Howdy, Stranger!

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

Today is the day of crossover – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited August 26 in General
imageToday is the day of crossover – politicalbetting.com

I still think Kemi Badenoch is the one to lay in this market it is quite interesting that the market has switched sharply since yesterday in the aftermath of Robert Jenrick’s comments about Allahu Akbar, even though his context made the comments less inflammatory and less stupid than originally implied.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,471
    First.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,399
    Too hard to call imo.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    Third rate, like Leon’s supposed intelligence
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,879
    edited August 8
    Going forth to get a pineapple fritter for lunch, and @TSE dethreaded me again.
    Leon said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    I see the Kent county councillor making the Walthamstow speech has now gone unfortunately viral

    He's a perfect way for the police to put the "two-tier" stuff to bed.

    PB lawyers, what would he get charged with for this one?
    There could be things around incitement; it also depends on what the rest of the speech content was. From the edited clip which is being pushed, we do not even know who he is talking about when he says "cut all their throats". The comments are full of "who does he mean?"

    The claim that he is suggesting it for Tommy-Robinson-ites is only afaics in the text added by the likes of Tousi or others.

    They go into "Free Palestine" chants, which is nearly clipped out at the end, and there being Palestine flags, which are also neatly clipped out.

    Where's the rest of the clip to let the viewer make a judgement?

    Adds: I see the Councillor has already been suspended.
    lol
    Indeed, a whole post of "this is bullshit lies!" followed by "oh he's been suspended" without acknowledging the prior defence of this person calling for murdering people.
    I haven't defended anyone, Max.

    I've pointed out that we need to avoid being fools falling for simplistic sectarian narratives pumped out by extremists for the own ends, and keep our brains engaged.
    You absolutely tried to defend him. You said the sources were biased. You claimed the whole march was peaceful. You said we needed the fuller context

    No possible context can excuse the inciteful statements that guy made in public. You made yourself look ridiculous
    Nope - pure BS.

    I pointed out that context matters and we need to make judgements based on full information, rather than knee jerks based on edited videoclips.

    Pointing out that Tousi is biased, quoting a reputable media report, and keeping examination of context separate from advocacy is 101 for 14 year olds learning about journalism for writing a school magazine.

    Get a grip, man !
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, and it seems almost painfully irrelevant apart from a betting perspective. How long is it going to take the remainder of the Tory party to realise that a very large proportion of the population simply don't care any more. They are in for a world of hurt as their views and opinions are casually disregarded or even just ignored in the decade to come.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    If Johnson is next Tory leader, I will be on the breadline, I have laid him so heavily. Putting everyone else well into the green.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,399

    Too hard to call imo.

    In a month's time, Conservative MPs will vote, which will leave four candidates going to conference. That might be the time to bet, when we can see who is in what bloc and predict how their conference speeches will go.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    FPT, because I reckon this post deserves loads of likes. AND I would like a response from @HYUFD.
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    edited August 8
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    She turned out to be no Kwasi Liberal Democrat.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,144
    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    We were assured she would surprise on the upside.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    2) just means that people can't find a place to live. Or would, if anyone took the rules about subletting and HMO even vaguely seriously.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    Ins’allah
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    Au contraire The warnings were always there... T.R.U.S.S
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    Are you speaking from experience as a parent?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    We were assured she would surprise on the upside.
    She definitely surprised.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    We were assured she would surprise on the upside.
    I thought that there was a 90% chance she would be boring and 10% she might surprise on the upside.

    Wrong on both counts.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,668
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, because I reckon this post deserves loads of likes. AND I would like a response from @HYUFD.

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    You've set it up again.
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 976
    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    Is there a way to compare the p values of many Mann Whitney U tests?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    2) just means that people can't find a place to live. Or would, if anyone took the rules about subletting and HMO even vaguely seriously.
    Nope 2 meant that the prices reflect the prices local can afford rather than the £80,000 a bedroom that is the discounted cash flow price were a House of Multiple Occupancy allowed or already exists. Durham has a remarkable 2 tier house market at the moment....

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    We were assured she would surprise on the upside.
    Well, she surprised me on the upside.

