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.”
While I largely agree with what you say, it is also great to have the freedom to implement stuff as you see fit without having to specify every last widget to the n-th degree. Obviously that's easier when working iteratively as a sole developer on small projects.
Also, bad code implemented by self-taught developers is by no means restricted to Python and JavaScript. The codebase at my last workplace was a tangled mess of undocumented C++ dating back decades and presided over by an old-school self-taught coder with a pathological hatred of whitespace and line breaks. That was the last straw for me.
Indeed
Just that these days the self taught types are hacking in Python.
There was this mad guy who was going to replace Excel with a spreadsheet backed by Python as the scripting language. Whatever happened to him?
It's funny you ask... because that company (Resolver Systems) ended up becoming PythonAnywhere, which was acquired by Anaconda, and which has just launched Python in Excel (https://docs.anaconda.com/excel/).
Kate Hoey @CatharineHoey Still no answer to why it will take to next year before Alex Rudakubana the alleged murderer of the 3 young girls in South Oct will stand trial ?
Community notes can be very entertaining sometimes. A genuinely great idea.
People dis Twitter* under Musk, but he has implemented two genuinely useful features:
(1) Community notes (2) People I follow
It means I see fewer Marjorie Taylor Greene posts. Which is good.
* I refuse to call it "X"
Community Notes predates Musk
Sort of.
There was a program that created Notes that predated Musk, but it wasn't very widespread nor was it open source - and it had a different name.
The current version dates from Musk.
The story I’ve seen elsewhere is that the current version was in development before Musk bought the company. He just happened to be in charge when it was finished up & pushed to production.
Always remember the six stages of a project:
1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the Guilty 5. Punishment of the Innocent 6. Praise for those not involved
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.”
While I largely agree with what you say, it is also great to have the freedom to implement stuff as you see fit without having to specify every last widget to the n-th degree. Obviously that's easier when working iteratively as a sole developer on small projects.
Also, bad code implemented by self-taught developers is by no means restricted to Python and JavaScript. The codebase at my last workplace was a tangled mess of undocumented C++ dating back decades and presided over by an old-school self-taught coder with a pathological hatred of whitespace and line breaks. That was the last straw for me.
Indeed
Just that these days the self taught types are hacking in Python.
There was this mad guy who was going to replace Excel with a spreadsheet backed by Python as the scripting language. Whatever happened to him?
It's funny you ask... because that company (Resolver Systems) ended up becoming PythonAnywhere, which was acquired by Anaconda, and which has just launched Python in Excel (https://docs.anaconda.com/excel/).
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.”
While I largely agree with what you say, it is also great to have the freedom to implement stuff as you see fit without having to specify every last widget to the n-th degree. Obviously that's easier when working iteratively as a sole developer on small projects.
Also, bad code implemented by self-taught developers is by no means restricted to Python and JavaScript. The codebase at my last workplace was a tangled mess of undocumented C++ dating back decades and presided over by an old-school self-taught coder with a pathological hatred of whitespace and line breaks. That was the last straw for me.
Indeed
Just that these days the self taught types are hacking in Python.
There was this mad guy who was going to replace Excel with a spreadsheet backed by Python as the scripting language. Whatever happened to him?
It's funny you ask... because that company (Resolver Systems) ended up becoming PythonAnywhere, which was acquired by Anaconda, and which has just launched Python in Excel (https://docs.anaconda.com/excel/).
Python, Anaconda, GitHub, Jupyter, Pandas, NumPy, Matplotlib... you have no idea how happy it makes me that I no longer have to worry about those things.
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
Looking at the stats for European countries, there seems to be a pretty close correlation between religious devotion and low birth rates. Countries with higher levels of church attendance (e.g. Italy, Spain, Greece) have lower birth rates than more secular countries (e.g. France, Denmark). So it would seem that less, rather than more, religion is needed in order to raise birth rates.
Not true, Catholic Ireland for example has the highest birth rate in Europe and above average religious devotion. In France it is immigrant Muslims having the most babies, same with Denmark. In Italy and Spain it is over 60s most religious and they are well past child bearing years.
Hyufd, this is bullshit. Romania has a higher birth rate than Ireland, as do Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary and Iceland. (France is of course the highest.)
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
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.”
While I largely agree with what you say, it is also great to have the freedom to implement stuff as you see fit without having to specify every last widget to the n-th degree. Obviously that's easier when working iteratively as a sole developer on small projects.
Also, bad code implemented by self-taught developers is by no means restricted to Python and JavaScript. The codebase at my last workplace was a tangled mess of undocumented C++ dating back decades and presided over by an old-school self-taught coder with a pathological hatred of whitespace and line breaks. That was the last straw for me.
Indeed
Just that these days the self taught types are hacking in Python.
There was this mad guy who was going to replace Excel with a spreadsheet backed by Python as the scripting language. Whatever happened to him?
