Starmer will be very annoyed that he can no longer use the betting issue as a stick to beat the Tories with . As soon as one Labour candidate was implicated admittedly for a different type of bet the public might view it as a plague on both houses .
He will of course though highlight his swift action versus Sunaks obfuscation.
I don’t see it making much difference to the polling.
No more polls tonight presusumably. Anyone know please which we can expect tomorrow?
Good to see you PfP, hope you are keeping well!
What bets do you have for UK 2024?
Thanks Double C ... your kind words are absolutely reciprocated on my part. I'm mainly on the spreads, selling the Blue team down from 160 seats and buying the reds up from 430 seats. Also a variety of fixed odds bets favouring large Labour majorities, etc. We haven't yet booked the Caribbean holiday yet but something rather better than a long weekend in Clacton is definitely in prospect! Where is your betting focused?
Ah thanks PfP great to hear from you
Going to start betting this week hopefully, looking at Con seats >100, also very safe Con seats (eg 60%+ in 2019 vote) where there's a decent return eg 30-40%.
That's my starting point.
For all the other almost 40 or so countries that I follow, the UK election night is probably still genuinely my favourite.
Good luck with your bets!
If the polls currently have it right, then the betting value has ebbed away during the campaign, an example being that Tory seats on the spreads are down from around 160+ to the present level of circa 117 seats mid-spread. Of course there's still time for the Blue Team to have a late surge which has actually been the case in just about every G.E. over the last 30 years.
Good luck with your POTUS betting DC. I'll be looking out for your predictions ... the first presumably whether Biden and/or Trump will actually be their respective parties' candidates?
The idea that the Tories always have a late surge is one of politics enduring myths. Sure, they did in 1992, maybe 2029, Maybe also 2015, although that was more about the LibDem collapse. But not in 2017, or 2010, or 1997.
A Medias Touch video looking at the corrupt mess which the US Supreme Court judges have got themselves into, and its impact. A bit of a reprise of events some of which I have not followed all the time, with relatively little rhetoric. 20 minutes.
Starmer will be very annoyed that he can no longer use the betting issue as a stick to beat the Tories with . As soon as one Labour candidate was implicated admittedly for a different type of bet the public might view it as a plague on both houses .
He will of course though highlight his swift action versus Sunaks obfuscation.
I don’t see it making much difference to the polling.
It didn't seem to have depressed the Tory vote any further in the latest polls. I suppose repeated scandals have a diminishing effect. Maybe they really are down to their core vote now. Though it has probably made a "late surge" even less likely.
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
Starmer will be very annoyed that he can no longer use the betting issue as a stick to beat the Tories with . As soon as one Labour candidate was implicated admittedly for a different type of bet the public might view it as a plague on both houses .
He will of course though highlight his swift action versus Sunaks obfuscation.
I don’t see it making much difference to the polling.
It didn't seem to have depressed the Tory vote any further in the latest polls. I suppose repeated scandals have a diminishing effect. Maybe they really are down to their core vote now. Though it has probably made a "late surge" even less likely.
The Tories have already smashed through the bedrock of their core support ages ago. 30% is always considered the foundation of both Tory and Labour support, and of course we are now seeing polling with Tories sub 20%. They are down to the true blue of the true blue if the polling is to be believed.
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
Starmer will be very annoyed that he can no longer use the betting issue as a stick to beat the Tories with . As soon as one Labour candidate was implicated admittedly for a different type of bet the public might view it as a plague on both houses .
He will of course though highlight his swift action versus Sunaks obfuscation.
I don’t see it making much difference to the polling.
I still don’t understand why the Gambling Commission thought it to be in any way reasonable, to be giving a daily running commentary on this for a fortnight during the election campaign?
Morning all. I’m pretty sure that 5 points is the statistical minimum required to qualify top of a group of four teams.
Surely 3 points. Everybody draws with everybody else in every match.
Then no-one would be top, there would be lots drawn.
No because after goal difference, they use goals scored as a further differentiator so teams that were part of a 1-1 draw would be placed higher than those from a 0-0 draw. And of course since that would not separate the top two teams they then use yellow and red cards as the final differentiator. The team with the fewer cards being placed higher.
That is how Denmark have qualified above Slovenia.
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
How can CNN claim that a load of talking heads debating the debate images isn't transformative?
Because they can, and because they thought they’d get away with it. If they file a load of automated DCMA requests to Youtube during the event, then all the streams will automatically get nixed and everyone can argue about it the next day.