    She lasted more than a week.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    DavidL said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, and it seems almost painfully irrelevant apart from a betting perspective. How long is it going to take the remainder of the Tory party to realise that a very large proportion of the population simply don't care any more. They are in for a world of hurt as their views and opinions are casually disregarded or even just ignored in the decade to come.
    It's a triumph of hope over experience, but there is always a vacancy for a major party which has clear aims and objectives, and a set of meaningful principles and also is clear that to govern is to choose, and that to govern means answering questions without lies and evasions and that managing tough stuff is part of the job. Beyond doubt the government in my lifetime nearest to that was 1979-the late eighties.

    Perhaps the Tories could give it a try. It's early days but Labour have gone too quickly into routine 'non answering the question' mode.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    I bought my first house at the age of 21, your mate is a slacker.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    Are you speaking from experience as a parent?
    Yep - Twin A bought the house just before her 22nd birthday but exchanged 2 months after...

    Can I just add that redecorating after a full rewire is blooming expensive..
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    I bought my first house at the age of 21, your mate is a slacker.
    My daughter you mean - but she was a late starter, only left school aged 19 but won the lottery of a Civil service degree apprenticeship
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    The local "Realist" campaigners on their little high street stall (Corbyn worship and Palestine also available) were trying to sell this as a horrific attack by Ukrainian fascists intent on ethnic cleansing of Russians and stealing the territory.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,161

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    I bought my first house at the age of 21, your mate is a slacker.
    The most expensive thing I'd bought by that age was a camera.
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 976
    O/t: "Can we go back to that time when Ed Miliband ate that bacon sandwich and we argued about it for days?

    It seems a lost and impossible golden age, an epoch of unparalleled innocence, that reads like a dream of a fairy tale".

    That bacon sandwich started a butterfly effect to where we are now
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    eek said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    I bought my first house at the age of 21, your mate is a slacker.
    My daughter you mean - but she was a late starter, only left school aged 19 but won the lottery of a Civil service degree apprenticeship
    I won a similar lottery, my parents and grandmother helping me get on the London property ladder in 2000 when I was planning on renting.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    Nunu5 said:

    O/t: "Can we go back to that time when Ed Miliband ate that bacon sandwich and we argued about it for days?

    It seems a lost and impossible golden age, an epoch of unparalleled innocence, that reads like a dream of a fairy tale".

    That bacon sandwich started a butterfly effect to where we are now

    I blame Eric Joyce and that bar brawl.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    Nunu5 said:

    O/t: "Can we go back to that time when Ed Miliband ate that bacon sandwich and we argued about it for days?

    It seems a lost and impossible golden age, an epoch of unparalleled innocence, that reads like a dream of a fairy tale".

    That bacon sandwich started a butterfly effect to where we are now

    PUT DOWN THE SANDWICH, ED

    It’s like that brilliant episode of Community where they have two parallel realities splitting apart from
    a pizza delivery

    Damn, that show was good
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    rcs1000 said:

    Nunu5 said:

    #New General Election Poll

    🔵 Harris 53% (+6)
    🔴 Trump 47%

    MULaw #A+ - 879 RV - 8/1

    Just 879 registered voters, and no RFK. So, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
    Including RFK in a poll generally takes approx 1 point more off Trump than Harris.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Oh it's still possible to buy a house in aged 22. It just requires

    1) a bit of help from Bank of Mum and Dad
    2) a restriction blocking anymore houses of multiple occupation in an area keeping prices low
    3) the new (mortgaged to the hilt) owner being happy to have a couple of students to reduce the massive mortgage rapidly down to manageable levels.

    To show the scale of the insanity Twin A's mortgage is less than the rent she is charging on either of the rooms being rented out.
    I bought my first house at the age of 21, your mate is a slacker.
    The most expensive thing I'd bought by that age was a camera.
    The most expensive thing I had bought by that age was a car, but before people get ideas of grandeur, it was an Austin A40, I started it with a starting handle, I had to take the rubber bungs out of the floor because so much rain came in through the windscreen and both front headlights fell out.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    The Met Police are going after the Kent councillor. I don’t think they have much choice given the accusations of double standards
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    We were assured she would surprise on the upside.
    She did.
    She cocked things up beyond all expectations.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    It’s all very weird. There’s a suggestion that the Russian town of Sudzha (highlighted) is about to fall to Ukrainian troops, who have already made several km of progress into Russia. The Russians appear to be totally flat-footed, with no spare troops anywhere to come to their aid.