It's funny you ask... because that company (Resolver Systems) ended up becoming PythonAnywhere, which was acquired by Anaconda, and which has just launched Python in Excel (https://docs.anaconda.com/excel/).
Python, Anaconda, GitHub, Jupyter, Pandas, NumPy, Matplotlib... you have no idea how happy it makes me that I no longer have to worry about those things.
Oh, you should continue to worry about those things. But less in a day-to-day work way, and more in a kind of existential one.
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
I doubt Jenrick's comments will harm him with the ERG and rightwing Tory MP lane he is looking to win to get to the last 2, it is Tugendhat and Stride contesting the liberal One Nation wing, with Cleverly also looking to join, not him
I doubt Tom or Mel will make it to the last 2. One of them might make it to the last four.
But I suspect that'll be:
Badenoch Jenrick Cleverly Patel
I doubt it, there are enough One Nation liberal MPs to get Tom or Mel to the last 2 as they got Sunak, Hunt, May and Cameron beforehand. Especially given the Tory parliamentary party is more southern than in 2019
Some people are able to think outside their tribe.
One nationism failed utterly under Sunak. Even the staunchest wets can see that the previous approach didn't work. TBH I'd be surprised if Tugundhat or Stride are expecting to achieve anything more than a shadow cabinet position from their runs....
I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere but today is the 50th anniversary of the resignation of Richard Nixon, the only POTUS (so far) to resign while in office.
An extraordinary time of political division in America, quite unlike today...
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
That would be a dangerous precedent to set. Best avoided.
The ideal outcome from Russia's war on Ukraine is a future where conflict with China becomes less likely, because they are deterred by the strength of democracies.
Inviting them to dismember Russia would be to advertise our weakness.
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.)
Interesting. I thought my CEO was extremely unusual in being like that. Any excuse to write some code will be seized, no matter how objectively irrational a usage of time.
(I, however, would not hire him as a junior developer ).
It is worth remembering both Arizona and Nevada will have abortion access on the ballot. In the mid-terms, in states where that was a question it proved damaging to the Republicans.
The abortion bills can favour either party, depending on the exact wording of the question.
Republicans are already going hard on the Dems who have supported third-trimester abortions, including a certain VP candidate.
Polling on the subject almost everywhere in the US supports a more European approach, with a 12-20 week limit.
Yes and given the selection of Walz, it's clear it's the Democratic ticket that the extremist one on abortion.
Yes. He signed legislation dropping the requirements to record and notify babies born alive after abortion because of the numbers and impact of this hard fact.
It is, of course, worth remembering that the numbers here are tiny: in 2021 there were three cases of babies being born alive after failed abortions in Minnesota, and in 2020 there were none.
For what it's worth, I would severely limit abortions after 20 weeks, and would maintain the reporting requirement. But I think there's a tendency to claim that late term abortions are commonplace when they simply aren't. And when they do happen, it's usually because of very serious fetal abnormalities.
It would be interesting to look at those 3 cases to see what the story was, what impact the now (partially-?) repealed born alive law in Minnesota had. I suspect they were babies with a fatal diagnosis, who died quickly, and where maybe the only impact of the born alive law was to make parents and doctors worry whether the palliative care they wanted to give would be breaking the law - hence the repeal.
It is worth remembering both Arizona and Nevada will have abortion access on the ballot. In the mid-terms, in states where that was a question it proved damaging to the Republicans.
The abortion bills can favour either party, depending on the exact wording of the question.
Republicans are already going hard on the Dems who have supported third-trimester abortions, including a certain VP candidate.
Polling on the subject almost everywhere in the US supports a more European approach, with a 12-20 week limit.
Yes and given the selection of Walz, it's clear it's the Democratic ticket that the extremist one on abortion.
Yes. He signed legislation dropping the requirements to record and notify babies born alive after abortion because of the numbers and impact of this hard fact.
He signed legislation, as @rcs1000 noted, that codified various bits of case law into statute to make sure the Supreme Court's inept attempts at judicial proceedings couldn't get rid of them.
Whether you agree with abortion or not, that's hardly an unreasonable position to take.
Meanwhile, agitation for a nationwide ban on abortion under any circumstances is not merely unreasonable and extreme, it's fucking ludicrous.
Vance is an absolutist, never mind an extremist. Anyone suggesting Walz is more extreme than him on this issue is simply working from dogmatism.
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
You’re an excellent commenter, and properly respected, but this whole “China should invade Russia” discourse is a big pipe of crazy copium. Which you smoke every tine you worry about Ukraine
China is not going to invade Russia. It’s not going to annexe Siberia. It’s not going to do anything remotely like this because to do so would be instant world war 3 and Beijing would be a heap of radioactive ruins within 43 minutes
Nor is America about to “encourage” China to invade Russia, for the same reasons
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
It is worth remembering both Arizona and Nevada will have abortion access on the ballot. In the mid-terms, in states where that was a question it proved damaging to the Republicans.
