From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
A gentle reminder that Trump also claims to have faith. Which rather devalues any public declarations - though perhaps not faith itself.
Lots of horrible people have proclaimed their faith, through history. In a range of religions. Several of which emphasise kindness and empathy.
Of all the many many arguments I have heard against the Existence of God, and there have been millions, some made by very smart people, absolutely the worst is "Trump also says he believes in God"
Comprehension fail there, old boy. That's precisely not what I said.
Piquantly, by forcing the Tories to scupper their reforms of the Freehold system, the pension funds/landlords/wankers have probably ensured they will now face much more hostile and punitive legislation from Labour
GOOD
I might even vote Labour just because of this. I hope that doesn't upset @kinabalu too much
It actually would. So if it happens (it won't) I'd prefer you kept it to yourself.
I have never cycled on a canal tow path. Due to the proximity of a canal.
I tried doing it a few years ago but it was so bumpy I had to stop after about 5 mins.
In my defence, the stretch from Manchester to Altrincham is actually designated a cycle route, qnd nicely surfaced. Unless you are sliding along it on your hands.
Piquantly, by forcing the Tories to scupper their reforms of the Freehold system, the pension funds/landlords/wankers have probably ensured they will now face much more hostile and punitive legislation from Labour
GOOD
I might even vote Labour just because of this. I hope that doesn't upset @kinabalu too much
It actually would. So if it happens (it won't) I'd prefer you kept it to yourself.
I think it will, soz boz apolibobs
For the one and only time in my life I'll be able to say "I voted for the prime minister", as he will be my MP
The Tories are gonna lose anyway, Starmer is gonna win anyway, might as well give him a big majority, who knows, maybe he can actually enact serious reform of the NHS - and rhe freehold system!
As things stand I am 97% sure I will vote Labour. Just this once. I share your pain
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
Russian gloves have been off regarding critical infrastructure since the start of the war.
I was just thinking of all those issues with the Zaporizhia nuclear plant, that they first sabotaged and then only failed to blow up due to, it seems, a failure of nerve.
Or the blasting of the Kakhovkha Dam.
If those were not 'critical infrastructure' I hate to think what is.
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
To be honest, that sounds about right, from the reports. And a big bully will usually defeat a much smaller opponent, unless the small opponent can get in a crippling blow. David vs Goliath comes to mind; no-one expected David to win!
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
No time for a full response - it's Good Friday, but my theism is based on the 'compelling circumstantial evidence' too.
No probs. I've made a note in my little green book. You owe me 'compelling circumstantial evidence' that the universe was created by a divine being. To say I'm looking forward to it is the understatement of deep time since it would rock my world.
Recall that I said there was compelling circumstantial evidence for both divine creation and for non-divine self creation of the universe.
In brief, 'divine' (meaning for this purpose that behind the universe as a whole lies intention and will) creation.Top 10 points, none of which prove in the strict sense anything at all:
1) Fine tuning of the universe 2) The apparent objectivity of values 3) Design 4) The emergence of the non-material (mental events) in the material 5) Freewill 6) The regularity of physical law 7) The problem of the big bang 8) Why is there something rather than nothing 9) The abstract capacities of maths 10) Altruism
Sorry it's brief. each of these 10 is a book.
Ah ok. Yes, those are all interesting and relevant points. But the Big Picture here is you're trying to think your way to God and I'm not sure that's an authentic route. True religious belief imo comes from seeing Him. Which means a person having an experience which they interpret as being that. Perhaps I'm wrong and your belief does come from that and all this is intellectual backfill. Me, I never have and today has thus far been no exception. Certainly He wasn't in Tesco where I've just come back from. The queues were nothing short of harrowing.
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
Russian gloves have been off regarding critical infrastructure since the start of the war.
Yes, it's hardly a new thing. I'm also amused by: "we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously."
They are forced to take it very seriously, as they're finding an enemy they hold in contempt to be much harder to beat than they expect. And part of that is because Putin doesn't understand *why* Ukraine doesn't want to be Russian.
And I tell our latest Russian troll something: even if Russia win; even if Russia take Ukraine from east to west, it will not be secure. What the Russophiles who screech 'peace' forget is that the reason Ukraine has not been beaten is because the population does not want to be under Russia's thumb. It doesn't matter how much you insult the Ukrainians; how much you preach a weirs reading of history; the Ukrainians want to make their own decisions for their future.
The only way Russia can 'win' this war will be with a military victory and then a massive pogrom and resettlement. And blood will be on the hands of those who screech 'peace!' on Russia's terms.
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
Russian gloves have been off regarding critical infrastructure since the start of the war.
No, I don't believe they have
@trent may very well be a Putin-bot (or not) - you would know better than me. However what he/she says is largely correct here, in my view. The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine, they thought they could simply seize it, in toto, largely undamaged, by toppling the regime
That didn't happen. So they have been slowly coming round to the fact they have to treat this as total war, as defeat is not permissible, and Ukraine refuses to surrender in the way they want. That means they are willing to destroy Ukraine in order to capture it, and also Ukraine's defences are weaker, and Russia is now relatively stronger - the sanctions have basically failed - which is an added motivation
i fear @trent is right, and we should mentally prepare for some version of Ukrainian defeat, at least as a possibility, while still arming them as much as we can so the defeat is not too bad
If that makes me a fucking appeaser and a Putinist shill, so be it, it is how I see it. I am very much on the Ukrainian side, I have got drunk in Lviv with lovely brave Ukrainians, during this war, but the facts are the facts
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
Actually, Starlink directly connected to your phone is on the way. First satellites are up there, and several US networks have signed up “coverage gap filling” deals
I found Starlink everywhere in Colombia, do the satellites sit above Bogota? Is that how it works?
I've never seen it appear on my phone's wifi systems before, not even in Ukraine. But in Colombia: ubiquitous
What you are seeing is Starlink being used for backhaul. Your phone connects to a phone mast normally, and that phone mast is connected to the world via Starlink. Similarly, public WiFi is being provided in some places using Starlink as the connection from the WiFi base station to the rest of the world.
This means not having to run miles of fibre optic cable to remote areas, repeaters etc.