Timcast’s regular daily news commentary podcast gets around 40k live viewers and 300k replays on Youtube, and he’s expecting at least 100k following live tomorrow night, you can see why he’s kicking up a stink about it!
Morning all. I’m pretty sure that 5 points is the statistical minimum required to qualify top of a group of four teams.
Surely 3 points. Everybody draws with everybody else in every match.
Then no-one would be top, there would be lots drawn.
No because after goal difference, they use goals scored as a further differentiator so teams that were part of a 1-1 draw would be placed higher than those from a 0-0 draw. And of course since that would not separate the top two teams they then use yellow and red cards as the final differentiator. The team with the fewer cards being placed higher.
That is how Denmark have qualified above Slovenia.
You can also have a situation where every team wins once and loses twice. So again everybody ends up with 3 points, but there will then be more likely distinct goal differences / total goal scored.
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
How can CNN claim that a load of talking heads debating the debate images isn't transformative?
Because they can, and because they thought they’d get away with it. If they file a load of automated DCMA requests to Youtube during the event, then all the streams will automatically get nixed and everyone can argue about it the next day.
Timcast’s regular daily news commentary podcast gets around 40k live viewers and 300k replays, and he’s expecting at least 100k following live tomorrow night, you can see why he’s kicking up a stink about it!
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And had he been a U.S. citizen, it's fairly likely he'd have been able to assert 1st amendment rights as part of his defence, and possibly gig a similar plea deal.
So it's not the worst all round compromise.
I'm not an Assange fan either, but time to forget him and move on.
IIUC the First Amendment wouldn't have helped against what they were charging Assange with. They weren't going after him for publishing the leaked documents, which is legal. They were charging him with helping Manning to steal them, which is illegal.
Specifically they're saying he gave Manning advice on what tools to use to commit the crime, and also that she sent him password hashes and he tried, unsuccessfully, to crack them himself.
In true cypherpunk tradition everything Assange did to help Manning seems to have been entirely useless and a waste of her time, but I'm not sure whether that would have helped him if he'd ended up in court.
That awful ratings for CNN, basically ~100k for the key demographic i.e. people who actually buy stuff. CNN’s audience was smaller than that of INSP, an obscure cable network that plays Western television shows and films.
No more polls tonight presusumably. Anyone know please which we can expect tomorrow?
Good to see you PfP, hope you are keeping well!
What bets do you have for UK 2024?
Thanks Double C ... your kind words are absolutely reciprocated on my part. I'm mainly on the spreads, selling the Blue team down from 160 seats and buying the reds up from 430 seats. Also a variety of fixed odds bets favouring large Labour majorities, etc. We haven't yet booked the Caribbean holiday yet but something rather better than a long weekend in Clacton is definitely in prospect! Where is your betting focused?
Ah thanks PfP great to hear from you
Going to start betting this week hopefully, looking at Con seats >100, also very safe Con seats (eg 60%+ in 2019 vote) where there's a decent return eg 30-40%.
That's my starting point.
For all the other almost 40 or so countries that I follow, the UK election night is probably still genuinely my favourite.
Good luck with your bets!
If the polls currently have it right, then the betting value has ebbed away during the campaign, an example being that Tory seats on the spreads are down from around 160+ to the present level of circa 117 seats mid-spread. Of course there's still time for the Blue Team to have a late surge which has actually been the case in just about every G.E. over the last 30 years.
Good luck with your POTUS betting DC. I'll be looking out for your predictions ... the first presumably whether Biden and/or Trump will actually be their respective parties' candidates?
The idea that the Tories always have a late surge is one of politics enduring myths. Sure, they did in 1992, maybe 2029, Maybe also 2015, although that was more about the LibDem collapse. But not in 2017, or 2010, or 1997.
They did in both 2010 and 1997.
Not enough to change the result significantly, but enough to be real - and in the case of 2010 significantly limit my losses on the spreads I was worried about, which is why I'll never bet on spreads again.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
Interesting. I wonder whether you'd have thought that if he'd just exposed the illegal poisonings and covert illegalities perpetrated by the Russian state?
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
Interesting. I wonder whether you'd have thought that if he'd just exposed the illegal poisonings and covert illegalities perpetrated by the Russian state?
Are you still one of the small number of people that still thinks he is one of the good guys?