The abortion bills can favour either party, depending on the exact wording of the question.
Republicans are already going hard on the Dems who have supported third-trimester abortions, including a certain VP candidate.
Polling on the subject almost everywhere in the US supports a more European approach, with a 12-20 week limit.
Yes and given the selection of Walz, it's clear it's the Democratic ticket that the extremist one on abortion.
Yes. He signed legislation dropping the requirements to record and notify babies born alive after abortion because of the numbers and impact of this hard fact.
He signed legislation, as @rcs1000 noted, that codified various bits of case law into statute to make sure the Supreme Court's inept attempts at judicial proceedings couldn't get rid of them.
Whether you agree with abortion or not, that's hardly an unreasonable position to take.
Meanwhile, agitation for a nationwide ban on abortion under any circumstances is not merely unreasonable and extreme, it's fucking ludicrous.
Vance is an absolutist, never mind an extremist. Anyone suggesting Walz is more extreme than him on this issue is simply working from dogmatism.
One in three women have an abortion in their lives (UK figure). Abortion is a normal and common part of healthcare. Politicians should visit abortion clinics as often as they visit other sorts of healthcare facilities.
The vast majority of abortions are early term. Late term abortions are very rare and reflect extreme situations. We should show great sympathy to the women facing those difficult circumstances, and the clinicians who have to deal with them.
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
You’re an excellent commenter, and properly respected, but this whole “China should invade Russia” discourse is a big pipe of crazy copium. Which you smoke every tine you worry about Ukraine
China is not going to invade Russia. It’s not going to annexe Siberia. It’s not going to do anything remotely like this because to do so would be instant world war 3 and Beijing would be a heap of radioactive ruins within 43 minutes
Nor is America about to “encourage” China to invade Russia, for the same reasons
It is quietly encouraging Chinese citizens to migrate there - they don’t need to invade
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
Oh indeed.
There’s a school of thought that says that if Trump gets elected, he says nothing directly about the Ukraine war - but gives a nudge to the Saudis to start pumping the black stuff, threatens China with tariffs, and arranges a load of cut-price military disposals to friendly nations…
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.
"And these days, computers (and computing power) is cheap."
I mean, as someone coming from the embedded world, that really isn't true for real programmers.
Kate Hoey @CatharineHoey Still no answer to why it will take to next year before Alex Rudakubana the alleged murderer of the 3 young girls in South Oct will stand trial ?
Community notes can be very entertaining sometimes. A genuinely great idea.
People dis Twitter* under Musk, but he has implemented two genuinely useful features:
(1) Community notes (2) People I follow
It means I see fewer Marjorie Taylor Greene posts. Which is good.
* I refuse to call it "X"
Community Notes predates Musk
Sort of.
There was a program that created Notes that predated Musk, but it wasn't very widespread nor was it open source - and it had a different name.
The current version dates from Musk.
The story I’ve seen elsewhere is that the current version was in development before Musk bought the company. He just happened to be in charge when it was finished up & pushed to production.
Always remember the six stages of a project:
1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the Guilty 5. Punishment of the Innocent 6. Praise for those not involved
There are some interesting horror stories out there about the Twitter code base and what was going on before the takeover. There was a reason that features were simply not appearing in production...
It is worth remembering both Arizona and Nevada will have abortion access on the ballot. In the mid-terms, in states where that was a question it proved damaging to the Republicans.
Trump has made clear he will leave abortion law to each state, he does not back a Federal abortion ban as some evangelicals want
Trump is what a typical New York social liberal would have been 20 years ago.
The Bill Maher viewpoint, where he says that his opinions haven’t changed for decades, but those of his (Dem) party have changed significantly.
That's a load of balls. A typical NY liberal would hardly have celebrated his achievement in enabling the repeal of Roe v Wade.
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
You’re an excellent commenter, and properly respected, but this whole “China should invade Russia” discourse is a big pipe of crazy copium. Which you smoke every tine you worry about Ukraine
China is not going to invade Russia. It’s not going to annexe Siberia. It’s not going to do anything remotely like this because to do so would be instant world war 3 and Beijing would be a heap of radioactive ruins within 43 minutes
Nor is America about to “encourage” China to invade Russia, for the same reasons
China also doesn't need to invade any part of Russia. It's pretty hard for Russia to escape satrapy status wrt China now.
That's actually one reason to tolerate India's continued close relations with Russia (although in the short term they're helping to fund Russia's war). It provides the most likely escape route for Russia from Chinese domination.
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
I can think of some not so young men still playing the field in middle age. Even eminent Conservatives. So you're in the wrong party.
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
What America really doesn't need is another election where the result isn't known for many days, (due to the ridiculous posting voting situation in the USA where such votes are allowed to arrive many weeks after the election as long as they're posted on election day).
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.”
"The real problem with Python and JavaScript is the large numbers of self taught people."