Probably the biggest area for the LEO constellations is backhaul. It’s already ubiquitous on cruise ships. The passengers just get fast WiFi
OneWeb is, in fact, only selling backhaul. They do not offer direct connections to customers.
Starlink is in LEO. This means the satellites zip overhead every few minutes. You can access it pretty much anywhere, pole to pole.
It consists of more satellites than the rest of the world has. Full stop. Visualisation here
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
Russian gloves have been off regarding critical infrastructure since the start of the war.
No, I don't believe they have
@trent may very well be a Putin-bot (or not) - you would know better than me. However what he/she says is largely correct here, in my view. The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine, they thought they could simply seize it, in toto, largely undamaged, by toppling the regime
That didn't happen. So they have been slowly coming round to the fact they have to treat this as total war, as defeat is not permissible, and Ukraine refuses to surrender in the way they want. That means they are willing to destroy Ukraine in order to capture it, and also Ukraine's defences are weaker, and Russia is now relatively stronger - the sanctions have basically failed - which is an added motivation
i fear @trent is right, and we should mentally prepare for some version of Ukrainian defeat, at least as a possibility, while still arming them as much as we can so the defeat is not too bad
If that makes me a fucking appeaser and a Putinist shill, so be it, it is how I see it. I am very much on the Ukrainian side, I have got drunk in Lviv with lovely brave Ukrainians, during this war, but the facts are the facts
"The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine,"
It's a shame that the evidence shows otherwise; e.g. the blowing of the Kherson dam, or the sh*t they've done in the east since 2014.
As ever, your 'facts' only have a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
To be honest, that sounds about right, from the reports. And a big bully will usually defeat a much smaller opponent, unless the small opponent can get in a crippling blow. David vs Goliath comes to mind; no-one expected David to win!
'David's' have often won in war, and especially long war. Afghanistan twice, as a recent example. Vietnam for another.
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
No time for a full response - it's Good Friday, but my theism is based on the 'compelling circumstantial evidence' too.
No probs. I've made a note in my little green book. You owe me 'compelling circumstantial evidence' that the universe was created by a divine being. To say I'm looking forward to it is the understatement of deep time since it would rock my world.
Recall that I said there was compelling circumstantial evidence for both divine creation and for non-divine self creation of the universe.
In brief, 'divine' (meaning for this purpose that behind the universe as a whole lies intention and will) creation.Top 10 points, none of which prove in the strict sense anything at all:
1) Fine tuning of the universe 2) The apparent objectivity of values 3) Design 4) The emergence of the non-material (mental events) in the material 5) Freewill 6) The regularity of physical law 7) The problem of the big bang 8) Why is there something rather than nothing 9) The abstract capacities of maths 10) Altruism
Sorry it's brief. each of these 10 is a book.
Ah ok. Yes, those are all interesting and relevant points. But the Big Picture here is you're trying to think your way to God and I'm not sure that's an authentic route. True religious belief imo comes from seeing Him. Which means a person having an experience which they interpret as being that. Perhaps I'm wrong and your belief does come from that and all this is intellectual backfill. Me, I never have and today has thus far been no exception. Certainly He wasn't in Tesco where I've just come back from. The queues were nothing short of harrowing.
No. I was answering your question. There is, may I remind you, as compelling a series of bits of circumstantial evidence for non-theism.
I am a theist; I don't suggest it can be proved in any formal sense, but neither is it irrational. There are grounds to justify it, as there are for non-theism.
For me theism is more or less self evidently true; that isn't the case for lots of people I respect and admire.
I'll be in Lidl tomorrow, where theism will no doubt make its presence felt.
Piquantly, by forcing the Tories to scupper their reforms of the Freehold system, the pension funds/landlords/wankers have probably ensured they will now face much more hostile and punitive legislation from Labour
GOOD
I might even vote Labour just because of this. I hope that doesn't upset @kinabalu too much
It actually would. So if it happens (it won't) I'd prefer you kept it to yourself.
Proof if it were needed for BJO, that Starmer-Labour are the unacceptable face of Conservatism.
On political stories like Rayner's it's always worth trying to reverse the sides and see if they would defend their own conduct or not, as I believe some have attemped to put to her. They usually wouldn't, which is not definitive that the conduct is actually poor, but I think does mean you have to accept opponents making something of it to some degree, even if it is not typically as big a deal as they will state.
The Rayner-equivalent story on the Tory side is Esther McVey living in one flat at the taxpayer's expense while renting out another she, or her husband, owns, that is just as close to Parliament. Rishi has today given a knighthood to McVey's husband, Philip Davies MP.
If Rayner made a false declaration for tax purposes then she has broken the law. It’s a minor offence but she should fess up and pay the 1.5k
If McVey owned an investment property that was previously rented out then why should she give up that income to serve in Parliament? If, however, she moved out of the family property in order to rent it out at the same time as claiming another flat on expenses then, while it may be legal/compliant it is not a good look for a politician
And yet Rishi has just knighted Philip Davies, yesterday! I wonder if Number 10 missed that he is McVey's other half.
So it appears to be that:
- under the old rules Davies bought a flat and was able to claim the mortgage expenses - Then the rules changed and he was no longer able to claim the expenses - He could not afford to pay the mortgage himself - Therefore he had two choices: (a) sell the flat, repay the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses; or (b) keep the flat, rent it out to cover the mortgage and live in a rented flat paid for by expenses
He chose option (b)
Can you explain what your concern is? He seems - based on reading one Guardian article - to have behaved quite properly.
In the words of, erm, you, it is not a good look for a politician. I suggested this is the broad equivalent of Raynergate, and that Number 10 might have missed bold Sir Phil's involvement because press coverage headlined Esther McVey.
I’ve now looked at it and what he has done is entirely reasonable. There has been no suggestion of potential wrong doing. It is a politically motivated attack by Led By Donkeys and the Guardian.
Rayner may have behaved entirely reasonably as well. However, It is unusual to have a different primary residence to your children and your husband. She’s also chosen to brazen it out rather than explain what have been questions raised by the politically neutral (as far as I am aware) tax guy
Telegraph not Guardian.