Starmer will be very annoyed that he can no longer use the betting issue as a stick to beat the Tories with . As soon as one Labour candidate was implicated admittedly for a different type of bet the public might view it as a plague on both houses .
He will of course though highlight his swift action versus Sunaks obfuscation.
I don’t see it making much difference to the polling.
In the words of Johnson:
"There are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters."
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
Interesting. I wonder whether you'd have thought that if he'd just exposed the illegal poisonings and covert illegalities perpetrated by the Russian state?
You may or may not have forgotten, but he spends rather a lot of time trying to cover those up.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
Interesting. I wonder whether you'd have thought that if he'd just exposed the illegal poisonings and covert illegalities perpetrated by the Russian state?
Are you still one of the small number of people that still thinks he is one of the good guys?
I've no particular view on that but I'm sick of reading many years after the events of dirty dealings or lies or wrongdoing ignored at the time because the countries involved were allies. Read about Israel 1948 or Suez or Vietnam or even the Falklands
Morning all. I’m pretty sure that 5 points is the statistical minimum required to qualify top of a group of four teams.
Surely 3 points. Everybody draws with everybody else in every match.
Then no-one would be top, there would be lots drawn.
No because after goal difference, they use goals scored as a further differentiator so teams that were part of a 1-1 draw would be placed higher than those from a 0-0 draw. And of course since that would not separate the top two teams they then use yellow and red cards as the final differentiator. The team with the fewer cards being placed higher.
That is how Denmark have qualified above Slovenia.
You can also have a situation where every team wins once and loses twice. So again everybody ends up with 3 points, but there will then be more likely distinct goal differences / total goal scored.
You can’t because there are 4 tens and 6 matches
You can have all teams winning 1, losing 1 and drawing 1. Which is would give all teams 4 points
Morning all. I’m pretty sure that 5 points is the statistical minimum required to qualify top of a group of four teams.
Surely 3 points. Everybody draws with everybody else in every match.
Then no-one would be top, there would be lots drawn.
No because after goal difference, they use goals scored as a further differentiator so teams that were part of a 1-1 draw would be placed higher than those from a 0-0 draw. And of course since that would not separate the top two teams they then use yellow and red cards as the final differentiator. The team with the fewer cards being placed higher.
That is how Denmark have qualified above Slovenia.
You can also have a situation where every team wins once and loses twice. So again everybody ends up with 3 points, but there will then be more likely distinct goal differences / total goal scored.
Is it possible to have twice as many losses as wins in a group?
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
Interesting. I wonder whether you'd have thought that if he'd just exposed the illegal poisonings and covert illegalities perpetrated by the Russian state?
He was not interested in exposing misdeeds by the Russian state, or anyone else other than the west. That's one of the issues with him and the early Wikileaks.
But Wikileaks placed a family member of mine in a difficult position, and one that could have been very serious for him. So Assange (and the Guardian, who 'accidentally' leaked the full uncensored stuff) are certainly not the good guys IMO.
(The family member was not doing anything illegal or even anything that was outside his job remit.)
I sometimes get the impression from your posts that you think we're always the bad guys.
Morning all. I’m pretty sure that 5 points is the statistical minimum required to qualify top of a group of four teams.
Surely 3 points. Everybody draws with everybody else in every match.
Then no-one would be top, there would be lots drawn.
No because after goal difference, they use goals scored as a further differentiator so teams that were part of a 1-1 draw would be placed higher than those from a 0-0 draw. And of course since that would not separate the top two teams they then use yellow and red cards as the final differentiator. The team with the fewer cards being placed higher.
That is how Denmark have qualified above Slovenia.
You can also have a situation where every team wins once and loses twice. So again everybody ends up with 3 points, but there will then be more likely distinct goal differences / total goal scored.
You can’t because there are 4 tens and 6 matches
You can have all teams winning 1, losing 1 and drawing 1. Which is would give all teams 4 points
Yes you are right. Spot the person who hasn't been to bed for 3 days.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
There are strong rumours that Russia is withdrawing troops from the area round Vovchansk, the town it partly captured in May during their attack in the Kahrkiv region. Also that they are taking troops from other parts of the frontline to strengthen the Kharkiv sector.
Which would be odd, as part of the reason for the Kharkiv misadventure was to draw Ukrainian troops from the rest of the frontline.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
No more polls tonight presusumably. Anyone know please which we can expect tomorrow?
Good to see you PfP, hope you are keeping well!
What bets do you have for UK 2024?