    Source: https://liveuamap.com/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There are Russians on TwiX talking fearfully about a coup attempt - in Moscow. wtf is going on?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Jeremy Corbyn.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    It is great to see actual Nazis get smashed in Kursk once more as we approach the 81st anniversary of the Battle of Kursk.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nunu5 said:

    #New General Election Poll

    🔵 Harris 53% (+6)
    🔴 Trump 47%

    MULaw #A+ - 879 RV - 8/1

    Just 879 registered voters, and no RFK. So, I wouldn't take it too seriously.
    Including RFK in a poll generally takes approx 1 point more off Trump than Harris.
    We need to start seeing State polling, with all candidates named. Most of the States close formal nominations in the next few weeks, at most 60 days out which is a month from now.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Jeremy Corbyn.
    This is exactly why I didn’t ask you, Robert
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    The local "Realist" campaigners on their little high street stall (Corbyn worship and Palestine also available) were trying to sell this as a horrific attack by Ukrainian fascists intent on ethnic cleansing of Russians and stealing the territory.
    If Ukraine does take any settlements of any significant size then the situation will get pretty desperate for the civilians in those settlements, given the Russian way of war.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420
    I think Badenoch's weekend Telegraph interview has come to look worse, even quite Jenrick-esque, as the rioting has developed further.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There are Russians on TwiX talking fearfully about a coup attempt - in Moscow. wtf is going on?
    Moscow is incredibly heavily policed, and Putin keeps his most loyal troops there: the Federal Protective Service (FSO) and the National Guard of Russia (Rosgvardiya).

    For a coup attempt in Moscow to come off would require that the commanders of these units essentially decided Putin's time was up. Not impossible, sure. But not that likely either.

    My guess is that such a coup attempt would only happen if it looked like Russia was facing an existential crisis. Which it isn't. Yet.
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 976
    New Labour MP has been making racist tweets from years ago
    https://x.com/NovemberSixty3/status/1821471336138506513
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There are Russians on TwiX talking fearfully about a coup attempt - in Moscow. wtf is going on?
    Moscow is incredibly heavily policed, and Putin keeps his most loyal troops there: the Federal Protective Service (FSO) and the National Guard of Russia (Rosgvardiya).

    For a coup attempt in Moscow to come off would require that the commanders of these units essentially decided Putin's time was up. Not impossible, sure. But not that likely either.

    My guess is that such a coup attempt would only happen if it looked like Russia was facing an existential crisis. Which it isn't. Yet.
    Interesting. Of course Putin’s downfall has been predicted a million times. But one day it might come true
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,632
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Well I do try and be neutral for the betting. Of these six? Best for Labour would be Badenoch. Worst would be Cleverly.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,030
    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,488
    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    Sandpit said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    It’s all very weird. There’s a suggestion that the Russian town of Sudzha (highlighted) is about to fall to Ukrainian troops, who have already made several km of progress into Russia. The Russians appear to be totally flat-footed, with no spare troops anywhere to come to their aid.



    Source: https://liveuamap.com/
    It's hard to know what is going on. There's one report of two Russian battalions being encircled in Sudzha, but it's hard to take seriously because there have been so many such reports about encirclements that have proved to be inaccurate before.

    And the Russians are reporting Ukrainians all over the place, and panicking each other with imminent incursions into Belgorod, or further north in Kursk.

    I guess this sort of operational confusion and uncertainty is normal in the early stages of something like this, but it's great to see the Russians put onto the back foot again.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There are Russians on TwiX talking fearfully about a coup attempt - in Moscow. wtf is going on?
    Moscow is incredibly heavily policed, and Putin keeps his most loyal troops there: the Federal Protective Service (FSO) and the National Guard of Russia (Rosgvardiya).

    For a coup attempt in Moscow to come off would require that the commanders of these units essentially decided Putin's time was up. Not impossible, sure. But not that likely either.

    My guess is that such a coup attempt would only happen if it looked like Russia was facing an existential crisis. Which it isn't. Yet.
    Interesting. Of course Putin’s downfall has been predicted a million times. But one day it might come true
    I think a rebellion in somewhere like Dagestan or Chechnya would probably be the catalyst for "regime change". I.e., it becomes clear Russia would lose territories if it continued the war in Ukraine, and that Putin (like a drunk gambler) is simply too committed.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Well I do try and be neutral for the betting. Of these six? Best for Labour would be Badenoch. Worst would be Cleverly.
    Thanks
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,030
    Nunu5 said:

    New Labour MP has been making racist tweets from years ago
    https://x.com/NovemberSixty3/status/1821471336138506513

    Rochester and Strood would be a fun by-election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    edited August 8
    Nunu5 said:

    New Labour MP has been making racist tweets from years ago
    https://x.com/NovemberSixty3/status/1821471336138506513

    Are we really dragging up what people who are now MPs were saying 15 years ago, and judging them based on today’s language standards?