A cabinet minister who has criticised Whitehall waste has claimed tens of thousands of pounds in expenses to rent a London flat despite her husband owning a property a mile away.
Esther McVey, who was appointed “minister for common sense” last year, has received £39,000 in taxpayers’ money to rent the flat over the last two years. She lives there with her husband, the Tory MP Philip Davies.
Congratulations to Humza Yousaf on his first anniversary as First Minister.
A 🧵 of his most significant achievements to date.
He is the only SNP First Minister not to have been arrested.
Ends.
You obviously like that so much you've repeated it from the header!
Mind, Mr Murphy is obviously still feeling sour.
I was going to say Jim was the only SLab leader to preside over the return of a single MP in a general election but forgot that Richard Leonard achieved the same.
Perhaps the record for the largest gap between hubristic ambition and pitiful failure (and there's been quite a bit of that with SLab over the years)?
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
Actually, Starlink directly connected to your phone is on the way. First satellites are up there, and several US networks have signed up “coverage gap filling” deals
I found Starlink everywhere in Colombia, do the satellites sit above Bogota? Is that how it works?
I've never seen it appear on my phone's wifi systems before, not even in Ukraine. But in Colombia: ubiquitous
What you are seeing is Starlink being used for backhaul. Your phone connects to a phone mast normally, and that phone mast is connected to the world via Starlink. Similarly, public WiFi is being provided in some places using Starlink as the connection from the WiFi base station to the rest of the world.
This means not having to run miles of fibre optic cable to remote areas, repeaters etc.
Probably the biggest area for the LEO constellations is backhaul. It’s already ubiquitous on cruise ships. The passengers just get fast WiFi
OneWeb is, in fact, only selling backhaul. They do not offer direct connections to customers.
Starlink is in LEO. This means the satellites zip overhead every few minutes. You can access it pretty much anywhere, pole to pole.
It consists of more satellites than the rest of the world has. Full stop. Visualisation here
Ok, since it's Easter I feel I should ruminate. For me Atheism is the refusal to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence. It's deeply rational. Whereas Religion is a leap of pure faith taken as a way of fending off the (literally) unthinkable horror of an eternal nothing, thus easing a person's passage through this one and only life that we have. This is irrational and rational at the same time. It's irrational, because faith can't be otherwise, and it's rational because it's a cost free solution to a problem that for many people cannot be solved in any other way.
There is no 'rational' evidence, in the sense in which you mean 'rational', for the existence of minds other than one's own. It is an empirical assumption, not an empirical conclusion.
But there are overwhelmingly strong grounds for thinking that other minds exist, for example in the heads of most if not all PB contributors.
Similarly there is no evidence for either the divine creation or the non-divine self-creation of the universe, but there are compelling grounds for both positions.
Theism/religion and atheism/non-religion are on a precisely equal footing.
Hmm, not sure about that. I'd say the existence of 'other similar minds' has such compelling circumstantial evidence in favour that it's pretty much a done deal.
As for 'divine' vs 'non-divine' creation of the universe itself, we can't conceive of either. It's beyond our ken and always will be because it isn't a matter of not knowing enough, the question itself is beyond our frame of reference. So, yes, an equal footing in that regard.
But this doesn't mean Religion and Atheism are equally rational. They are wholly different. One is refusal to believe without evidence. The other is irrational faith rationally embraced to solve a mental problem.
No time for a full response - it's Good Friday, but my theism is based on the 'compelling circumstantial evidence' too.
No probs. I've made a note in my little green book. You owe me 'compelling circumstantial evidence' that the universe was created by a divine being. To say I'm looking forward to it is the understatement of deep time since it would rock my world.
Recall that I said there was compelling circumstantial evidence for both divine creation and for non-divine self creation of the universe.
In brief, 'divine' (meaning for this purpose that behind the universe as a whole lies intention and will) creation.Top 10 points, none of which prove in the strict sense anything at all:
1) Fine tuning of the universe 2) The apparent objectivity of values 3) Design 4) The emergence of the non-material (mental events) in the material 5) Freewill 6) The regularity of physical law 7) The problem of the big bang 8) Why is there something rather than nothing 9) The abstract capacities of maths 10) Altruism
Sorry it's brief. each of these 10 is a book.
Ah ok. Yes, those are all interesting and relevant points. But the Big Picture here is you're trying to think your way to God and I'm not sure that's an authentic route. True religious belief imo comes from seeing Him. Which means a person having an experience which they interpret as being that. Perhaps I'm wrong and your belief does come from that and all this is intellectual backfill. Me, I never have and today has thus far been no exception. Certainly He wasn't in Tesco where I've just come back from. The queues were nothing short of harrowing.
No. I was answering your question. There is, may I remind you, as compelling a series of bits of circumstantial evidence for non-theism.
I am a theist; I don't suggest it can be proved in any formal sense, but neither is it irrational. There are grounds to justify it, as there are for non-theism.
For me theism is more or less self evidently true; that isn't the case for lots of people I respect and admire.
I'll be in Lidl tomorrow, where theism will no doubt make its presence felt.
Fair enough. I wasn't accusing you of dodging the question. But you are trying to think your way to God, aren't you? Indeed strike the 'trying' you've done it. You've thought your way there rather than had it inculcated by upbringing or culture or had a revelatory experience.
Surely this is one good thing we can expect from Starmer and Labour. The Tories are pathetically enslaved by the landlords and builders, the parasitic rentiers and leeching freeholders
Labour is not thus encumbered. It needs to sort this out immediately. Reform the lease/freehold system and stop these insane service charges
I fear you are getting triggered by these clickbait articles in to 'autocomplete outrage'.
From what I understand the service charges simply represent the cost of maintaining a property - but in the case of new build flats are inflated by intermediaries (managing agents), greater regulation (particularly the building safety act 2022 re buildings more than 7 storeys high), the risk averse approach to commissioning work, the need for work to unavoidably comply with health and safety legislation (no short cuts with white van builders), surveyors fees on top of everything else, etc. And then, there is rapid inflation due to the general cost of building work post Covid with material price increases, labour shortages etc, wage increases etc. With new build you have a particular problem of regulatory requirements including maintenance being loaded on at planning stage.