Thanks Double C ... your kind words are absolutely reciprocated on my part. I'm mainly on the spreads, selling the Blue team down from 160 seats and buying the reds up from 430 seats. Also a variety of fixed odds bets favouring large Labour majorities, etc. We haven't yet booked the Caribbean holiday yet but something rather better than a long weekend in Clacton is definitely in prospect! Where is your betting focused?
Ah thanks PfP great to hear from you
Going to start betting this week hopefully, looking at Con seats >100, also very safe Con seats (eg 60%+ in 2019 vote) where there's a decent return eg 30-40%.
That's my starting point.
For all the other almost 40 or so countries that I follow, the UK election night is probably still genuinely my favourite.
Good luck with your bets!
If the polls currently have it right, then the betting value has ebbed away during the campaign, an example being that Tory seats on the spreads are down from around 160+ to the present level of circa 117 seats mid-spread. Of course there's still time for the Blue Team to have a late surge which has actually been the case in just about every G.E. over the last 30 years.
Good luck with your POTUS betting DC. I'll be looking out for your predictions ... the first presumably whether Biden and/or Trump will actually be their respective parties' candidates?
The idea that the Tories always have a late surge is one of politics enduring myths. Sure, they did in 1992, maybe 2029, Maybe also 2015, although that was more about the LibDem collapse. But not in 2017, or 2010, or 1997.
They also slightly increased in 1997 if you look at the graphs but the main reason the polls narrowed in the final 2 weeks is that Labour’s share dropped. The polls were also too high on Labour. Again the graph shows it:
So, no it’s not a myth and there’s no ‘maybe’ about the other ones. It’s a point of fact. Usually they have a last minute uptick as people return to the fold.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
Please read my later post.
I did and you were wrong. Whatever happened to your family member, your claim that he only targets the West is clearly false given he has also targetted Chinese oppression in Tibet and corruption throughout the Arab world.
I am sure there is lots of fall out from these sorts of exposures but that is no excuse for trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that our Government's are all lovely and acting in our best intersts. They aren't. We need more people like Assange not fewer.
The funny thing is that "I will not be silenced by a man" sounds like one of the things many Tories would ridicule if said by someone on the Left.
Yes, she went very tokenistic in her response. He attacked her politics, she attacked his race and gender.
As I suggested yesterday, neither contribution was helpful. Someone asked if I’d actually heard what Tennant said and indeed I had. I thought it was heat of the moment and not the kind of language we need in this debate or any other. Imagine just how badly that would play if, god forbid, Badenoch were attacked. The words weren’t helpful.
But neither were Badenoch’s and I’m afraid she is out of her depth and trying to appeal to a right-wing core membership. My friend Mishal shredded her on the Today programme, and it was good it came from her. The Conservative Party can hopefully do much better than Badenoch.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
m
And the brave Russians working to overthrough Putin’s regime to at he identified - they were just unfortunate casualties?
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
Please read my later post.
I did and you were wrong. Whatever happened to your family member, your claim that he only targets the West is clearly false given he has also targetted Chinese oppression in Tibet and corruption throughout the Arab world.
I am sure there is lots of fall out from these sorts of exposures but that is no excuse for trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that our Government's are all lovely and acting in our best intersts. They aren't. We need more people like Assange not fewer.
The point is that he threw everything in in the meaning of openness. Good and bad (and whether something was 'good' or 'bad' depends on the viewpoint of the individual and country.
Still, I'm glad to see the compassion you feel for my family member. I.e. none.
The Guardian journalists should have been jailed, the shitting nasty wankers.
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
This really is a boring election. Feels more like a local election in terms of actual interest.
Barely being discussed on the town social media.
I think 2029 will be much more interesting and see lab, tory and libdem struggle to get 50% of the vote between them.
Not as boring as England last night though.
I totally disagree with you and I do suspect you’re writing that because you are a tory.
For those of us itching to see the tories booted out it has been the funniest and best campaign of our lives.
There has never been a worse campaign run than that by the tories but the added spice came when Nigel Farage trumped Sunak and joined the race, causing massive disruption.
And this tory wishcast about 2029 is one of the most feeble fantasies I’ve seen in my life. Do you still really not get it you lot, even now? You trashed your reputation for economic competence. You won’t suddenly recover that in 4 or 5 years. You are powerless for at least a decade and probably a generation. Get used to it.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
m
And the brave Russians working to overthrough Putin’s regime to at he identified - they were just unfortunate casualties?