    That said, and as I may have commented on several occasions previously, who the f*** was doing vetting on all these new MPs, and did the candidates themselves not at least receive a briefing to go back over their social media profiles and take a look themselves?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    I think that would probably require regime change in Belarus. But you are surely right that the weaker Russia looks, the fewer allies it will have. No one wants to back a loser.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,330
    OT but specially for @Big_G_NorthWales - a piece on the Herring Queen of Eyemouth (very reminiscent of the Common Ridings round here, inland from there)

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/01/eyemouth-herring-queen-fishing-industry-change-women-scottish-town
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    rcs1000 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    I think that would probably require regime change in Belarus. But you are surely right that the weaker Russia looks, the fewer allies it will have. No one wants to back a loser.
    Except the Republicans.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    That point will be when Lukashenko either passes on or gives up power, and the Belarusians themselves realise that their future lies to the West.

    But I know a couple of Belarusians, and their country is almost North Korean in the control they have over their citizens. One is still required to obtain an exit visa to leave the country.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Honestly don't know.
    Whoever it is will be at the mercy of events for a while. I actually think they'd have been better off persuading Sunak to stay until next spring, so they could see the lie of the new political landscape.
    The contenders would have then had a bit of time to show their mettle in opposition.

    As it is stick a pin in the list.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807

    I think Badenoch's weekend Telegraph interview has come to look worse, even quite Jenrick-esque, as the rioting has developed further.

    She can't count on your vote then?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,172
    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    As soon they get rid of the current president - whose survival depends on Putin.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited August 8

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    The local "Realist" campaigners on their little high street stall (Corbyn worship and Palestine also available) were trying to sell this as a horrific attack by Ukrainian fascists intent on ethnic cleansing of Russians and stealing the territory.
    What's Russian for quelle surprise?

    (I'm sure I've used that joke before, but it remains appropriate feel)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,379
    Sandpit said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    That point will be when Lukashenko either passes on or gives up power, and the Belarusians themselves realise that their future lies to the West.

    But I know a couple of Belarusians, and their country is almost North Korean in the control they have over their citizens. One is still required to obtain an exit visa to leave the country.
    I thought that (requiring an exit visa) wasn't permitted any more. Did Belarus simply not sign or ignore the treaty(s) in question?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    kle4 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    The local "Realist" campaigners on their little high street stall (Corbyn worship and Palestine also available) were trying to sell this as a horrific attack by Ukrainian fascists intent on ethnic cleansing of Russians and stealing the territory.
    What's Russian for quelle surprise?
    Window open?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,420
    Sandpit said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    That point will be when Lukashenko either passes on or gives up power, and the Belarusians themselves realise that their future lies to the West.

    But I know a couple of Belarusians, and their country is almost North Korean in the control they have over their citizens. One is still required to obtain an exit visa to leave the country.
    There was a big push in 2020-1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_Belarusian_protests
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    I think that would probably require regime change in Belarus. But you are surely right that the weaker Russia looks, the fewer allies it will have. No one wants to back a loser.
    Except the Republicans.
    Only because their definition of winning and losing does not rely on any objective facts.
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 812
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Well I do try and be neutral for the betting. Of these six? Best for Labour would be Badenoch. Worst would be Cleverly.
    I agree about Cleverly. Disagree about Badenoch when scum like Jenrick exist although I agree she will probably be one of the easier opponents. All Labour would have to do is repeatedly point out his latest bastardly deed - and there would be one - he wouldn't be able to help himself.

    Betting wise the opportunities at these prices are backing Stride and Cleverly imo. Which is basically my position (I've also laid Jenrick, but when he was shorter, and it's partly a hate lay anyway).