I don't think this is freeholders scamming the system. This may be a very small part of the system and there are probably commissions and kickbacks but it is unjustified to present the situation as this being the fundamental cause of the problem. The problem is a) people don't believe to pay similar levels to what people pay for flat maintenance in other comparable countries and b) regulation, build costs, case law etc.
The flats in the barbican are expecting a bill of £85k each for replacement windows.
Labour can (and should) legislate for more transparency over charges, review the legislation regarding Right to Manage , look at making freehold purchase easier, remove forfeiture; but in all probability that is all that can be achieved.
No, I'm getting triggered by the fact that the managers of my freehold recently landed the leaseholders, including me, with a whopping four figure bill - each - simply to unblock a drain. Literally. One afternoon, with one man, unblocking a drain
So they inflated the cost outrageously, and I am sure it is a scam, it is so easy to do - and we leaseholders just have to lump it. As that is the law, as things stand, well done the Tory party, stupid greedy dorks
Previously the management has generally been fine, but now this?? Pffffffgrrr
Reform the system from top to bottom, get rid of leasehold entirely, and if the profiteers squeal, fuck em
Once you've been taken to the cleaners by your freeholder/managing agent for a bill that's 10x any kind of reasonable cost for the services actually rendered and is padded to hell with "admin charges" and "management fees" on top of that, you get to realising what leasehold is all about. Then you look into what you can do to dispute the charges - hint, absolutely nothing, unless you can afford whopping lawyers fees plus the freeholder whacking their lawyers fees on your bill - and you really, really see what leasehold is all about.
The stories may vary, but I don't know a single leaseholder who doesn't have at least one of these stories.
The sooner it is brought to an end the better, and I really hope Labour give us some full-throated reform that puts these parasites out of business for good.
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
Russian gloves have been off regarding critical infrastructure since the start of the war.
No, I don't believe they have
@trent may very well be a Putin-bot (or not) - you would know better than me. However what he/she says is largely correct here, in my view. The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine, they thought they could simply seize it, in toto, largely undamaged, by toppling the regime
That didn't happen. So they have been slowly coming round to the fact they have to treat this as total war, as defeat is not permissible, and Ukraine refuses to surrender in the way they want. That means they are willing to destroy Ukraine in order to capture it, and also Ukraine's defences are weaker, and Russia is now relatively stronger - the sanctions have basically failed - which is an added motivation
i fear @trent is right, and we should mentally prepare for some version of Ukrainian defeat, at least as a possibility, while still arming them as much as we can so the defeat is not too bad
If that makes me a fucking appeaser and a Putinist shill, so be it, it is how I see it. I am very much on the Ukrainian side, I have got drunk in Lviv with lovely brave Ukrainians, during this war, but the facts are the facts
"The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine,"
It's a shame that the evidence shows otherwise; e.g. the blowing of the Kherson dam, or the sh*t they've done in the east since 2014.
As ever, your 'facts' only have a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
There are plenty of overheads of smashed cities on the web.
And last winter, the Russians went through a huge pile of their missile stockpile to try and destroy heating and electricity infrastructure.
They’ve lost whole armies of men and material there.
Piquantly, by forcing the Tories to scupper their reforms of the Freehold system, the pension funds/landlords/wankers have probably ensured they will now face much more hostile and punitive legislation from Labour
GOOD
I might even vote Labour just because of this. I hope that doesn't upset @kinabalu too much
It actually would. So if it happens (it won't) I'd prefer you kept it to yourself.
Proof if it were needed for BJO, that Starmer-Labour are the unacceptable face of Conservatism.
Oh god, yes. It totally vindicates BJO. I might have to vote Green or whatever new party Jez sets up.
Unless Leon is bullshitting of course. Which is just incredibly possible.
Another candidate for having an honour forfeited steps forward.
Donaldson was knighted under David Cameron, IIRC.
no surprise , Cameron is a wrong un
The Prime Minister who gave us Baroness Mome and Louise Bagshawe MP is a lousy judge of character? Say it ain't so.
On a serious note, who was the last Prime Minister to be a really astute judge of character?
The last four have been dismal. Sunak is, well. Truss is, well well. Johnson is, fucking hell. May was in and out like a Hokey Cokey. Cameron left Gove at education and Lansley at health far past the moment it was obvious they were overseeing train crashes.
Brown was terrible. Blair had his moments (coughAlistairCampbellcough). Major wasn't great. Thatcher started shrewdly but fell away.
Surely this is one good thing we can expect from Starmer and Labour. The Tories are pathetically enslaved by the landlords and builders, the parasitic rentiers and leeching freeholders
Labour is not thus encumbered. It needs to sort this out immediately. Reform the lease/freehold system and stop these insane service charges
I fear you are getting triggered by these clickbait articles in to 'autocomplete outrage'.
From what I understand the service charges simply represent the cost of maintaining a property - but in the case of new build flats are inflated by intermediaries (managing agents), greater regulation (particularly the building safety act 2022 re buildings more than 7 storeys high), the risk averse approach to commissioning work, the need for work to unavoidably comply with health and safety legislation (no short cuts with white van builders), surveyors fees on top of everything else, etc. And then, there is rapid inflation due to the general cost of building work post Covid with material price increases, labour shortages etc, wage increases etc. With new build you have a particular problem of regulatory requirements including maintenance being loaded on at planning stage.
I don't think this is freeholders scamming the system. This may be a very small part of the system and there are probably commissions and kickbacks but it is unjustified to present the situation as this being the fundamental cause of the problem. The problem is a) people don't believe to pay similar levels to what people pay for flat maintenance in other comparable countries and b) regulation, build costs, case law etc.
The flats in the barbican are expecting a bill of £85k each for replacement windows.
Labour can (and should) legislate for more transparency over charges, review the legislation regarding Right to Manage , look at making freehold purchase easier, remove forfeiture; but in all probability that is all that can be achieved.