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
m
And the brave Russians working to overthrough Putin’s regime to at he identified - they were just unfortunate casualties?
Assange famously said that Russia didn't need a Wikileaks, since their open society tolerated people like Navalny.
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
Does that mean I could rebroadcast (eg) a live F1 race if I added my own commentary ?
This sounds like CNN pushing it too far for a political debate imo.
I think the more interesting thing is whether Mr Trump runs away, as I am expecting - and what they do instead? Hopefully a Tub of Lard or a Humpty-Trumpty (unlikely) or Donald Shmuck puppet.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
Please read my later post.
I did and you were wrong. Whatever happened to your family member, your claim that he only targets the West is clearly false given he has also targetted Chinese oppression in Tibet and corruption throughout the Arab world.
I am sure there is lots of fall out from these sorts of exposures but that is no excuse for trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that our Government's are all lovely and acting in our best intersts. They aren't. We need more people like Assange not fewer.
I've a degree if sympathy with that view, but I've also considerable sympathy with the view that he was completely irresponsible in the choices he made regarding the data he released.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
Please read my later post.
I did and you were wrong. Whatever happened to your family member, your claim that he only targets the West is clearly false given he has also targetted Chinese oppression in Tibet and corruption throughout the Arab world.
I am sure there is lots of fall out from these sorts of exposures but that is no excuse for trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that our Government's are all lovely and acting in our best intersts. They aren't. We need more people like Assange not fewer.
The point is that he threw everything in in the meaning of openness. Good and bad (and whether something was 'good' or 'bad' depends on the viewpoint of the individual and country.
Still, I'm glad to see the compassion you feel for my family member. I.e. none.
The Guardian journalists should have been jailed, the shitting nasty wankers.
Given that the US thought that their helicopter gunship pilots were the good guys murdering Iraqi civilians, who is to decide good and bad? Governments cover shit up. They are not our friends and they are not on our side. None of them. Someone needs to expose it.
Assange is certainly no hero in himself and should have been on trial in Sweden for the alleged rapes, but that doesn't detract from the good wikileaks did exposing the sorts of corruption and crime in office up to and including murder that you seem happy to ignore.
And I have no need to feel compassion for your family member because I don't know them, have no details from you of what happened to them and only have the word of an anonymous poster on a website that something bad happened to them. I do know that the US military murdered civilians, that the Kenyan police murdered opponents, that the government of the Turks and Caicos islands was thoroughly corrupt. I know the details of those things thanks to Wikileaks.
The funny thing is that "I will not be silenced by a man" sounds like one of the things many Tories would ridicule if said by someone on the Left.
And if Tennant had told a Real Black Woman* to “shut up” and “not exist anymore” he would have be cancelled. To the point of episodes he appears in being withdrawn from broadcast.
*to certain people, you can only be a remember of a minority group if you hold the right beliefs.
But Wikileaks placed a family member of mine in a difficult position, and one that could have been very serious for him. So Assange (and the Guardian, who 'accidentally' leaked the full uncensored stuff) are certainly not the good guys IMO.
I don't think the "accidentally" there needs scare quotes? The way the whole unredacted dump got leaked involved grandstanding and idiocy by everyone involved and made both Assange and the Guardian guy look like total chumps. If they'd wanted to leak it they could have just leaked it.
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
A reminder that when he jumped bail, he was trying to avoid extradition to Sweden on rape charges. It wasn’t until some time after he’d fled that the US changed its mind and started pursuing him.
Hilariously, had he been extradited to Sweden he would actually have been much safer from the US. Although he would almost certainly have been locked up for those rapes he committed, of course.
No issue with that. I just don't agree with the biblically punitive approach the US takes to justice, and I detest their inhumane jails.
But Wikileaks placed a family member of mine in a difficult position, and one that could have been very serious for him. So Assange (and the Guardian, who 'accidentally' leaked the full uncensored stuff) are certainly not the good guys IMO.
I don't think the "accidentally" there needs scare quotes? The way the whole unredacted dump got leaked involved grandstanding and idiocy by everyone involved and made both Assange and the Guardian guy look like total chumps. If they'd wanted to leak it they could have just leaked it.
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
Does that mean I could rebroadcast (eg) a live F1 race if I added my own commentary ?
If you’re in the USA, and you’re actually making critique of what’s happening in the race, and the F1 race is in a corner of the screen rather than full-screen, and you’re prepared to go to court against F1, and persuade Youtube not to take it down when F1 tells them to, then possibly. Some people do do this but without the race on screen, and a radio commentary in the background.