I'm self-taught in programming, and I'd argue that I met far less competent people coming through 'comp sci' or programming courses at uni than the self-taught ones. Albeit this was a couple of decades ago.
Back then, uni courses had massive gaps. One of the best coders I knew was a young guy who did a geography degree whose passion was coding. An absolute genius.
Self-teaching is not an efficient way of learning, but you learn a heck of a lot from the many and myriad mistakes you make. And are also more willing and competent to learn the big gaps - which uni used to leave as well.
Kate Hoey @CatharineHoey Still no answer to why it will take to next year before Alex Rudakubana the alleged murderer of the 3 young girls in South Oct will stand trial ?
Community notes can be very entertaining sometimes. A genuinely great idea.
People dis Twitter* under Musk, but he has implemented two genuinely useful features:
(1) Community notes (2) People I follow
It means I see fewer Marjorie Taylor Greene posts. Which is good.
* I refuse to call it "X"
Community Notes predates Musk
Sort of.
There was a program that created Notes that predated Musk, but it wasn't very widespread nor was it open source - and it had a different name.
The current version dates from Musk.
The story I’ve seen elsewhere is that the current version was in development before Musk bought the company. He just happened to be in charge when it was finished up & pushed to production.
Always remember the six stages of a project:
1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the Guilty 5. Punishment of the Innocent 6. Praise for those not involved
There are some interesting horror stories out there about the Twitter code base and what was going on before the takeover. There was a reason that features were simply not appearing in production...
Given Musk is apparently not a good coder, I wouldn't assume he's made the codebase any better...
The riots have stopped but a lower level violence will now replace it. Smaller acts. Local “events”
Bleak as bleh. I may actually move to lovely Pristina
Another example of this sort of thing.
"Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’ Ricky Jones arrested after video emerged in which he appeared to call for violence against ‘Nazi fascists’"
Kate Hoey @CatharineHoey Still no answer to why it will take to next year before Alex Rudakubana the alleged murderer of the 3 young girls in South Oct will stand trial ?
Community notes can be very entertaining sometimes. A genuinely great idea.
People dis Twitter* under Musk, but he has implemented two genuinely useful features:
(1) Community notes (2) People I follow
It means I see fewer Marjorie Taylor Greene posts. Which is good.
* I refuse to call it "X"
Community Notes predates Musk
Sort of.
There was a program that created Notes that predated Musk, but it wasn't very widespread nor was it open source - and it had a different name.
The current version dates from Musk.
The story I’ve seen elsewhere is that the current version was in development before Musk bought the company. He just happened to be in charge when it was finished up & pushed to production.
Always remember the six stages of a project:
1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the Guilty 5. Punishment of the Innocent 6. Praise for those not involved
There are some interesting horror stories out there about the Twitter code base and what was going on before the takeover. There was a reason that features were simply not appearing in production...
Given Musk is apparently not a good coder, I wouldn't assume he's made the codebase any better...
You're not say that he does all the coding for his companies, are you?
OT but while we wait, or not, for the next riots, this piece of Egyptology is arguing for hydraulic lifting of heavy loads in pyramid building. Still need to reread it to get my head around it and to decide how far it preempted the hydraulic lock on the Somerset Coal Canal. Access free to the full paper.
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
I can think of some not so young men still playing the field in middle age. Even eminent Conservatives. So you're in the wrong party.
I'm sure it's been mentioned elsewhere but today is the 50th anniversary of the resignation of Richard Nixon, the only POTUS (so far) to resign while in office.
An extraordinary time of political division in America, quite unlike today...
Er...
Nixon would be far too sane and balanced for today's GOP.
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
I can think of some not so young men still playing the field in middle age. Even eminent Conservatives. So you're in the wrong party.
I'm old enough to remember Back to Basics, see.
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were naughty boys
The riots have stopped but a lower level violence will now replace it. Smaller acts. Local “events”
Bleak as bleh. I may actually move to lovely Pristina
Another example of this sort of thing.
"Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’ Ricky Jones arrested after video emerged in which he appeared to call for violence against ‘Nazi fascists’"
His problem is that he is surely going to get a significant jail term, because he called for actual murder and people are getting 30 months for simply “shouting at policemen”
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?
Not him, certainly. Which is why I'm quite happy with him as Tory Leader, even if I hold him in considerable contempt.
I'm not sure any of the given options look decent - possibly down to the limited pool, possibly down to any with capability sitting it out. Hunt would probably be their best shot, but he's not going to stand and if he did, is never going to win. Cleverly might be the best out of the ones standing.
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
Especially if he wins the popular vote as well.
Last time a Republican won the popular vote and EC was 20 years ago in 2004, just as PB was starting.
On the natural pendulum the GOP are due a big presidential election win, if they had picked Haley they almost certainly would have got it, only Trump puts some doubt in it
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
As I said this morning I'm mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump victory. Much as you like to wish harm on your fellow posters I am sure we'll be fine. Sorry to disappoint you. I'll be sure to update you on some other misfortune as you'd appear to love that given your general misanthropy.
