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166
    Cyclefree said:

    Rewards for failure, Example 4,782 -


    There is also a phenomenon of "Big Enough To Take The Hit" - contractors on government projects have to deal with the inevitable failure due to dysfunctional process on the government side (ha!). So this tends to make the short list of those who will even bid quite short.

    So you see the same names associated with failure repeatedly asked to do other work.

    It is entertaining to see the correlation vs causation on this - and it happens around the world.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

    Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

    3 classic exemplars:

    Coldplay: Politic
    Snow Patrol: Run
    Keane: Somewhere only we know

    There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

    I LOVE Hoppipola

    I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

    I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,842
    TimS said:

    MJW said:

    Foxy said:

    In most seats where it will make a difference the next GE will largely be a referendum on - 1) Mr Sunak and 2) the local Con MP. I suspect Lab will be hitting both groups pretty hard on the Govt's anti-environment agenda.

    I still think the Greens have a reasonable chance in Brighton. I can't see them losing that but gaining Bristol Central. If the GE is perceived as close then they will lose both. If it is seen as a Lab coronation then the Greens may well win both.

    That is very possible, but I think that in Brighton the council hasn't helped the Greens. Both places might like the novelty of having Green MPs.
    One point on Brighton - Labour's got a very strong candidate in Tom Gray from Gomez. He's also been backed by Feargal Sharkey. Normally you'd say celeb endorsements don't matter, but he's Mr Environment these days. So pretty significant he's backing a Labour candidate against the Greens in a Green seat. Gray's also led campaigns for better payment for musicians so is popular in the arts.

    Siân Berry may also suffer somewhat in comparison to Lucas, who has carved out a distinctive role as a Green MP. Less guarantee what you are getting.

    Could be interesting.
    Feargal Sharkey is going to have outsize influence in the locals. The Lib Dems have been working closely with him in much of the blue wall. He’s the local environmental activist’s Martin Lewis.
    The Lib Dem’s have to be careful that there aren’t any accusations of The Undertones of Celebrity influence.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,840
    geoffw said:

    DavidL said:

    geoffw said:

    As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

    Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

    So they can have more than 1 each.
    I always thought that forty shades was an underestimate, but 4.5m is (literally) incredible. A year ago I had a cataract operation and the eye that received the artificial lens now sees blues - and anything containing blue, such as green - more intensively than before and differently from the other eye. So I would say that "the human eye" must vary with the human concerned. I have always called certain shades like turquoise "blue" which my wife insists are green

    IANAE on the human eye, but in computing, 24-bit colour is said to be 'real' colour. For RGB, that is 8 bits of red, 8 bits of green, and 8 bits of blue. That means you can have 256 shades of red, green and blue, and most humans cannot tell apart two adjacent hues on a screen. This makes a total of over 16 million colours in a basic 24-bit RGB format.

    For instance, you cannot tell the difference between 102 red and 103 red. You may be able to between 102 and 104. The same was true for greyscale; if 0 is black and 255 is white, then you cannot tell the difference between two adjacent shades on a screen.

    (Other colour codes are available).
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 174
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

    Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

    3 classic exemplars:

    Coldplay: Politic
    Snow Patrol: Run
    Keane: Somewhere only we know

    There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

    I LOVE Hoppipola

    I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

    I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles
    My daughter insisted on walking down the aisle to an Hoppipola arranged for a string quartet. Delight from me, and bafflement from the Baptist Minister in charge. (I must say, though, that with hindsight, it's quite difficult to walk to....)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,489

    In most seats where it will make a difference the next GE will largely be a referendum on - 1) Mr Sunak and 2) the local Con MP. I suspect Lab will be hitting both groups pretty hard on the Govt's anti-environment agenda.

    I still think the Greens have a reasonable chance in Brighton. I can't see them losing that but gaining Bristol Central. If the GE is perceived as close then they will lose both. If it is seen as a Lab coronation then the Greens may well win both.