This is Timcast’s video from the GOP debate a few months ago, as an example of how political commentators use this. He has five talking heads on screen, discussing what’s happening on the screen in front of them. 350,000 views. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pggv7h7FQ6s (it’s two hours long, so randomly scan to the middle somewhere). Note that their source is a stream on Rumble, rather than a stream directly from Fox News which was the broadcaster for this event.
Starmer will be very annoyed that he can no longer use the betting issue as a stick to beat the Tories with . As soon as one Labour candidate was implicated admittedly for a different type of bet the public might view it as a plague on both houses .
He will of course though highlight his swift action versus Sunaks obfuscation.
I don’t see it making much difference to the polling.
I don't think he'll want to. Like all campaigns it needs time to digest. I also doubt very much that most people will see the betting cases as similar. A flutter on yourself losing sounded quite cute
I'm still confused by the Assange developments. Why did the US suddenly change its mind about him?
"Suddenly" is an odd term in the context of a plea deal.
You need to be absolutely gung-ho about it until the moment the deal is sealed. You cannot say, "well, we think he's guilty of all sorts but may change our mind". You're either all in or all out.
None of this is very surprising. It's all very old news, very expensive, and with some risk of failing to obtain a convictions. This way, they have a conviction, albeit limited, and the costs stop.
Part of the deal was that Assange got Willian's to destroy the documents.
Also five years 'time served' is not nothing.
The deterrent effect is preserved fir all but the most determined leakers - who would be unlikely to be further deterred anyway, were Assange to have gone to trial.
I hold no candle for Assange but I can't blame him for hiding away in that embassy.
If he'd been extradited to a US court on all the charges he faced he'd have got something ludicrous like 300 years and spent the rest of his life in a very horrible US prison.
And he'd deserve it.
For exposing the US military murdering civilians? For embarrasiing governments and showing what duplicitous bastards they are? Or maybe you are upset about him exposing corruption in teh Turks and Caicos islands or revealing Kenyan police murdering civilians?
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
Please read my later post.
I did and you were wrong. Whatever happened to your family member, your claim that he only targets the West is clearly false given he has also targetted Chinese oppression in Tibet and corruption throughout the Arab world.
I am sure there is lots of fall out from these sorts of exposures but that is no excuse for trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that our Government's are all lovely and acting in our best intersts. They aren't. We need more people like Assange not fewer.
The point is that he threw everything in in the meaning of openness. Good and bad (and whether something was 'good' or 'bad' depends on the viewpoint of the individual and country.
Still, I'm glad to see the compassion you feel for my family member. I.e. none.
The Guardian journalists should have been jailed, the shitting nasty wankers.
Given that the US thought that their helicopter gunship pilots were the good guys murdering Iraqi civilians, who is to decide good and bad? Governments cover shit up. They are not our friends and they are not on our side. None of them. Someone needs to expose it.
Assange is certainly no hero in himself and should have been on trial in Sweden for the alleged rapes, but that doesn't detract from the good wikileaks did exposing the sorts of corruption and crime in office up to and including murder that you seem happy to ignore.
And I have no need to feel compassion for your family member because I don't know them, have no details from you of what happened to them and only have the word of an anonymous poster on a website that something bad happened to them. I do know that the US military murdered civilians, that the Kenyan police murdered opponents, that the government of the Turks and Caicos islands was thoroughly corrupt. I know the details of those things thanks to Wikileaks.
Gee, thanks. I am not lying about what I'm saying; I'm just not going to mention *what* it is for the obvious reasons. As for my being anonymous: I'm only partially anonymous. I've revealed enough information on here for a shitty poster to mention the name of the school my son goes to.
If you want to know more, I can tell you via PM.
I think my point is this: there were some nuggets in Wikileaks that were important. There were also many, many things that were not. Releasing the whole kaboodle, and not just the important things, hurt lots of people, directly and indirectly. It also severely hurt the west's intelligence services. The good effects (exposing western wrongdoing) could have been obtained without the bad effects.
Morning all. I’m pretty sure that 5 points is the statistical minimum required to qualify top of a group of four teams.
Surely 3 points? Every team draws with every other team, all teams end up on 3 points. Ends up being determined by goals scored. (By definition GD will be 0 across all 4 teams)
It appears that Visegrád 24, a Polish-Based Account with over a Million Followers who posts about the War in Ukraine and Israel has been Suspended for an Unknown Reason.
