"Why Britain stopped buying the Daily Telegraph. Soaring prices and a lurch to the batshit crazy right have created a rising tide of Telegraph apathy".
Its my wife's birthday on 7th September and she has finally conceded that she needs a smartphone. Any recommendations? She needs to pick up emails and text messages from our needy kids, phone messages from her mother and the unending supply of agencies involved in her care and she likes some games like Candy crush. Nothing too fancy.
iPhone SE. cheapest one.
Think of it as the cheapest house on the nicest street.
Yes, she loves her Ipads and the phone being able to speak to them would be helpful.
@Sandpit is right in principle but the current iPhone SE is very outdated and due for an update soon, so of the current range that you can buy new, an iPhone 13 would be the best value.
While it’s true that the iPhone range is about to be updated, if you want a phone for your emails and messages, rather than for shooting and editing video in the field, then the cheapest SE is more than good enough. Can’t say I’ve experienced battery trouble with them either, usually still 40-50% at the end of the day.
What does kill the battery on any phone, is going into the countryside and areas of poor signal, as the phone turns its power up to try and get connected.
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply: Best case: she’s drunk. Worst case: she isn’t.
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply: Best case: she’s drunk. Worst case: she isn’t.
You are REALLY desperate for Trump to win, IF you think this is some kind of horrible gaff.
KH is making WAY more sense than DJT or his Mini-Me, the Recovering Hillbilly.
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply: Best case: she’s drunk. Worst case: she isn’t.
I actually quite like it when she talks like this, (not being sarcastic). But I doubt the average swing voter in Pennsylvania is impressed by it much.
I was just thinking, we still haven't heard anything about the insider betting investigations. How long can it possibly take?
Yes, the gambling commission were very proactive before the election. But now it’s lost all its urgency. Funny that.
While investigations take time, think you guys do have a point here. Certainly, some kind of update seems reasonable, if only to say their still working on it.
Wondering how this dovetails, if it does at all, with US regulator of derivitive markets proposals to increase regulation and limit sepeculation in political forecasting markets on this side of the Atlantic . . . and Pacific.
I was just thinking, we still haven't heard anything about the insider betting investigations. How long can it possibly take?
Yes, the gambling commission were very proactive before the election. But now it’s lost all its urgency. Funny that.
I reckon its because in the end it will with perhaps exception of one case be lots of £50-100 based on my mate's mate told him that...lots of stupid / greedy people thinking they can win a few £100s based on gossip.
There is only one name who could well have known and looked like more than a casual flutter.
I was just thinking, we still haven't heard anything about the insider betting investigations. How long can it possibly take?
Yes, the gambling commission were very proactive before the election. But now it’s lost all its urgency. Funny that.
While investigations take time, think you guys do have a point here. Certainly, some kind of update seems reasonable, if only to say their still working on it.
Wondering how this dovetails, if it does at all, with US regulator of derivitive markets proposals to increase regulation and limit sepeculation in political forecasting markets on this side of the Atlantic . . . and Pacific.
It really isn't a very difficult investigation. You ask Sunak when the decision was made, who was informed and when, and you look at all the betting patterns around that time period. For insider sports betting they don't take long at all when they have some evidence it isn't on the up and up.
Not many people will have known when the market thought it was crazy thinking, so its them and their family. All the bookies have tools for all of this.
After yesterday's reporting, I have so many questions to which still no relevant politician or spokesperson from a relevant ministry has provided an answer.
1) If Germany seriously wants to finance its aid only via the G-7 loan, what is stopping other countries from doing the same? Imagine just the US doing this... It wouldn't work.
2) Therefore → Why do the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellery think that Germany has a special right compared to other G7 members?
3) Wouldn't Ukraine actually finance the German bilateral assistance to Ukraine, since the loan is being paid out to Ukraine and only after that they spend the money?
4) Why should we end up with no expenditure from the annual budget, while other countries have to pay billions upon billions of euros out of their own pockets to Ukraine?
5) If Germany is not even willing to pay a few billion euros out of its own pocket, why should much smaller and economically weaker countries do so?
You can construct a much better argument that Trump is a fascist than Kamela is a communist.
Actually Donald Trump LOVES Communists! Recently sent Xi a fricking love letter.
PLUS is good buddies with Kim the Commie dictator of North Korea.
AND is well-know for wanting to give up Ukraine on a sliver platter to Putin.
So no wonder Trump-fluffers like NY Post AND our own PB Sophist-in Chief, who descirates the UKR flag every time he stirs more shit on here.
The word communist isn’t a synonym for “cartoon villain enemy of the US”.