    Put a gun to my head and I think Tugenhadt will win but I'd rather back him at shorter odds when it becomes clearer he has a path to, this stuff is too unstable atm to be backing anyone unless at or close to double digits imo.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    The local "Realist" campaigners on their little high street stall (Corbyn worship and Palestine also available) were trying to sell this as a horrific attack by Ukrainian fascists intent on ethnic cleansing of Russians and stealing the territory.
    This attack by Ukraine shows that Russia's invasion was merely a preemptive counterattack.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,709
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    I think that would probably require regime change in Belarus. But you are surely right that the weaker Russia looks, the fewer allies it will have. No one wants to back a loser.
    Except the Republicans.
    Only because their definition of winning and losing does not rely on any objective facts.
    They've doubled down on alternative facts.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    edited August 8

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    edited August 8

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
    Oh the joys of shadow tech meeting the real world..
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foss said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    I do wonder if we could see a resurgence of unrest in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia or even Tartarstan.

    Because the Russian military is very stretched right now. Their ability to put down a major uprising is going to be severely limited.
    There must be a point when Belarus decides that being in the Russian sphere is no-longer worth it.
    That point will be when Lukashenko either passes on or gives up power, and the Belarusians themselves realise that their future lies to the West.

    But I know a couple of Belarusians, and their country is almost North Korean in the control they have over their citizens. One is still required to obtain an exit visa to leave the country.
    I thought that (requiring an exit visa) wasn't permitted any more. Did Belarus simply not sign or ignore the treaty(s) in question?
    Good question, to which I don’t know the exact answer.

    I would assume that someone without the ‘right’ documents doesn’t get near the airport in the first place, so good luck to any external authority that tries to tell the Belarusians they can’t do that…

    I do remember a colleague getting stuck there for two months though, five or six years ago, because she had to sort out a whole pile of paperwork before they’d let her leave.

    My assumption would be that a treaty requiring an exit visa only applies to foreigners, not to citizens of the country in question. Or else they don’t say they require it, but the price of it is a year’s average salary.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
    Everyone can and should now point at Crowdstrike, as a reminder of what happens when you don’t QA your new code and just shove it into production.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Well I do try and be neutral for the betting. Of these six? Best for Labour would be Badenoch. Worst would be Cleverly.
    I agree about Cleverly. Disagree about Badenoch when scum like Jenrick exist although I agree she will probably be one of the easier opponents. All Labour would have to do is repeatedly point out his latest bastardly deed - and there would be one - he wouldn't be able to help himself.

    Betting wise the opportunities at these prices are backing Stride and Cleverly imo. Which is basically my position (I've also laid Jenrick, but when he was shorter, and it's partly a hate lay anyway).

    Put a gun to my head and I think Tugenhadt will win but I'd rather back him at shorter odds when it becomes clearer he has a path to, this stuff is too unstable atm to be backing anyone unless at or close to double digits imo.
    Tugendhat would be suicide for the Tories. Continuity Cameroonian, no different from Labour, no chance of winning back Reform voters

    It’s worth repeating because people don’t get it. The Tories are doomed unless they can strangle Reform. That is the first and primary task, as it’s a question of survival. That needs a leader on the right

    The markets understand this, which is why Jenrick and Badenoch are favourites
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,888

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Well I do try and be neutral for the betting. Of these six? Best for Labour would be Badenoch. Worst would be Cleverly.
    I agree about Cleverly. Disagree about Badenoch when scum like Jenrick exist although I agree she will probably be one of the easier opponents. All Labour would have to do is repeatedly point out his latest bastardly deed - and there would be one - he wouldn't be able to help himself.

    Betting wise the opportunities at these prices are backing Stride and Cleverly imo. Which is basically my position (I've also laid Jenrick, but when he was shorter, and it's partly a hate lay anyway).

    Put a gun to my head and I think Tugenhadt will win but I'd rather back him at shorter odds when it becomes clearer he has a path to, this stuff is too unstable atm to be backing anyone unless at or close to double digits imo.
    Tugsy is the dull, dreary candidate the Tories need to counter dull, dreary Starmer. Although he has gone for the mandatory "we are leaving the ECHR" nonsense when he knows that would be foolish.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
    Yeah.

    But you know what: I can get our developers working faster by threatening to do stuff myself.

    Me: "Oh, no problem, if it's going to take you so long, I'll just write it myself. And don't worry, I know how to deploy to the production webserver."

    ...

    Me (five minutes later): "You can get it to me this week? That's fantastic. Thank you so much."
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    Completely offtopic - but an interesting article about the lack of value coming from AI projects

    https://www.businessinsider.com/pharma-cio-cancelled-microsoft-copilot-ai-tool-2024-7?IR=T

    (you may need to disable Javascript to read the article but that's all that is required).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
    Everyone can and should now point at Crowdstrike, as a reminder of what happens when you don’t QA your new code and just shove it into production.
    One nice think about finance is that you can say “I can’t do that. It’s illegal/regulatory suicide.” to senior people.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
    Yeah.