The account is restored, but has (temporarily ?) lost its followers.
Possibly a false DMCA takedown.
There’s a big row going on in the US at the moment with regard to the CNN debate tomorrow night.
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
I apologise for being grumpy and ramping rubbish. My mum attacked Wilbur hard with a cushion he flew in the air, and there’s been a big bust up, and I hadn’t calmed down and wasn’t concentrating properly This should make up for how I really see it
I’ve got a mini pig! Wilbur. 🐷 He’s got a happy playful temperament. He’s got better ball control than the England football team. I’m currently house training him, but he also has a big run outside with bushes to snork through and a large den out there with blankets in. He got tubes and chews. I can hosepipe him and one end of his mud. And I will take him foraging when I am sure he won’t run off and hide.
She hit him because she don’t like him anyway. She said he snouted her, but he was only being friendly! She’s upset him cause hardly he’s grunting as much now when I cuddle him, and his head is down. He’s never known violence towards him before. Mini pigs are social animals, when they snout you it’s becuase they are being friendly needing social interaction. I think she hurt his snout because he’s started sneezing.
I’ve chosen not to go on holiday this year. I had a very bad autumn, and moved from London to Yorkshire, which is why I didn’t post for months. But most people in PB have done relationship breakdowns. Explanation starts with “it’s complicated” and we leave it there and move on.
Comments
He will of course though highlight his swift action versus Sunaks obfuscation.
I don’t see it making much difference to the polling.
A Medias Touch video looking at the corrupt mess which the US Supreme Court judges have got themselves into, and its impact. A bit of a reprise of events some of which I have not followed all the time, with relatively little rhetoric. 20 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUxleQzmkMo
CNN have pre-emptively written to Google asserting copyright on the broadcast, threatening to persue any Youtube commentators who are running comment or fact-check follow-along streams.
Note that this isn’t just re-broadcasting the stream, which would be a DCMA violation, but adding commentary and criticism to it, which is considered fair use under the 1st Amendment.
Fox News tried something similar a couple of years ago after the fact, getting commentary streams taken down afterwards, but backed down when the content producers threated to sue them.
One such commentator has now gone to the considerable effort of intending to stream his show simultaneouly on YouTube, Rumble, and Twitter.
The issue with Youtube is that their automated DCMA process will kill the stream first and ask questions later.
Twitter have pre-emptively said this is definitely fair use, and they won’t be taking action against anyone running commentary on the debate.
https://x.com/timcast/status/1805383637564616917?s=12
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1805402421595648220?s=12
That is how Denmark have qualified above Slovenia.
Timcast’s regular daily news commentary podcast gets around 40k live viewers and 300k replays on Youtube, and he’s expecting at least 100k following live tomorrow night, you can see why he’s kicking up a stink about it!
Specifically they're saying he gave Manning advice on what tools to use to commit the crime, and also that she sent him password hashes and he tried, unsuccessfully, to crack them himself.
In true cypherpunk tradition everything Assange did to help Manning seems to have been entirely useless and a waste of her time, but I'm not sure whether that would have helped him if he'd ended up in court.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-the-cable-news-ratings-for-january-2024/
That awful ratings for CNN, basically ~100k for the key demographic i.e. people who actually buy stuff. CNN’s audience was smaller than that of INSP, an obscure cable network that plays Western television shows and films.
Not enough to change the result significantly, but enough to be real - and in the case of 2010 significantly limit my losses on the spreads I was worried about, which is why I'll never bet on spreads again.
"There are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters."
"Nigel Farage has lost the Right."
I quite like his phrases describing Mr Farage's "middle England" base (ignoring Farage's C2DE base).
'Post-WW2 patriots' and "Chaps with claret coloured trousers wandering into model shops."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBYW3khd5ro
After last weeks drama which was clearly an outlier I wonder what that’s going to show .
You can have all teams winning 1, losing 1 and drawing 1. Which is would give all teams 4 points
But Wikileaks placed a family member of mine in a difficult position, and one that could have been very serious for him. So Assange (and the Guardian, who 'accidentally' leaked the full uncensored stuff) are certainly not the good guys IMO.
(The family member was not doing anything illegal or even anything that was outside his job remit.)
I sometimes get the impression from your posts that you think we're always the bad guys.
No he wouldn't deserve it. Whatever the case with regard to Sweden, he did us a service with wikileaks.