Wait - Putin is a cartoon villain? Fuck me, even by your standards that is some pivot. Though given your love for MAGA maybe shouldn't have been unexpected
Perhaps @edmundintokyo can comment, but I was struck by this (which goes against conventional PB wisdom): … If you’re buying a house for the first time or looking to significantly upgrade, you want house prices to be as low as possible. But if you already own a home that you’re happy with, you want the price of that home to be as high as possible, so that you can make the homebuyers pay you a lot of money when you’re finally ready to sell. It’s basically a zero-sum game.
Now at this point, most people say “This is a bad system, it doesn’t have to be this way.” But unfortunately, they’re probably wrong. Lots of people cite Japan as a place where houses depreciate, but this is actually a statistical trick. Japan breaks out the value of housing structures and land separately. The housing structures depreciate, but the land under the houses — which represents 85% of the total value of housing/land in Japan — actually appreciates over time. In fact, Japan has a much higher percent of total household wealth tied up in owner-occupied housing/land than America does. America actually has the lowest percent of wealth in housing out of any OECD country:..
After yesterday's reporting, I have so many questions to which still no relevant politician or spokesperson from a relevant ministry has provided an answer.
1) If Germany seriously wants to finance its aid only via the G-7 loan, what is stopping other countries from doing the same? Imagine just the US doing this... It wouldn't work.
2) Therefore → Why do the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellery think that Germany has a special right compared to other G7 members?
3) Wouldn't Ukraine actually finance the German bilateral assistance to Ukraine, since the loan is being paid out to Ukraine and only after that they spend the money?
4) Why should we end up with no expenditure from the annual budget, while other countries have to pay billions upon billions of euros out of their own pockets to Ukraine?
5) If Germany is not even willing to pay a few billion euros out of its own pocket, why should much smaller and economically weaker countries do so?
It's only whoever this is who is saying Germany will "finance its aid only via the G-7 loan", everybody else is talking about an apparent plan to cut German military aid from 8 billion to 4 billion, so I'm not sure I'd bother waiting for this person's 'updates'.
Perhaps @edmundintokyo can comment, but I was struck by this (which goes against conventional PB wisdom): … If you’re buying a house for the first time or looking to significantly upgrade, you want house prices to be as low as possible. But if you already own a home that you’re happy with, you want the price of that home to be as high as possible, so that you can make the homebuyers pay you a lot of money when you’re finally ready to sell. It’s basically a zero-sum game.
Now at this point, most people say “This is a bad system, it doesn’t have to be this way.” But unfortunately, they’re probably wrong. Lots of people cite Japan as a place where houses depreciate, but this is actually a statistical trick. Japan breaks out the value of housing structures and land separately. The housing structures depreciate, but the land under the houses — which represents 85% of the total value of housing/land in Japan — actually appreciates over time. In fact, Japan has a much higher percent of total household wealth tied up in owner-occupied housing/land than America does. America actually has the lowest percent of wealth in housing out of any OECD country:..
That's an interesting fact, thanks. So surprising I wonder if it's true, or the whole story.
After yesterday's reporting, I have so many questions to which still no relevant politician or spokesperson from a relevant ministry has provided an answer.
1) If Germany seriously wants to finance its aid only via the G-7 loan, what is stopping other countries from doing the same? Imagine just the US doing this... It wouldn't work.
2) Therefore → Why do the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellery think that Germany has a special right compared to other G7 members?
3) Wouldn't Ukraine actually finance the German bilateral assistance to Ukraine, since the loan is being paid out to Ukraine and only after that they spend the money?
4) Why should we end up with no expenditure from the annual budget, while other countries have to pay billions upon billions of euros out of their own pockets to Ukraine?
5) If Germany is not even willing to pay a few billion euros out of its own pocket, why should much smaller and economically weaker countries do so?
It's only whoever this is who is saying Germany will "finance its aid only via the G-7 loan", everybody else is talking about an apparent plan to cut German military aid from 8 billion to 4 billion, so I'm not sure I'd bother waiting for this person's 'updates'.
It's extremely stupid and short-sighted by Germany. It's been clear by Putin's/Russia's actions since 2008 that they crave an expansion of their empire, and that will eventually come into conflict with Europe. And better to stop their crazy fascism now in Ukraine, than in a decade on Germany's eastern borders.
Perhaps @edmundintokyo can comment, but I was struck by this (which goes against conventional PB wisdom): … If you’re buying a house for the first time or looking to significantly upgrade, you want house prices to be as low as possible. But if you already own a home that you’re happy with, you want the price of that home to be as high as possible, so that you can make the homebuyers pay you a lot of money when you’re finally ready to sell. It’s basically a zero-sum game.
Now at this point, most people say “This is a bad system, it doesn’t have to be this way.” But unfortunately, they’re probably wrong. Lots of people cite Japan as a place where houses depreciate, but this is actually a statistical trick. Japan breaks out the value of housing structures and land separately. The housing structures depreciate, but the land under the houses — which represents 85% of the total value of housing/land in Japan — actually appreciates over time. In fact, Japan has a much higher percent of total household wealth tied up in owner-occupied housing/land than America does. America actually has the lowest percent of wealth in housing out of any OECD country:..