    If I may tweak your comments, I don’t think the election will be a referendum on Sunak. I mean, Sunak is terrible and the public knows that. But the Tories are doing so badly in the polls because people’s lives are no better than 14 years ago, Brexit was mistake and a series of Tory PMs have been terrible. The election will be a referendum on the Conservative Party.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    No, you're NOT sure that AI is not conscious, and you are NOT sure that it is not sentient, because we don't know what consciousness and sentience ARE. We just know it when we see it. Like this wasp

    This is not really debatable, unless you have trumped 3000 years of philosophical struggle and personally defined what is conscious and what is not, and why. If so, let's have it. Do tell. You could win the Nobel Prize
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

    Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

    3 classic exemplars:

    Coldplay: Politic
    Snow Patrol: Run
    Keane: Somewhere only we know

    There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

    I LOVE Hoppipola

    I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

    I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles
    The video is sweet too. Until this evening I’d not quite clicked that it’s part of a family with, or eat least influenced by, those la-de-dah British acts. But it quite clearly is. What was it about the period 2003-5 that encouraged everyone to adopt the even-emphasis 4:4?

    I’m also now sensing a bit of it in dear departed Avicii’s Hey Brother, but that may be a case of hammers looking for nails because that was almost a decade later.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,537
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    No, you're NOT sure that AI is not conscious, and you are NOT sure that it is not sentient, because we don't know what consciousness and sentience ARE. We just know it when we see it. Like this wasp

    This is not really debatable, unless you have trumped 3000 years of philosophical struggle and personally defined what is conscious and what is not, and why. If so, let's have it. Do tell. You could win the Nobel Prize
    Where does that deeper spiritual meaning thing you discovered last week fit in?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    Wasps do look close up like they’re manmade. Quite robot-like, especially your classic Yellowjacket, much more so than any other insect. They also look strangely, and don’t ask me why….mancunian.

    Don’t you think? Wasps look like they’re from Manchester.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

    Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

    3 classic exemplars:

    Coldplay: Politic
    Snow Patrol: Run
    Keane: Somewhere only we know

    There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

    I LOVE Hoppipola

    I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

    I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles
    The video is sweet too. Until this evening I’d not quite clicked that it’s part of a family with, or eat least influenced by, those la-de-dah British acts. But it quite clearly is. What was it about the period 2003-5 that encouraged everyone to adopt the even-emphasis 4:4?

    I’m also now sensing a bit of it in dear departed Avicii’s Hey Brother, but that may be a case of hammers looking for nails because that was almost a decade later.
    I'm also getting the "@TimS has had two-and-a-half decent glasses of red wine" vibe

    And that is no bad thing
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,816
    Evening all :)

    The Greens now have 760 councillors (the LDs have 2,800) so a much stronger base than used to be the case. As the LDs will tell you, however, local election success doesn't always lead to general elextion success and if it does it's rarely quick.

    There are a few councils with a strong Green presence - Lancaster, Lewes, Norwich, Stroud and Warwick to name but five but it's hard to see them winning of the corresponding constituencies.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

    Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

    3 classic exemplars:

    Coldplay: Politic
    Snow Patrol: Run
    Keane: Somewhere only we know

    There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

    I LOVE Hoppipola

    I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

    I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles
    The video is sweet too. Until this evening I’d not quite clicked that it’s part of a family with, or eat least influenced by, those la-de-dah British acts. But it quite clearly is. What was it about the period 2003-5 that encouraged everyone to adopt the even-emphasis 4:4?

    I’m also now sensing a bit of it in dear departed Avicii’s Hey Brother, but that may be a case of hammers looking for nails because that was almost a decade later.
    I'm also getting the "@TimS has had two-and-a-half decent glasses of red wine" vibe

    And that is no bad thing
    Only one, plus a white which had too much volatile acidity. So no, I am currently sober.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    Wasps do look close up like they’re manmade. Quite robot-like, especially your classic Yellowjacket, much more so than any other insect. They also look strangely, and don’t ask me why….mancunian.