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
Especially if he wins the popular vote as well.
Last time a Republican won the popular vote and EC was 20 years ago in 2004, just as PB was starting.
On the natural pendulum the GOP are due a big presidential election win, if they had picked Haley they almost certainly would have got it, only Trump puts some doubt in it
You can back Republican party winning the popular vote at 4-1 on BF exchange if you really think your 'natural pendulum' theory means they should be favorites.
This seems a very common PB rallying call, with absolutely zero polling evidence for it. We don't have VI, and the only evidence we do have says that SKS personal rating is plummeting. But do whatever you need to comfort yourself. #OneTermKeir
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
As I said this morning I'm mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump victory. Much as you like to wish harm on your fellow posters I am sure we'll be fine. Sorry to disappoint you. I'll be sure to update you on some other misfortune as you'd appear to love that given your general misanthropy.
Leon isn't actually a misanthrope. He's just an inveterate windup merchant.
It is worth remembering both Arizona and Nevada will have abortion access on the ballot. In the mid-terms, in states where that was a question it proved damaging to the Republicans.
Trump has made clear he will leave abortion law to each state, he does not back a Federal abortion ban as some evangelicals want
Trump is what a typical New York social liberal would have been 20 years ago.
The Bill Maher viewpoint, where he says that his opinions haven’t changed for decades, but those of his (Dem) party have changed significantly.
That's a load of balls. A typical NY liberal would hardly have celebrated his achievement in enabling the repeal of Roe v Wade.
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
Especially if he wins the popular vote as well.
Last time a Republican won the popular vote and EC was 20 years ago in 2004, just as PB was starting.
On the natural pendulum the GOP are due a big presidential election win, if they had picked Haley they almost certainly would have got it, only Trump puts some doubt in it
A reminder that is the *only* time they have won the popular vote since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It isn't about the swing of the pendulum (the Democrats only won four presidential elections between 1856 and 1928) it's about retreating to a core vote and not trying to widen their appeal.
Dole, Romney, Bush Jr were all pretty right wing even if Bush snatched a couple of close victories. McCain was more centrist but decided to worship at the Tea Party's shrine by picking Palin as his running mate,
But Trump, oh my goodness. It's not even doubling down on that strategy.
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
As I said this morning I'm mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump victory. Much as you like to wish harm on your fellow posters I am sure we'll be fine. Sorry to disappoint you. I'll be sure to update you on some other misfortune as you'd appear to love that given your general misanthropy.
I really don’t wish harm on anyone on here. And actually I take exception to that. We are a weird kind of community and I wish everyone well, in real life, and I seek to empathise when people are genuinely sad or grieving or ill
I was touched and saddened by your own story, if you remember
Do I enjoy getting in verbal fights and ideological jousts and beating opponents? Yes. But that’s different. We all come here to spar and debate
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
I can think of some not so young men still playing the field in middle age. Even eminent Conservatives. So you're in the wrong party.
I'm old enough to remember Back to Basics, see.
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were naughty boys
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were caught being naughty boys
The riots have stopped but a lower level violence will now replace it. Smaller acts. Local “events”
Bleak as bleh. I may actually move to lovely Pristina
Another example of this sort of thing.
"Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’ Ricky Jones arrested after video emerged in which he appeared to call for violence against ‘Nazi fascists’"
His problem is that he is surely going to get a significant jail term, because he called for actual murder and people are getting 30 months for simply “shouting at policemen”
It would make a change from his usual concerns.
"He has been a strong voice for residents on issues ranging from housing and fly-tipping to unfair car parking charges."
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
I can think of some not so young men still playing the field in middle age. Even eminent Conservatives. So you're in the wrong party.
I'm old enough to remember Back to Basics, see.
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were naughty boys
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were caught being naughty boys
Tim Yeo had three children before being caught being a naughty boy.
A 29-year-old man who attended a protest against fascism in Plymouth has been jailed for 18 months after throwing missiles and swinging his motorbike helmet to knock a boy off his bike. Lucas Ormond Skeaping, 29, of Tavistock admitted a charge of violent disorder. The defendant’s legal team said Skeaping was “against fascism”, “abhors any form of racism” and had lost his employment at a bicycle company as a result of the incident.
Re: Trump’s self-announced press conference today at 2 pm: He’s panicking. I’ve seen this play many times. He thinks his team is failing him & no one can speak better/“save” his campaign/defend him but him. He hates the coverage Harris is getting & thinks only he can fix it.
A 29-year-old man who attended a protest against fascism in Plymouth has been jailed for 18 months after throwing missiles and swinging his motorbike helmet to knock a boy off his bike. Lucas Ormond Skeaping, 29, of Tavistock admitted a charge of violent disorder. The defendant’s legal team said Skeaping was “against fascism”, “abhors any form of racism” and had lost his employment at a bicycle company as a result of the incident.