Interesting, and I like the author generally but I'm sceptical. His thought applies to people who are at the top of housing curve, ie who expect to downsize or never move again.
In practice, large numbers of home owners would like to own a bigger house - and so would benefit from a general fall in prices.
"Emperor" Xi has described himself as in favor of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". At the risk of angering some of you, I will say that sounds a bit like a kind of national socialism.
I thought a Chinese president said he was in favour of this about 35 years ago.
The phrase is most associated with Deng Xiaoping and is from the beginning of the age of Reform after the arrest of the Gang of Four, so starting in the late 1970s. It gets "updated " with each new leadership cadre and is noticeably more restrictive under Xi Jingping than under Deng or even Jiang Zemin. These days it doesnt really have much coherence, but it is not necessarily repressive and indeed it really started as a pragmatic Reform programme.
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply: Best case: she’s drunk. Worst case: she isn’t.
How is that a word salad? The election is about democracy in the US. Democracy is a great system and protects the rights of individuals. But democracy is also fragile (i.e. under threat from Trump). That’s entirely reasonable.
After yesterday's reporting, I have so many questions to which still no relevant politician or spokesperson from a relevant ministry has provided an answer.
1) If Germany seriously wants to finance its aid only via the G-7 loan, what is stopping other countries from doing the same? Imagine just the US doing this... It wouldn't work.
2) Therefore → Why do the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellery think that Germany has a special right compared to other G7 members?
3) Wouldn't Ukraine actually finance the German bilateral assistance to Ukraine, since the loan is being paid out to Ukraine and only after that they spend the money?
4) Why should we end up with no expenditure from the annual budget, while other countries have to pay billions upon billions of euros out of their own pockets to Ukraine?
5) If Germany is not even willing to pay a few billion euros out of its own pocket, why should much smaller and economically weaker countries do so?
It's only whoever this is who is saying Germany will "finance its aid only via the G-7 loan", everybody else is talking about an apparent plan to cut German military aid from 8 billion to 4 billion, so I'm not sure I'd bother waiting for this person's 'updates'.
It's extremely stupid and short-sighted by Germany. It's been clear by Putin's/Russia's actions since 2008 that they crave an expansion of their empire, and that will eventually come into conflict with Europe. And better to stop their crazy fascism now in Ukraine, than in a decade on Germany's eastern borders.
Yes, I'm questioning why the normally more reliable @Nigelb seems to be misreporting this by quoting someone on Twitter rather than the many news reports on the subject Eg https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kr91zqp0lo
Perhaps @edmundintokyo can comment, but I was struck by this (which goes against conventional PB wisdom): … If you’re buying a house for the first time or looking to significantly upgrade, you want house prices to be as low as possible. But if you already own a home that you’re happy with, you want the price of that home to be as high as possible, so that you can make the homebuyers pay you a lot of money when you’re finally ready to sell. It’s basically a zero-sum game.
Now at this point, most people say “This is a bad system, it doesn’t have to be this way.” But unfortunately, they’re probably wrong. Lots of people cite Japan as a place where houses depreciate, but this is actually a statistical trick. Japan breaks out the value of housing structures and land separately. The housing structures depreciate, but the land under the houses — which represents 85% of the total value of housing/land in Japan — actually appreciates over time. In fact, Japan has a much higher percent of total household wealth tied up in owner-occupied housing/land than America does. America actually has the lowest percent of wealth in housing out of any OECD country:..
That's an interesting fact, thanks. So surprising I wonder if it's true, or the whole story.
Japan flat in real terms since 1956, UK going stratospheric. No idea how reliable the source is but it claims the data are comparable so Japan is presumably land + structure. I don't understand this. I knew about physical structure depreciating (to do with wooden buildings in earthquake zone) but I would expect actual land value to compensate given Japanese wealth and population density.
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply: Best case: she’s drunk. Worst case: she isn’t.
How is that a word salad? The election is about democracy in the US. Democracy is a great system and protects the rights of individuals. But democracy is also fragile (i.e. under threat from Trump). That’s entirely reasonable.
I'm ok with it. The anti Trump case put in plain and simple terms.
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply: Best case: she’s drunk. Worst case: she isn’t.
How is that a word salad? The election is about democracy in the US. Democracy is a great system and protects the rights of individuals. But democracy is also fragile (i.e. under threat from Trump). That’s entirely reasonable.
I'm ok with it. The anti Trump case put in plain and simple terms.
It lacks a little punch, but makes much more sense than any of the shit that floods out of Trump's dribbling mouth.
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply: Best case: she’s drunk. Worst case: she isn’t.
How is that a word salad? The election is about democracy in the US. Democracy is a great system and protects the rights of individuals. But democracy is also fragile (i.e. under threat from Trump). That’s entirely reasonable.