    But you know what: I can get our developers working faster by threatening to do stuff myself.

    Me: "Oh, no problem, if it's going to take you so long, I'll just write it myself. And don't worry, I know how to deploy to the production webserver."

    ...

    Me (five minutes later): "You can get it to me this week? That's fantastic. Thank you so much."
    You realise that the programmers, in the bar, are swapping stories of the time they basically talked you down from the cliff top, where you had the gun to your head?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,972
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
    Yeah.

    But you know what: I can get our developers working faster by threatening to do stuff myself.

    Me: "Oh, no problem, if it's going to take you so long, I'll just write it myself. And don't worry, I know how to deploy to the production webserver."

    ...

    Me (five minutes later): "You can get it to me this week? That's fantastic. Thank you so much."
    Any sensible lead architect would know that’s a bluff, even if he does know you can write code and deploy it to production.

    Oh, and the security manager and QA manager would want to know why the f*** the CEO has the capability of deploying anything to production.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,213

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Well I do try and be neutral for the betting. Of these six? Best for Labour would be Badenoch. Worst would be Cleverly.
    I agree about Cleverly. Disagree about Badenoch when scum like Jenrick exist although I agree she will probably be one of the easier opponents. All Labour would have to do is repeatedly point out his latest bastardly deed - and there would be one - he wouldn't be able to help himself.

    Betting wise the opportunities at these prices are backing Stride and Cleverly imo. Which is basically my position (I've also laid Jenrick, but when he was shorter, and it's partly a hate lay anyway).

    Put a gun to my head and I think Tugenhadt will win but I'd rather back him at shorter odds when it becomes clearer he has a path to, this stuff is too unstable atm to be backing anyone unless at or close to double digits imo.
    Tugsy is the dull, dreary candidate the Tories need to counter dull, dreary Starmer. Although he has gone for the mandatory "we are leaving the ECHR" nonsense when he knows that would be foolish.
    Tugendhat is the leader the Lib Dems are most nervous about because regardless of his actual policies he is moderate-coded and looks and sounds like a nice home counties chap. Best for Lib Dems would be someone offputtingly right wing in demeanour, but not close enough to Reform to avoid splitting the right wing vote. Jenrick or Patel.

    The main threat to Lib Dems is not the same as the main threat to Labour.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Leon said:

    Too hard to call imo.

    Yes, tricky

    They are my first two preferences so I’m cool with that choice

    Unfortunately the Tories don’t have a new Thatcher waiting, we have what we have
    In 1975 nobody knew Thatcher was going to be... THATCHER.

    Some people grow into the role as leader but most just wither away...
    And no one knew that Truss was going to be TRUSS.
    I did.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,399

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    I've taken the profit on my Jenrick @ 14s. I watched him the other day, closely this time, and I think he'll be a turn-off to most people. He might still get it but he's too short now imo. So is Badenoch. I think laying the both is a good play.

    Try and be neutral and open your mind. Who would you most dislike as Tory leader? As in, who would be the most capable opponent of Labour, & the most likely to revive the Tories?
    Well I do try and be neutral for the betting. Of these six? Best for Labour would be Badenoch. Worst would be Cleverly.
    I agree about Cleverly. Disagree about Badenoch when scum like Jenrick exist although I agree she will probably be one of the easier opponents. All Labour would have to do is repeatedly point out his latest bastardly deed - and there would be one - he wouldn't be able to help himself.

    Betting wise the opportunities at these prices are backing Stride and Cleverly imo. Which is basically my position (I've also laid Jenrick, but when he was shorter, and it's partly a hate lay anyway).

    Put a gun to my head and I think Tugenhadt will win but I'd rather back him at shorter odds when it becomes clearer he has a path to, this stuff is too unstable atm to be backing anyone unless at or close to double digits imo.
    Tugsy is the dull, dreary candidate the Tories need to counter dull, dreary Starmer. Although he has gone for the mandatory "we are leaving the ECHR" nonsense when he knows that would be foolish.
    As Private Eye said, and probably others, we are at that stage in the leadership race where centrists like Jenrick and Tugendhat are trying to sound extreme and right-wingers like Kemi and Priti to appear conciliatory.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,112
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, because I reckon this post deserves loads of likes. AND I would like a response from @HYUFD.