No, I'm getting triggered by the fact that the managers of my freehold recently landed the leaseholders, including me, with a whopping four figure bill - each - simply to unblock a drain. Literally. One afternoon, with one man, unblocking a drain
So they inflated the cost outrageously, and I am sure it is a scam, it is so easy to do - and we leaseholders just have to lump it. As that is the law, as things stand, well done the Tory party, stupid greedy dorks
Previously the management has generally been fine, but now this?? Pffffffgrrr
Reform the system from top to bottom, get rid of leasehold entirely, and if the profiteers squeal, fuck em
Once you've been taken to the cleaners by your freeholder/managing agent for a bill that's 10x any kind of reasonable cost for the services actually rendered and is padded to hell with "admin charges" and "management fees" on top of that, you get to realising what leasehold is all about. Then you look into what you can do to dispute the charges - hint, absolutely nothing, unless you can afford whopping lawyers fees plus the freeholder whacking their lawyers fees on your bill - and you really, really see what leasehold is all about.
The stories may vary, but I don't know a single leaseholder who doesn't have at least one of these stories.
The sooner it is brought to an end the better, and I really hope Labour give us some full-throated reform that puts these parasites out of business for good.
As an aside, I pity whatever poor sod has to try and arrange a fair trial for Donaldson in Northern Ireland.
The jury's going to be hopelessly biased one way or another whoever they pick.
But I'm assuming it wouldn't be permissible to hold the trial in England instead because of the different legal jurisdictions.
Last place he would want it would be England, look at Assange as a perfect example, though if pally with Tories he may do well there.
Assange hasn't been tried in England. And given all the bullshit he's allowed to get away with in his pleas, I would have though Donaldson would jump at the chance.
But I was thinking, more seriously, of how do you have a *fair* trial? How do you select a neutral jury? How do you stop the gossip spreading?
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
Actually, Starlink directly connected to your phone is on the way. First satellites are up there, and several US networks have signed up “coverage gap filling” deals
I found Starlink everywhere in Colombia, do the satellites sit above Bogota? Is that how it works?
I've never seen it appear on my phone's wifi systems before, not even in Ukraine. But in Colombia: ubiquitous
What you are seeing is Starlink being used for backhaul. Your phone connects to a phone mast normally, and that phone mast is connected to the world via Starlink. Similarly, public WiFi is being provided in some places using Starlink as the connection from the WiFi base station to the rest of the world.
This means not having to run miles of fibre optic cable to remote areas, repeaters etc.
Probably the biggest area for the LEO constellations is backhaul. It’s already ubiquitous on cruise ships. The passengers just get fast WiFi
OneWeb is, in fact, only selling backhaul. They do not offer direct connections to customers.
Starlink is in LEO. This means the satellites zip overhead every few minutes. You can access it pretty much anywhere, pole to pole.
It consists of more satellites than the rest of the world has. Full stop. Visualisation here
Surely this is one good thing we can expect from Starmer and Labour. The Tories are pathetically enslaved by the landlords and builders, the parasitic rentiers and leeching freeholders
Labour is not thus encumbered. It needs to sort this out immediately. Reform the lease/freehold system and stop these insane service charges
I fear you are getting triggered by these clickbait articles in to 'autocomplete outrage'.
From what I understand the service charges simply represent the cost of maintaining a property - but in the case of new build flats are inflated by intermediaries (managing agents), greater regulation (particularly the building safety act 2022 re buildings more than 7 storeys high), the risk averse approach to commissioning work, the need for work to unavoidably comply with health and safety legislation (no short cuts with white van builders), surveyors fees on top of everything else, etc. And then, there is rapid inflation due to the general cost of building work post Covid with material price increases, labour shortages etc, wage increases etc. With new build you have a particular problem of regulatory requirements including maintenance being loaded on at planning stage.
I don't think this is freeholders scamming the system. This may be a very small part of the system and there are probably commissions and kickbacks but it is unjustified to present the situation as this being the fundamental cause of the problem. The problem is a) people don't believe to pay similar levels to what people pay for flat maintenance in other comparable countries and b) regulation, build costs, case law etc.
The flats in the barbican are expecting a bill of £85k each for replacement windows.
Labour can (and should) legislate for more transparency over charges, review the legislation regarding Right to Manage , look at making freehold purchase easier, remove forfeiture; but in all probability that is all that can be achieved.
No, I'm getting triggered by the fact that the managers of my freehold recently landed the leaseholders, including me, with a whopping four figure bill - each - simply to unblock a drain. Literally. One afternoon, with one man, unblocking a drain
So they inflated the cost outrageously, and I am sure it is a scam, it is so easy to do - and we leaseholders just have to lump it. As that is the law, as things stand, well done the Tory party, stupid greedy dorks
Previously the management has generally been fine, but now this?? Pffffffgrrr
Reform the system from top to bottom, get rid of leasehold entirely, and if the profiteers squeal, fuck em
Once you've been taken to the cleaners by your freeholder/managing agent for a bill that's 10x any kind of reasonable cost for the services actually rendered and is padded to hell with "admin charges" and "management fees" on top of that, you get to realising what leasehold is all about. Then you look into what you can do to dispute the charges - hint, absolutely nothing, unless you can afford whopping lawyers fees plus the freeholder whacking their lawyers fees on your bill - and you really, really see what leasehold is all about.
The stories may vary, but I don't know a single leaseholder who doesn't have at least one of these stories.
The sooner it is brought to an end the better, and I really hope Labour give us some full-throated reform that puts these parasites out of business for good.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
Actually, Starlink directly connected to your phone is on the way. First satellites are up there, and several US networks have signed up “coverage gap filling” deals
I found Starlink everywhere in Colombia, do the satellites sit above Bogota? Is that how it works?
I've never seen it appear on my phone's wifi systems before, not even in Ukraine. But in Colombia: ubiquitous
What you are seeing is Starlink being used for backhaul. Your phone connects to a phone mast normally, and that phone mast is connected to the world via Starlink. Similarly, public WiFi is being provided in some places using Starlink as the connection from the WiFi base station to the rest of the world.
This means not having to run miles of fibre optic cable to remote areas, repeaters etc.
Probably the biggest area for the LEO constellations is backhaul. It’s already ubiquitous on cruise ships. The passengers just get fast WiFi
OneWeb is, in fact, only selling backhaul. They do not offer direct connections to customers.