I'm ok with it. The anti Trump case put in plain and simple terms.
It lacks a little punch, but makes much more sense than any of the shit that floods out of Trump's dribbling mouth.
In a politer way, I'd agree. She is prone to speaking in rather bland and mindless clichés, and not knowing how she's going to end a sentence once she's begun it. But she's up against someone who rambles on for hours, so there's little chance of it doing her significant damage.
Comments
What does kill the battery on any phone, is going into the countryside and areas of poor signal, as the phone turns its power up to try and get connected.
https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1825251408288862287
"Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy. As a democracy, we know there's a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is in tact. What it does for its people to protect and defend their rights. Incredibly strong. And incredibly fragile."
As someone on Twitter said in reply:
Best case: she’s drunk.
Worst case: she isn’t.
(per the Times)
Cleverly 26
Patel 20
Badenoch 14
Tugendhat 11
Jenrick 10
Stride 4
Head to Heads:
Cleverly 45, Patel 39
Cleverly 49, Jenrick 28
Cleverly 51, Badenoch 28
Cleverly 54, Tugendhat 23
Cleverly 59, Stride 15
Date: 2-12 August
Sample size: 805
Poll was conducted by Cleverly campaign
KH is making WAY more sense than DJT or his Mini-Me, the Recovering Hillbilly.
Wondering how this dovetails, if it does at all, with US regulator of derivitive markets proposals to increase regulation and limit sepeculation in political forecasting markets on this side of the Atlantic . . . and Pacific.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1825278689463951538
There is only one name who could well have known and looked like more than a casual flutter.
Not many people will have known when the market thought it was crazy thinking, so its them and their family. All the bookies have tools for all of this.
Especially give her opponent's ability to mangle words, even when apparently sober.
After yesterday's reporting, I have so many questions to which still no relevant politician or spokesperson from a relevant ministry has provided an answer.
1) If Germany seriously wants to finance its aid only via the G-7 loan, what is stopping other countries from doing the same? Imagine just the US doing this... It wouldn't work.
2) Therefore → Why do the Ministry of Finance and the Chancellery think that Germany has a special right compared to other G7 members?
3) Wouldn't Ukraine actually finance the German bilateral assistance to Ukraine, since the loan is being paid out to Ukraine and only after that they spend the money?
4) Why should we end up with no expenditure from the annual budget, while other countries have to pay billions upon billions of euros out of their own pockets to Ukraine?
5) If Germany is not even willing to pay a few billion euros out of its own pocket, why should much smaller and economically weaker countries do so?
I sincerely hope (for all of us) to be able to answer most if not all the questions tomorrow. I'll keep you updated.
https://x.com/deaidua/status/1825148421268746468
Michigan Presidential Polling:
Harris (D): 47%
Trump (R): 44%
Rasmussen / Aug 17, 2024 / n=1093
Laid out here.
OK, it's time to talk about Egypt.
The thwarted DoJ investigation into an alleged $10 million Egyptian bribe to Trump in 2016-17 has gotten attention on here
But I haven’t seen any discussion of the wider *context* of U.S. foreign policy toward Egypt, and why it matters 🧵(1/n) ..
https://x.com/gm_silverman/status/1825356011554697630
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/harris-has-the-right-idea-on-housing
Perhaps @edmundintokyo can comment, but I was struck by this (which goes against conventional PB wisdom):
… If you’re buying a house for the first time or looking to significantly upgrade, you want house prices to be as low as possible. But if you already own a home that you’re happy with, you want the price of that home to be as high as possible, so that you can make the homebuyers pay you a lot of money when you’re finally ready to sell. It’s basically a zero-sum game.
Now at this point, most people say “This is a bad system, it doesn’t have to be this way.” But unfortunately, they’re probably wrong. Lots of people cite Japan as a place where houses depreciate, but this is actually a statistical trick. Japan breaks out the value of housing structures and land separately. The housing structures depreciate, but the land under the houses — which represents 85% of the total value of housing/land in Japan — actually appreciates over time. In fact, Japan has a much higher percent of total household wealth tied up in owner-occupied housing/land than America does. America actually has the lowest percent of wealth in housing out of any OECD country:..
In practice, large numbers of home owners would like to own a bigger house - and so would benefit from a general fall in prices.
As a comparator, American casualties in the Vietnam war were 58,281 KIA and 153,372 WIA requiring hospitalization.
NEW THREAD
Eg
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kr91zqp0lo
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QJPR368BIS
Japan flat in real terms since 1956, UK going stratospheric. No idea how reliable the source is but it claims the data are comparable so Japan is presumably land + structure. I don't understand this. I knew about physical structure depreciating (to do with wooden buildings in earthquake zone) but I would expect actual land value to compensate given Japanese wealth and population density.