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mortimer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    AlsoLei said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    Tres said:

    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’ve emotionally gone from being mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump win to having hope that Harris actually might do it. Sadly it’s the hope that kills you.

    *Raises eyebrows*

    Has Governor Walz's daughter taken up a new career?
    You’re going to have to explain that one to me.
    She’s called Hope and may have become an assassin according to your post…

    It wasn’t really worth explaining…
    But she is called Hope as she was an IVF baby and somehow the Republicans have managed to put themselves in the position of looking anti-IVF.
    I thought they *were* anti-IVF?
    I am anti taxpayer-funded IVF.
    In the scheme of things I can think of a whole set of items that I object to far more.

    Giving a family a chance of children seems to be a noble use of a tiny percentage of what I pay in taxes.
    Certainly with fertility rates now below replacement level in the UK and USA
    Sadly, reproductive services are something that the NHS have all but abandoned.

    Technically, they still aim to offer three cycles to under-40s, and one to those aged 40 and 41 - but in most of the country are nowhere close to achieving this. The usual pattern is to mange the problem by delaying long enough that people age out of eligibility, so if you're in your mid 30s they'll drag it out so you get one cycle at 38 or 39, and another a couple of years later. And that's only if you're very persistent.

    In reality, most people on average need around four cycles, with some trying up to six before giving up. Each cycle typically costs around £10k.

    Fertility rapidly declines once you hit your late 20s, but as a society we've set ourselves up so that people are unable to even consider having children until a decade later. So we're effectively expecting people to pay £20k or so on average to be able to have children, and that's before you even get on to the nightmarish situation that NHS maternity services are in.
    Agreed, though there is the freezing eggs option too.

    Of course in the 1930s there was mass unemployment and most people of all ages rented but yet most 20 to 30 year olds had children and the fertility rate was above average so it is also a lifestyle choice, especially with more women wanting careers and leaving children until their 30s and early 40s if they decide to have them at all
    Egg-freezing is £20k and only works about half the time. It's also less likely to be covered by private health insurance than IVF, though some employers do explicitly fund it separately.

    As for it being a lifestyle choice, I think it's a bit stronger than that. It's a choice between building your career, being able to rent a flat by yourself, and generally having a stable life that you control before getting pregnant - or having kids in your 20s, and hoping that the state will provide an adequate safety net if things go wrong.

    Not many people trust that safety net these days, and I don't think it's fair to blame them for that.

    As with so much else, the best way to fix this would be to ease the pressure on housing. If the best a 20-something at the start of a professional career can expect is to live in a houseshare for the next decade, then is it any wonder why they're not settling down and having kids?
    Absolutely!

    And this is another reason why too everyone who is working ought to be able to afford a home of their own, from their own efforts, with no inheritance in their twenties as was achievable in the past and could be again if the prices were more appropriate.

    An inheritance if you get one (and many won't) is likely to come in your sixties or later nowadays and won't get you on the housing ladder in your twenties.
    Most people rented 100 years ago, they still managed to have children in their 20s
    'Managed' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

    Society was organised entirely differently, and there were little to no reliable forms of contraception.

    I am staggered by those who stagger through life waiting for an inheritance.

    Inheritance is irrelevant to this argument as it 100 years ago most couples in their 20s rented and did not have an inheritance but still managed to have children.

    Of course we could also go Vatican and restrict contraception too, certainly to 20-35 year olds at peak fertility in settled relationships
    I'm not sure how settled most of those relationships would be if contraception was entirely eliminated.
    Full Vatican of course would be no sex unless married and no contraception if having sex in marriage
    Of course, we could just ignore religion in our everyday lives.
    And continue with below replacement level birthrate
    So you make it inevitable that millions are born into poverty and end up reliant on the state. I thought you Tories hated benefit culture, now you want to turn the taps on?
    No that is the other extreme. Below replacement level birth rates just make it inevitable those of working age have to pay ever higher taxes to support the old, retirement ages become later as we need to work longer and economic growth slows.

    Conservatives support the family too, they may not be socialists but they are not laissez faire economic liberals either. Plus now it is the middle class having lower birth rates than the working class if anything as graduate women delay childbirth for careers first
    Oh come on, @HYUFD: you must know that the exceptionally high cost of housing is a massive deterrent to having children early.

    One of my best friends, who I've known since fourth form, got married at 22, bought a house, and had kids early. He worked for the council.