Starlink is in LEO. This means the satellites zip overhead every few minutes. You can access it pretty much anywhere, pole to pole.
It consists of more satellites than the rest of the world has. Full stop. Visualisation here
4500 satellites!!! All around the world. Phenomenal
TBH this probably knocks What3Words into a cocked hat, and I don't say that lightly
I think SpaceX (including Starlink) is worth 10x Tesla.
Probably true.
But how much is Tesla worth ? Highly uncertain for now.
SpaceX is valued at $180 Bn according to prices in private share sales.
Tesla is $550 billion according to the market. Which has seen retreat from EVs by several car makers due to problems with the investment required.
The question going ahead is who will be the dominant players. A couple of them will probably be Chinese. Tesla will be in there, but what margins it will be able to make consistently is an unknown.
The value the market places on it is questionable.
Surely this is one good thing we can expect from Starmer and Labour. The Tories are pathetically enslaved by the landlords and builders, the parasitic rentiers and leeching freeholders
Labour is not thus encumbered. It needs to sort this out immediately. Reform the lease/freehold system and stop these insane service charges
I fear you are getting triggered by these clickbait articles in to 'autocomplete outrage'.
From what I understand the service charges simply represent the cost of maintaining a property - but in the case of new build flats are inflated by intermediaries (managing agents), greater regulation (particularly the building safety act 2022 re buildings more than 7 storeys high), the risk averse approach to commissioning work, the need for work to unavoidably comply with health and safety legislation (no short cuts with white van builders), surveyors fees on top of everything else, etc. And then, there is rapid inflation due to the general cost of building work post Covid with material price increases, labour shortages etc, wage increases etc. With new build you have a particular problem of regulatory requirements including maintenance being loaded on at planning stage.
I don't think this is freeholders scamming the system. This may be a very small part of the system and there are probably commissions and kickbacks but it is unjustified to present the situation as this being the fundamental cause of the problem. The problem is a) people don't believe to pay similar levels to what people pay for flat maintenance in other comparable countries and b) regulation, build costs, case law etc.
The flats in the barbican are expecting a bill of £85k each for replacement windows.
Labour can (and should) legislate for more transparency over charges, review the legislation regarding Right to Manage , look at making freehold purchase easier, remove forfeiture; but in all probability that is all that can be achieved.
No, I'm getting triggered by the fact that the managers of my freehold recently landed the leaseholders, including me, with a whopping four figure bill - each - simply to unblock a drain. Literally. One afternoon, with one man, unblocking a drain
So they inflated the cost outrageously, and I am sure it is a scam, it is so easy to do - and we leaseholders just have to lump it. As that is the law, as things stand, well done the Tory party, stupid greedy dorks
Previously the management has generally been fine, but now this?? Pffffffgrrr
Reform the system from top to bottom, get rid of leasehold entirely, and if the profiteers squeal, fuck em
Once you've been taken to the cleaners by your freeholder/managing agent for a bill that's 10x any kind of reasonable cost for the services actually rendered and is padded to hell with "admin charges" and "management fees" on top of that, you get to realising what leasehold is all about. Then you look into what you can do to dispute the charges - hint, absolutely nothing, unless you can afford whopping lawyers fees plus the freeholder whacking their lawyers fees on your bill - and you really, really see what leasehold is all about.
The stories may vary, but I don't know a single leaseholder who doesn't have at least one of these stories.
The sooner it is brought to an end the better, and I really hope Labour give us some full-throated reform that puts these parasites out of business for good.
Three are a joke. They have a pole of wonder at the bottom of Market Street/The Arndale and you get over 1,000 Mbps, walk further up Market Street to Piccadilly Station and you are lucky to get 2 Mbps.
I'm not sure who came up with this "pole of wonder" nonsense but it's a silly term.
They may have several hundred poles around the country that have these gigabit speeds but they are so oddly spread out and in many cases supplementing coverage from hilltop or rooftop sites that as you say, are providing nothing like those speeds. So you end up on a two tier network.
Vodafone, O2 and EE have their problems but certainly have logical grid designs. Three's is just nonsensical to me. I am sure people that live next to one think their network is the greatest thing in the universe but travelling around, I am failing to see any evidence much has really changed.
No wonder they want to merge with Vodafone.
Just sign up for Starlink and be done.
Starlink is great for home Internet access, so long as you live in a rural area. But that's it.
Actually, Starlink directly connected to your phone is on the way. First satellites are up there, and several US networks have signed up “coverage gap filling” deals
I found Starlink everywhere in Colombia, do the satellites sit above Bogota? Is that how it works?
I've never seen it appear on my phone's wifi systems before, not even in Ukraine. But in Colombia: ubiquitous
What you are seeing is Starlink being used for backhaul. Your phone connects to a phone mast normally, and that phone mast is connected to the world via Starlink. Similarly, public WiFi is being provided in some places using Starlink as the connection from the WiFi base station to the rest of the world.
This means not having to run miles of fibre optic cable to remote areas, repeaters etc.
Probably the biggest area for the LEO constellations is backhaul. It’s already ubiquitous on cruise ships. The passengers just get fast WiFi
OneWeb is, in fact, only selling backhaul. They do not offer direct connections to customers.
Starlink is in LEO. This means the satellites zip overhead every few minutes. You can access it pretty much anywhere, pole to pole.
It consists of more satellites than the rest of the world has. Full stop. Visualisation here
4500 satellites!!! All around the world. Phenomenal
TBH this probably knocks What3Words into a cocked hat, and I don't say that lightly
I think SpaceX (including Starlink) is worth 10x Tesla.
Probably true.
But how much is Tesla worth ? Highly uncertain for now.
SpaceX is valued at $180 Bn according to prices in private share sales.
Tesla is $550 billion according to the market. Which has seen retreat from EVs by several car makers due to problems with the investment required.
The question going ahead is who will be the dominant players. A couple of them will probably be Chinese. Tesla will be in there, but what margins it will be able to make consistently is an unknown.
The value the market places on it is questionable.