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
As I said this morning I'm mentally and emotionally reconciled to a Trump victory. Much as you like to wish harm on your fellow posters I am sure we'll be fine. Sorry to disappoint you. I'll be sure to update you on some other misfortune as you'd appear to love that given your general misanthropy.
I wouldn't be fine. (1) Catastrophe for the US and the wider world. (2) A gross miscarriage of justice on the grandest scale. (3) Big betting loss. (4) My faith in my powers of intuition, assessment and judgement severely damaged (since I've been so confident for so long that Trump2 is not happening).
Due to significant changes on this platform in recent months, X is no longer consistent with our Trust values. Therefore RNOH is closing its account. Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram & LinkedIn. Thanks to everyone who has followed & supported us for the last 13 years.
To add to the abundance of prattery we have seen in recent days.
A positive side effect of this is that behaviour, particularly online, might calm down a bit. Facebook commentators encouraging people to run over cyclists, for example.
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
I can think of some not so young men still playing the field in middle age. Even eminent Conservatives. So you're in the wrong party.
I'm old enough to remember Back to Basics, see.
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were naughty boys
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were caught being naughty boys
Tim Yeo had three children before being caught being a naughty boy.
No. 1 came as a surprise to his wife...
I've never understood who has time for an affair: I mean it would really get in the way of posting on PB.
I do worry how some of you will cope if Trump wins
Especially if he wins the popular vote as well.
Last time a Republican won the popular vote and EC was 20 years ago in 2004, just as PB was starting.
On the natural pendulum the GOP are due a big presidential election win, if they had picked Haley they almost certainly would have got it, only Trump puts some doubt in it
A reminder that is the *only* time they have won the popular vote since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It isn't about the swing of the pendulum (the Democrats only won four presidential elections between 1856 and 1928) it's about retreating to a core vote and not trying to widen their appeal.
Dole, Romney, Bush Jr were all pretty right wing even if Bush snatched a couple of close victories. McCain was more centrist but decided to worship at the Tea Party's shrine by picking Palin as his running mate,
But Trump, oh my goodness. It's not even doubling down on that strategy.
Indeed, albeit from 1952 to 1988 the GOP won the popular vote in 7 out of 10 presidential elections, so they can do it.
It is just the fact Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 won the EC without needing to win the popular vote meant they could afford to risk a core vote strategy as long as it was still enough to win most swing states
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
You’re an excellent commenter, and properly respected, but this whole “China should invade Russia” discourse is a big pipe of crazy copium. Which you smoke every tine you worry about Ukraine
China is not going to invade Russia. It’s not going to annexe Siberia. It’s not going to do anything remotely like this because to do so would be instant world war 3 and Beijing would be a heap of radioactive ruins within 43 minutes
Nor is America about to “encourage” China to invade Russia, for the same reasons
It isn't just that. It's also that it doesn't really need to. What's it going to do with its new colony of Russia? Extract cheap oil from it? It's doing that already. Vs. having to invade and defend it. You don't invade somewhere you don't need to. Taiwan is personal - that's different.
This seems a very common PB rallying call, with absolutely zero polling evidence for it. We don't have VI, and the only evidence we do have says that SKS personal rating is plummeting. But do whatever you need to comfort yourself. #OneTermKeir
From the bloke who thought Liz Truss would be a huge success
Due to significant changes on this platform in recent months, X is no longer consistent with our Trust values. Therefore RNOH is closing its account. Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram & LinkedIn. Thanks to everyone who has followed & supported us for the last 13 years.
The riots have stopped but a lower level violence will now replace it. Smaller acts. Local “events”
Bleak as bleh. I may actually move to lovely Pristina
Another example of this sort of thing.
"Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’ Ricky Jones arrested after video emerged in which he appeared to call for violence against ‘Nazi fascists’"
His problem is that he is surely going to get a significant jail term, because he called for actual murder and people are getting 30 months for simply “shouting at policemen”
I've just - for reasons - taken a quick look at the X account of Ashlea Simon, the leader of Britain First. She doesn't quite have your prose skills but the sentiments and agenda are almost identical. Don't know what you have to say about that.
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.
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.
The UA troops involved are presumably some of the best they have, who must know that they are on a suicide mission if they can’t extract themselves.
But it does highlight that Russia can’t defend its own border, with their forces spread thinly to allow deployments further South.
If this is a successful raid by UA troops, we might well see this as a regular occurrence. I can’t imagine that the UA army can actually hold any Russian territory for more than a few days, but they’ve shown they can do it and draw what’s likely to be a massive redeployment of Russian troops from more important (to UA) places.
The folk looking at this escapade with greatest interest will be in Beijing.
Everything east of the Urals is yours for the taking, guys...
Oh indeed, if the Russians can’t defend their border with Ukraine 100km North of the conflict zone, what chance they can defend 10,000km of border anywhere else?