    That would be completely impossible today.

    His children are not going to be able to afford houses - even assuming they save a significant proportion of their disposable income - until they are into their 30s.
    Interesting article in the Atlantic on why fertility rates are dropping, even in places with plenty of housing and financial support.

    https://x.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1820138018323177476?t=W5KH3hC7dsbD4vZiB-euMQ&s=19
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eek said:

    There is a pattern in antisocial media bullshit.

    A tag line and the apparent evidence - "@TheScreamingEagles interview - Pineapple pizza awesome, Radiohead and Python awful. https://youtu.be/GarbageLink"

    It works because about 90% off people never click the link or try and find actual evidence.

    Python is awful - don't use whitespace to represent significancy...
    It is no more ridiculous than using lots of brackets (of varying types).

    Python has fantastic, clean syntax. It has incredible data science libraries. And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap.

    Other than occasional bits of Javascript, when I have a need to do something webby, I wouldn't use anything else. There's simply no point, because quick to write, readable code, is worth a lot more than a few processor cycles.
    oh I just have a dislike of Python but I started off when Javascript was Livescript and Perl was the in thing.

    I personally prefer the latest version of Delphi (i.e. C# )..
    99% of my "coding" these days is data analysis, where Python + Pandas + Jupyter is absolutely superb, especially if you use Google's hosted Colab service. I'm playing around with massive datasets and running analyses in seconds that would historically have taken days. (And also required a team of people.)
    You use whatever has the best libraries for whatever it is you want to do. If that's Python, then great. And if it's JavaScript, for God's sake use TypeScript!
    The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people.

    Who haven’t heard of code structure, testing pyramids or even code versioning tools.

    “No, Quant Boy, the Python file you emailed me isn’t going directly into production. Aside from the fact it doesn’t actually run, we need tests. And test data. And some QA. and running on all the non-prod environments first…. Also, where is the specification? ‘cause Compliance will quite interested in how we are pricing stuff.”
    Yeah.

    But you know what: I can get our developers working faster by threatening to do stuff myself.

    Me: "Oh, no problem, if it's going to take you so long, I'll just write it myself. And don't worry, I know how to deploy to the production webserver."

    ...

    Me (five minutes later): "You can get it to me this week? That's fantastic. Thank you so much."
    You realise that the programmers, in the bar, are swapping stories of the time they basically talked you down from the cliff top, where you had the gun to your head?
    The thing is, I really enjoy programming. I enjoy it a lot more than CEO-ing. It's just that I'm a very average programmer, and quite a good CEO.

    So, I am always looking at ways to get down and dirty and write some code.

    (When we hired our lead engineer, who had previously held that role at Trainline, I tearfully handed over the repository of the prototype app that I had built myself. My COO told me later that our lead engineer said, upon seeing the code, "you know, I'd hire him as a junior developer." Which was, I think, one of the greatest compliments I've ever received.)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,879
    Sandpit said:

    Seems to be a degree of panic among the Russian milibloggers over events in Kursk Oblast. Massive confusion about where Ukrainian forces are, and whether forces encountered are part of the main body of troops or sabotage/reconnaissance groups.

    No sign yet of Russian reinforcements stabilizing the situation, though there are videos of lots of Ukrainian equipment being taken out by Lancet drones.

    Still not sure whether this is just a raid, or the start of a large effort to seize Russian territory for use in bargaining during peace negotiations, or a strategy to lengthen the front line to weaken the Russian defence of occupied Ukrainian territory.

    It’s all very weird. There’s a suggestion that the Russian town of Sudzha (highlighted) is about to fall to Ukrainian troops, who have already made several km of progress into Russia. The Russians appear to be totally flat-footed, with no spare troops anywhere to come to their aid.



    Source: https://liveuamap.com/
    Reports I've heard point out that troops in Russia are likely to be wet-behind-the-ears conscripts, who are not sent to Ukraine.

    I've no idea on the UA tactics, unless they expect it to draw Russian troops away from frontlines in quantities justifying the 2-3k UA troops who are reported to be involved.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    Short honeymoon for Two Tier Kier


    Is the honeymoon over? Keir Starmer’s favourability ratings have returned to pre-election levels

    Favourable: 37% (-3 from 30-31 Jul)
    Unfavourable: 53% (+4)
    Net favourability: -16 (last week was -9)

    https://x.com/yougov/status/1821499417142174102?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
This discussion has been closed.