Tesla has bigger margins on electric cars than nearly all of legacy automakers. Simply because it doesn’t have their legacies.
From what i was saying this morning about russian attacks on Ukraine critical infrastructure this from Mikael Valtersson a former office in the swedish armed forces.
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
Russian gloves have been off regarding critical infrastructure since the start of the war.
No, I don't believe they have
@trent may very well be a Putin-bot (or not) - you would know better than me. However what he/she says is largely correct here, in my view. The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine, they thought they could simply seize it, in toto, largely undamaged, by toppling the regime
That didn't happen. So they have been slowly coming round to the fact they have to treat this as total war, as defeat is not permissible, and Ukraine refuses to surrender in the way they want. That means they are willing to destroy Ukraine in order to capture it, and also Ukraine's defences are weaker, and Russia is now relatively stronger - the sanctions have basically failed - which is an added motivation
i fear @trent is right, and we should mentally prepare for some version of Ukrainian defeat, at least as a possibility, while still arming them as much as we can so the defeat is not too bad
If that makes me a fucking appeaser and a Putinist shill, so be it, it is how I see it. I am very much on the Ukrainian side, I have got drunk in Lviv with lovely brave Ukrainians, during this war, but the facts are the facts
"The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine,"
It's a shame that the evidence shows otherwise; e.g. the blowing of the Kherson dam, or the sh*t they've done in the east since 2014.
As ever, your 'facts' only have a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
There are plenty of overheads of smashed cities on the web.
And last winter, the Russians went through a huge pile of their missile stockpile to try and destroy heating and electricity infrastructure.
They’ve lost whole armies of men and material there.
And now they are getting serious?
The idea that the Russians have been holding back out of kindness isn't one that bears 3 seconds of scrutiny.
They have thrown everything non nuclear into the battle, and have spent the last year taking a derelict Donbas bloodsoaked pit village.
Piquantly, by forcing the Tories to scupper their reforms of the Freehold system, the pension funds/landlords/wankers have probably ensured they will now face much more hostile and punitive legislation from Labour
GOOD
I might even vote Labour just because of this. I hope that doesn't upset @kinabalu too much
It actually would. So if it happens (it won't) I'd prefer you kept it to yourself.
Proof if it were needed for BJO, that Starmer-Labour are the unacceptable face of Conservatism.
Oh god, yes. It totally vindicates BJO. I might have to vote Green or whatever new party Jez sets up.
Unless Leon is bullshitting of course. Which is just incredibly possible.
He probably is. In any event why would you let a saddo like Leon dictate who you can or cannot vote for?
So far, 66 MPs elected as Conservatives in 2019 have announced they will not stand again – this includes four who have since lost the whip and sit as independents – which is close to one in five of the total.
As an aside, I pity whatever poor sod has to try and arrange a fair trial for Donaldson in Northern Ireland.
The jury's going to be hopelessly biased one way or another whoever they pick.
But I'm assuming it wouldn't be permissible to hold the trial in England instead because of the different legal jurisdictions.
Judge-only? Diplock courts are still possible (under a different name/legislation), though [edit] presumably not applicable here. But there are other procedures, presumably.
Piquantly, by forcing the Tories to scupper their reforms of the Freehold system, the pension funds/landlords/wankers have probably ensured they will now face much more hostile and punitive legislation from Labour
GOOD
I might even vote Labour just because of this. I hope that doesn't upset @kinabalu too much
It actually would. So if it happens (it won't) I'd prefer you kept it to yourself.
Proof if it were needed for BJO, that Starmer-Labour are the unacceptable face of Conservatism.
Oh god, yes. It totally vindicates BJO. I might have to vote Green or whatever new party Jez sets up.
Unless Leon is bullshitting of course. Which is just incredibly possible.
He probably is. In any event why would you let a saddo like Leon dictate who you can or cannot vote for?
Well to work in our Easter religion theme, me and Leon both voting Labour would mean that Keir has built the broadest of broad churches!
Another candidate for having an honour forfeited steps forward.
Donaldson was knighted under David Cameron, IIRC.
no surprise , Cameron is a wrong un
The Prime Minister who gave us Baroness Mome and Louise Bagshawe MP is a lousy judge of character? Say it ain't so.
On a serious note, who was the last Prime Minister to be a really astute judge of character?
The last four have been dismal. Sunak is, well. Truss is, well well. Johnson is, fucking hell. May was in and out like a Hokey Cokey. Cameron left Gove at education and Lansley at health far past the moment it was obvious they were overseeing train crashes.
Brown was terrible. Blair had his moments (coughAlistairCampbellcough). Major wasn't great. Thatcher started shrewdly but fell away.
Comments
ANALYSIS A NEW PHASE OF THE WAR, MARCH 29th 2024
It becomes more and more clear that the Russo-ukrainian war has entered a new phase with the large scale attacks on Ukrainian power plants. Last night the large Hydroelectric power plants (HPPs) in Kamienske (1), Kremenchuk (2) and Kaniv (3) and a number of Thermal power plants (TPPs) was hit. On March 22 the large HPP in Zaporizhia (purple) as well as a number of TPPs, for example in Kharkov and Odessa, was attacked.
Until now the Russian attacks towards the energy network in Ukraine has been focused on the power distribution system and damages have been easy to repair quickly. This new campaign is a much more serious threat since its focus is towards the power production facilities. These might take years to repair or replace.
Why has Russia shifted its focus? I honestly expected a much more concentrated campaign towards big power plants, bridges over the Dniepr and railways, already in the Autumn of 2022. The reasons this didn't happen are twofold. First of all Russia didn't want to destroy the critical infrastructure in Ukraine, because they hoped to minimise reconstruction costs and Russia also still hoped that Ukraine would get a change of regime that would lead to Ukraine once again becoming allied to Russia. Russia didn't want its future ally to be a wasteland.
The second reason Russia didn't attack the critical infrastructure was that Ukraine still had a strong Air Defence (AD) network and Russia had a limited number of weapon systems to use. Now Ukraine has very limited AD resources and Russia has drastically increased weapons production.