America might quietly suggest they would be rather more relaxed about Chinese ambitions of empire being manifested in that direction rather than in acquiring Taiwan.
You’re an excellent commenter, and properly respected, but this whole “China should invade Russia” discourse is a big pipe of crazy copium. Which you smoke every tine you worry about Ukraine
China is not going to invade Russia. It’s not going to annexe Siberia. It’s not going to do anything remotely like this because to do so would be instant world war 3 and Beijing would be a heap of radioactive ruins within 43 minutes
Nor is America about to “encourage” China to invade Russia, for the same reasons
It isn't just that. It's also that it doesn't really need to. What's it going to do with its new colony of Russia? Extract cheap oil from it? It's doing that already. Vs. having to invade and defend it. You don't invade somewhere you don't need to. Taiwan is personal - that's different.
Yes. Russia will become a feudal state, subject to China, like 13th century Brittany paying obeisance to France. Or Scotland at any time
Bit of a bummer for the ultra-nationalist Russian philosophes who envisaged China subservient to Moscow
Re: Trump’s self-announced press conference today at 2 pm: He’s panicking. I’ve seen this play many times. He thinks his team is failing him & no one can speak better/“save” his campaign/defend him but him. He hates the coverage Harris is getting & thinks only he can fix it.
It's also the two year anniversary of the FBI raid on Mar a Lago. Conincidence ?
The riots have stopped but a lower level violence will now replace it. Smaller acts. Local “events”
Bleak as bleh. I may actually move to lovely Pristina
Another example of this sort of thing.
"Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’ Ricky Jones arrested after video emerged in which he appeared to call for violence against ‘Nazi fascists’"
His problem is that he is surely going to get a significant jail term, because he called for actual murder and people are getting 30 months for simply “shouting at policemen”
I've just - for reasons - taken a quick look at the X account of Ashlea Simon, the leader of Britain First. She doesn't quite have your prose skills but the sentiments and agenda are almost identical. Don't know what you have to say about that.
I told you, I did the latest political compass test, and I came out EXACTLY on the spot supposedly occupied by the classic Conservatives. It’s just that the actual Conservatives have moved to the left of Blair
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.
It is part of the answer but not the only one, as I said on the previous thread in the 1930s most 20-30 year olds rented and a few were unemployed in the depression but most had 2 or more children by 35.
Yes we need more affordable homes to buy or rent but women continuing to prioritise graduate careers as their focus until their mid 30s-early 40s rather than marriage and children as well will continue to keep the fertility rate down
What has the 1930s got to do with modern Britain and re your last paragraph my daughter in law had her first child at 30 and her third child at 40 so she is hardly keeping fertility rates down
First child at 30 is better than the UK average of 32 now
We should ensure homes are affordable so people can settle down into a home of their own in their twenties.
We should but even if the average home was only 4 times average salary and immigration was brought under control reducing demand I suspect many professional women graduates would still put their careers first in their 20s and not think about having children until over 30. Many young men would also put playing the field first in their 20s too. Even if they all owned their own home by 30
I can think of some not so young men still playing the field in middle age. Even eminent Conservatives. So you're in the wrong party.
I'm old enough to remember Back to Basics, see.
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were naughty boys
Yes but even David Mellor and Cecil Parkinson had had 2 children each before they were caught being naughty boys
Tim Yeo had three children before being caught being a naughty boy.
No. 1 came as a surprise to his wife...
I've never understood who has time for an affair: I mean it would really get in the way of posting on PB.
Comments
Always remember the six stages of a project:
1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the Guilty
5. Punishment of the Innocent
6. Praise for those not involved
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
Though of course 84% of Romanians say religion is important to them, even higher than the 54% of Irish who say religion is important to them.
As I said in France it is religious Muslims having the most children, not white secular French
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
Hopefully - somehow - we can swerve this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/most-british-women-wait-until-32-to-have-first-child/
One nationism failed utterly under Sunak. Even the staunchest wets can see that the previous approach didn't work. TBH I'd be surprised if Tugundhat or Stride are expecting to achieve anything more than a shadow cabinet position from their runs....
An extraordinary time of political division in America, quite unlike today...
Er...
The ideal outcome from Russia's war on Ukraine is a future where conflict with China becomes less likely, because they are deterred by the strength of democracies.
Inviting them to dismember Russia would be to advertise our weakness.
Trump 2.06
Harris 2.08
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927
(I, however, would not hire him as a junior developer
He and Harris visited an abortion clinic together.
They are the zealots.
China is not going to invade Russia. It’s not going to annexe Siberia. It’s not going to do anything remotely like this because to do so would be instant world war 3 and Beijing would be a heap of radioactive ruins within 43 minutes
Nor is America about to “encourage” China to invade Russia, for the same reasons
The vast majority of abortions are early term. Late term abortions are very rare and reflect extreme situations. We should show great sympathy to the women facing those difficult circumstances, and the clinicians who have to deal with them.