    Don’t you think? Wasps look like they’re from Manchester.
    OK, four glasses
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    Wasps do look close up like they’re manmade. Quite robot-like, especially your classic Yellowjacket, much more so than any other insect. They also look strangely, and don’t ask me why….mancunian.

    Don’t you think? Wasps look like they’re from Manchester.
    OK, four glasses
    Stone cold sober. I think it’s because they look a bit like Sid Little close up.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,183
    TimS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    Wasps do look close up like they’re manmade. Quite robot-like, especially your classic Yellowjacket, much more so than any other insect. They also look strangely, and don’t ask me why….mancunian.

    Don’t you think? Wasps look like they’re from Manchester.
    Bees, surely!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    No, you're NOT sure that AI is not conscious, and you are NOT sure that it is not sentient, because we don't know what consciousness and sentience ARE. We just know it when we see it. Like this wasp

    This is not really debatable, unless you have trumped 3000 years of philosophical struggle and personally defined what is conscious and what is not, and why. If so, let's have it. Do tell. You could win the Nobel Prize
    Where does that deeper spiritual meaning thing you discovered last week fit in?
    I think consciousness is fire. Humans were the first species to harness fire, just as we are the first to really harness our own consciousness. But now we have set a new blaze going, and it is AI, and it may devour us in its flames, or send us to the stars
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    The Greens now have 760 councillors (the LDs have 2,800) so a much stronger base than used to be the case. As the LDs will tell you, however, local election success doesn't always lead to general elextion success and if it does it's rarely quick.

    There are a few councils with a strong Green presence - Lancaster, Lewes, Norwich, Stroud and Warwick to name but five but it's hard to see them winning of the corresponding constituencies.

    The Greens have the right idea though. You do better in an area where you have councillors and a local track record. It makes you more real to the voters. Reform really ought to learn this and start building up competent council resources in their core turf.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,748
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Ah, I see talk of AI


    Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


    Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

    Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

    In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

    While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

    From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

    It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


    Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

    TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.
    A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

    "I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

    Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now
    What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?
    Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

    Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

    If a wasp can be sentient so can AI


    The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

    AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

    This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.
    No, you're NOT sure that AI is not conscious, and you are NOT sure that it is not sentient, because we don't know what consciousness and sentience ARE. We just know it when we see it. Like this wasp

    This is not really debatable, unless you have trumped 3000 years of philosophical struggle and personally defined what is conscious and what is not, and why. If so, let's have it. Do tell. You could win the Nobel Prize
    Well I am sure on both counts. Me being sure about something is not necessarily connected with the truth, which is what I'm sure you mean. The problem with the truth is that it's impossible to define all these things.

    I think the wasp is conscious by most definitions. He seems sentient to me, and likely more so.

    AI (so far as we can observe*) really isn't conscious by most definitions.

    * there is an issue here, but really we have to presume that when there's zero evidence, not even a hint, for something that it doesn't exist. Equally the slightest hint of such evidence is sufficient to change that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

    Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

    3 classic exemplars:

    Coldplay: Politic
    Snow Patrol: Run
    Keane: Somewhere only we know

    There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

    I LOVE Hoppipola

    I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

    I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles
    The video is sweet too. Until this evening I’d not quite clicked that it’s part of a family with, or eat least influenced by, those la-de-dah British acts. But it quite clearly is. What was it about the period 2003-5 that encouraged everyone to adopt the even-emphasis 4:4?

    I’m also now sensing a bit of it in dear departed Avicii’s Hey Brother, but that may be a case of hammers looking for nails because that was almost a decade later.
    Aren't the great majority of pop tunes in 4:4 ?
    It's hardly surprising that a number of those
    will be even beat.
Sign In or Register to comment.