Russia seems to have come to the conclusion that it's more important to actually defeat Ukraine than to preserve critical infrastructure for a unlikely future allied Ukraine. This means that Russia probably expect to take on the heavy burden of rebuilding critical infrastructure after the war, but that cost is less important than the cost of not winning a clear victory in the war.
Since Russian gloves are off regarding critical infrastructure, we can assume that Russia now take the war very seriously. They didn't start doing it until the Autumn of 2022. But after the loss of western Kherson oblast and eastern Kharkov oblast Russia began a step by step increase transforming into a war economy and mindset.
https://x.com/MikaelValterss1/status/1773688120610807964?s=20
That's precisely not what I said.
For the one and only time in my life I'll be able to say "I voted for the prime minister", as he will be my MP
The Tories are gonna lose anyway, Starmer is gonna win anyway, might as well give him a big majority, who knows, maybe he can actually enact serious reform of the NHS - and rhe freehold system!
As things stand I am 97% sure I will vote Labour. Just this once. I share your pain
Or the blasting of the Kakhovkha Dam.
If those were not 'critical infrastructure' I hate to think what is.
They are forced to take it very seriously, as they're finding an enemy they hold in contempt to be much harder to beat than they expect. And part of that is because Putin doesn't understand *why* Ukraine doesn't want to be Russian.
And I tell our latest Russian troll something: even if Russia win; even if Russia take Ukraine from east to west, it will not be secure. What the Russophiles who screech 'peace' forget is that the reason Ukraine has not been beaten is because the population does not want to be under Russia's thumb. It doesn't matter how much you insult the Ukrainians; how much you preach a weirs reading of history; the Ukrainians want to make their own decisions for their future.
The only way Russia can 'win' this war will be with a military victory and then a massive pogrom and resettlement. And blood will be on the hands of those who screech 'peace!' on Russia's terms.
@trent may very well be a Putin-bot (or not) - you would know better than me. However what he/she says is largely correct here, in my view. The Russians didn't want a devastated Ukraine, they thought they could simply seize it, in toto, largely undamaged, by toppling the regime
That didn't happen. So they have been slowly coming round to the fact they have to treat this as total war, as defeat is not permissible, and Ukraine refuses to surrender in the way they want. That means they are willing to destroy Ukraine in order to capture it, and also Ukraine's defences are weaker, and Russia is now relatively stronger - the sanctions have basically failed - which is an added motivation
i fear @trent is right, and we should mentally prepare for some version of Ukrainian defeat, at least as a possibility, while still arming them as much as we can so the defeat is not too bad
If that makes me a fucking appeaser and a Putinist shill, so be it, it is how I see it. I am very much on the Ukrainian side, I have got drunk in Lviv with lovely brave Ukrainians, during this war, but the facts are the facts
But how much is Tesla worth ?
Highly uncertain for now.
It's a shame that the evidence shows otherwise; e.g. the blowing of the Kherson dam, or the sh*t they've done in the east since 2014.
As ever, your 'facts' only have a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
I am a theist; I don't suggest it can be proved in any formal sense, but neither is it irrational. There are grounds to justify it, as there are for non-theism.
For me theism is more or less self evidently true; that isn't the case for lots of people I respect and admire.
I'll be in Lidl tomorrow, where theism will no doubt make its presence felt.
Claude 3 Opus is an absolutely INCREDIBLE brain storming partner
A cabinet minister who has criticised Whitehall waste has claimed tens of thousands of pounds in expenses to rent a London flat despite her husband owning a property a mile away.
Esther McVey, who was appointed “minister for common sense” last year, has received £39,000 in taxpayers’ money to rent the flat over the last two years. She lives there with her husband, the Tory MP Philip Davies.
The Daily Telegraph, which first reported the story alongside the campaign group Led By Donkeys, said McVey and Davies had been claiming expenses on the property since 2017 and could have received as much as £250,000 from the taxpayer.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/21/esther-mcvey-expenses-flat-philip-davies
Perhaps the record for the largest gap between hubristic ambition and pitiful failure (and there's been quite a bit of that with SLab over the years)?
Tesla is $550 billion according to the market. Which has seen retreat from EVs by several car makers due to problems with the investment required.
Nick Boles, Mark Carney and other figures close to Conservatives quietly appear in Labour ranks in sign of turning political tide
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/29/tory-advisers-desert-rishi-sunak-for-keir-starmer/ (£££)
Someone or other, please explain.
The jury's going to be hopelessly biased one way or another whoever they pick.
But I'm assuming it wouldn't be permissible to hold the trial in England instead because of the different legal jurisdictions.
The stories may vary, but I don't know a single leaseholder who doesn't have at least one of these stories.
The sooner it is brought to an end the better, and I really hope Labour give us some full-throated reform that puts these parasites out of business for good.
And last winter, the Russians went through a huge pile of their missile stockpile to try and destroy heating and electricity infrastructure.
They’ve lost whole armies of men and material there.
And now they are getting serious?
Unless Leon is bullshitting of course. Which is just incredibly possible.
The last four have been dismal. Sunak is, well. Truss is, well well. Johnson is, fucking hell. May was in and out like a Hokey Cokey. Cameron left Gove at education and Lansley at health far past the moment it was obvious they were overseeing train crashes.
Brown was terrible. Blair had his moments (coughAlistairCampbellcough). Major wasn't great. Thatcher started shrewdly but fell away.
Go, Sir Kir Royale Starmer, prime minister!
But I was thinking, more seriously, of how do you have a *fair* trial? How do you select a neutral jury? How do you stop the gossip spreading?
Tesla will be in there, but what margins it will be able to make consistently is an unknown.
The value the market places on it is questionable.
So, it turns out, you can feed Claude 3 Opus an entire BOOK, in chapters, and it will analyse it
Scarily good
They have thrown everything non nuclear into the battle, and have spent the last year taking a derelict Donbas bloodsoaked pit village.
This sounds like several senior people potentially behind bars.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/1773475971292627072
NEW THREAD
So far, 66 MPs elected as Conservatives in 2019 have announced they will not stand again – this includes four who have since lost the whip and sit as independents – which is close to one in five of the total.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/29/tory-party-lose-almost-1000-years-commons-experience-mps-quit