There’s a school of thought that says that if Trump gets elected, he says nothing directly about the Ukraine war - but gives a nudge to the Saudis to start pumping the black stuff, threatens China with tariffs, and arranges a load of cut-price military disposals to friendly nations…
I mean, as someone coming from the embedded world, that really isn't true for real programmers.
A typical NY liberal would hardly have celebrated his achievement in enabling the repeal of Roe v Wade.
That's actually one reason to tolerate India's continued close relations with Russia (although in the short term they're helping to fund Russia's war). It provides the most likely escape route for Russia from Chinese domination.
I'm old enough to remember Back to Basics, see.
I'm self-taught in programming, and I'd argue that I met far less competent people coming through 'comp sci' or programming courses at uni than the self-taught ones. Albeit this was a couple of decades ago.
Back then, uni courses had massive gaps. One of the best coders I knew was a young guy who did a geography degree whose passion was coding. An absolute genius.
Self-teaching is not an efficient way of learning, but you learn a heck of a lot from the many and myriad mistakes you make. And are also more willing and competent to learn the big gaps - which uni used to leave as well.
"Suspended Labour councillor arrested over video ‘urging people to cut throats’
Ricky Jones arrested after video emerged in which he appeared to call for violence against ‘Nazi fascists’"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/08/labour-suspends-councillor-video-far-right-protesters
(But I have it 1.7 vs 2.5 to Harris)
PS I sent you a private message.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306690
His problem is that he is surely going to get a significant jail term, because he called for actual murder and people are getting 30 months for simply “shouting at policemen”
Which is why I'm quite happy with him as Tory Leader, even if I hold him in considerable contempt.
I'm not sure any of the given options look decent - possibly down to the limited pool, possibly down to any with capability sitting it out. Hunt would probably be their best shot, but he's not going to stand and if he did, is never going to win.
Cleverly might be the best out of the ones standing.
"Can my husband find out who I am voting for in the Presidential Election?" 🗳️
We've been getting this question a lot, so we rounded up some helpful facts. Please share this 🧵
https://x.com/thedigitalyenta/status/1821281407601406171
Last time a Republican won the popular vote and EC was 20 years ago in 2004, just as PB was starting.
On the natural pendulum the GOP are due a big presidential election win, if they had picked Haley they almost certainly would have got it, only Trump puts some doubt in it
Worst for the Tories/best for us (LDs): Badenoch, Jenrick
Maybe bad, maybe good: Patel, Tugendhat
Best for Tores/worst for us: Cleverly
Who?: Stride
The fight for a Top 5 finish possibly Top 4 continues
Any of the above could win though if Labour muck up the economy and fail to stop the boats
He's just an inveterate windup merchant.
It isn't about the swing of the pendulum (the Democrats only won four presidential elections between 1856 and 1928) it's about retreating to a core vote and not trying to widen their appeal.
Dole, Romney, Bush Jr were all pretty right wing even if Bush snatched a couple of close victories. McCain was more centrist but decided to worship at the Tea Party's shrine by picking Palin as his running mate,
But Trump, oh my goodness. It's not even doubling down on that strategy.
I was touched and saddened by your own story, if you remember
Do I enjoy getting in verbal fights and ideological jousts and beating opponents? Yes. But that’s different. We all come here to spar and debate
I presume he'll turn up 6 months later to re-open the fixed library or something.
"He has been a strong voice for residents on issues ranging from housing and fly-tipping to unfair car parking charges."
https://www.dartfordlabour.org.uk/ricky-jones/
No. 1 came as a surprise to his wife...
A 29-year-old man who attended a protest against fascism in Plymouth has been jailed for 18 months after throwing missiles and swinging his motorbike helmet to knock a boy off his bike.
Lucas Ormond Skeaping, 29, of Tavistock admitted a charge of violent disorder.
The defendant’s legal team said Skeaping was “against fascism”, “abhors any form of racism” and had lost his employment at a bicycle company as a result of the incident.
@OMGrisham
Re: Trump’s self-announced press conference today at 2 pm: He’s panicking. I’ve seen this play many times. He thinks his team is failing him & no one can speak better/“save” his campaign/defend him but him. He hates the coverage Harris is getting & thinks only he can fix it.
To add to the abundance of prattery we have seen in recent days.
https://x.com/RNOHnhs/status/1821456025553076606
I wonder if many other public bodies will follow suit
We won 4 -3 on aggregate.
https://x.com/mbrg0/status/1821551825369415875
It is just the fact Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 won the EC without needing to win the popular vote meant they could afford to risk a core vote strategy as long as it was still enough to win most swing states
Is there mortar this story?
Bit of a bummer for the ultra-nationalist Russian philosophes who envisaged China subservient to Moscow
Conincidence ?
On the face of it, that does sound rather harsh.