Those phrases are fine as long as they don't describe you inaccurately I guess.
Which would be odd, as part of the reason for the Kharkiv misadventure was to draw Ukrainian troops from the rest of the frontline.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
They did have a slight uptick at the end in 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
They also slightly increased in 1997 if you look at the graphs but the main reason the polls narrowed in the final 2 weeks is that Labour’s share dropped. The polls were also too high on Labour. Again the graph shows it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1997_United_Kingdom_general_election
So, no it’s not a myth and there’s no ‘maybe’ about the other ones. It’s a point of fact. Usually they have a last minute uptick as people return to the fold.
I am sure there is lots of fall out from these sorts of exposures but that is no excuse for trying to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that our Government's are all lovely and acting in our best intersts. They aren't. We need more people like Assange not fewer.
But neither were Badenoch’s and I’m afraid she is out of her depth and trying to appeal to a right-wing core membership. My friend Mishal shredded her on the Today programme, and it was good it came from her. The Conservative Party can hopefully do much better than Badenoch.
https://fr.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=Nod+nod+wink+wink+know+what+i+mean&type=dhm_A0JQ1_set_bfr__alt__ddc_srch_searchpulse_net#id=1&vid=2cba504beb04812178be79ebcfd1d013&action=click
Barely being discussed on the town social media.
I think 2029 will be much more interesting and see lab, tory and libdem struggle to get 50% of the vote between them.
Not as boring as England last night though.
And the brave Russians working to overthrough Putin’s regime to at he identified - they were just unfortunate casualties?
Still, I'm glad to see the compassion you feel for my family member. I.e. none.
The Guardian journalists should have been jailed, the shitting nasty wankers.
For those of us itching to see the tories booted out it has been the funniest and best campaign of our lives.
There has never been a worse campaign run than that by the tories but the added spice came when Nigel Farage trumped Sunak and joined the race, causing massive disruption.
And this tory wishcast about 2029 is one of the most feeble fantasies I’ve seen in my life. Do you still really not get it you lot, even now? You trashed your reputation for economic competence. You won’t suddenly recover that in 4 or 5 years. You are powerless for at least a decade and probably a generation. Get used to it.
Good morning, everyone.
Not a very smart guy.
NEW THREAD
I think the more interesting thing is whether Mr Trump runs away, as I am expecting - and what they do instead? Hopefully a Tub of Lard or a Humpty-Trumpty (unlikely) or Donald Shmuck puppet.
Assange is certainly no hero in himself and should have been on trial in Sweden for the alleged rapes, but that doesn't detract from the good wikileaks did exposing the sorts of corruption and crime in office up to and including murder that you seem happy to ignore.
And I have no need to feel compassion for your family member because I don't know them, have no details from you of what happened to them and only have the word of an anonymous poster on a website that something bad happened to them. I do know that the US military murdered civilians, that the Kenyan police murdered opponents, that the government of the Turks and Caicos islands was thoroughly corrupt. I know the details of those things thanks to Wikileaks.
*to certain people, you can only be a remember of a minority group if you hold the right beliefs.
This is Timcast’s video from the GOP debate a few months ago, as an example of how political commentators use this. He has five talking heads on screen, discussing what’s happening on the screen in front of them. 350,000 views.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pggv7h7FQ6s (it’s two hours long, so randomly scan to the middle somewhere).
Note that their source is a stream on Rumble, rather than a stream directly from Fox News which was the broadcaster for this event.
If you want to know more, I can tell you via PM.
I think my point is this: there were some nuggets in Wikileaks that were important. There were also many, many things that were not. Releasing the whole kaboodle, and not just the important things, hurt lots of people, directly and indirectly. It also severely hurt the west's intelligence services. The good effects (exposing western wrongdoing) could have been obtained without the bad effects.
She hit him because she don’t like him anyway. She said he snouted her, but he was only being friendly!
She’s upset him cause hardly he’s grunting as much now when I cuddle him, and his head is down. He’s never known violence towards him before. Mini pigs are social animals, when they snout you it’s becuase they are being friendly needing social interaction. I think she hurt his snout because he’s started sneezing.
I’ve chosen not to go on holiday this year. I had a very bad autumn, and moved from London to Yorkshire, which is why I didn’t post for months. But most people in PB have done relationship breakdowns. Explanation starts with “it’s complicated” and we leave it there and move on.
I’m now literally going to live outside in a sty.