If exchange watchers have noticed a switch to Trump today, more than likely fuelled by RFK likely dropping out and endorsing the Orange One..the same RFK who reached out to Kamala last week and got trashed...and that same RFK who trades on his name and is a massive Bellend.....
What massive reward has Trump 2.0 offered?
Secretary of State?
Vaccine Czar?
Nothing.
This isn’t even a promise (which would anyway be worthless from Trump), but RFK is probably dumb or desperate enough not to notice.
Reporter: Would you consider putting RFK Jr in your administration?
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
Canada (only jurisdiction I know about) has an annual limit currently $7000 and cumulative limit 95000. £4000 and 54000. Seems a bit more reasonable but please god let them grandfather existing accounts.
Labour LOVE tax but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the tax free status of existing ISAs will be changed (probably)
I think if they did that they'd switch places with the Tories in 2029. It would be the most unpopular policy for a generation. There's something like 20m people who have ISAs, Labour would risk pissing each and every one of them off if they didn't grandfather in existing pots into any cap policy.
Surely an admin nightmare for the ages to retrospectively apply tax for ISAs?
Not retrospective taxation. Just stripping the protections and/or capping the amount that can be claimed in a given year
I think that happened as Hillary Clinton was speaking at the DNC. Punters got confused for a second.
I thought Hillary spoke very well last night, it is a pity she is such a poor campaigner (even though she did win the popular vote) as she would have been a very tough and competent President. Foreign leaders would have respected her even if not always liked her in a way they don't really with Biden and likely won't with Harris and didn't even with Obama by the end of his term despite their mostly warm initial welcome for him and they just mostly see Trump as mad
She did. I was just joking. That glass ceiling should have smashed in 16. It will now.
I always dislike that phrasing
Knew a kid when I was growing up who ran through a glass door. Scarred him for life.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
The issue is that you have 2 options:
1) hold the purchases bonds until maturity, at which point the notional losses disappears as the principal is retired. However this means that the money supply is higher than desired for an extended period of time with the result there is upward pressure on inflation
2) sell the bonds, retiring the money that they receive but crystallising the losses. This reduces the pressure on inflation (by reducing the money supply) but triggers a loss on disposal which needs to be funded.
There are no clever solutions - chose a point on a line connecting those two options.
The whole “treasury indemnity” thing is irrelevant. Either (a) the Treasury indemnifies the Bank for the losses; (b) monetary policy is set based on technical accounting policies and the Court of the Bank of England not wanting to trade while insolvent; or (c) the Bank goes ahead and does it and causes a loss in the balance sheet triggering an emergency fundraising from its sole shareholder, the UK government.
At least option c would have the merit that we’d stop hearing from the SNP folks on here that they own a share in the Bank
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
I think £5k for cash and £10k for shares is coming soon. Right now couples are able to shelter £40k per year of their wealth into tax free growth and income. It's absolutely brilliant but potentially overly generous, we still need something fairly generous to encourage saving and investment, but maybe £20k per year is too much. I like the idea of £50k over a 5 year period and no allowance for cash ISAs, only give the tax break for equity investments so that risk taking is rewarded rather than idle cash which should be taxed as normal.
What is the purpose of ISAs? If it is to encourage saving rather than risk-taking, then cash and shares should continue to be treated equally.
As for the allowance, I'd say £20,000 per household is about right. It should target the amount paid on the mortgage, so once the mortgage is paid off as people reach their middle ages, they save the money instead of splurging on luxury imports like new cars or exotic holidays. As it happens, the average mortgage repayment is around £16,000 a year which is £20,000 as near as damn it. Again, it comes down to what is the government's motivation for ISAs in the first place.
For the government to restore its coffers, I'd suggest they look at pensions: both higher rate tax relief on contributions and also some of the shenanigans around salary sacrifice.
"Barrister and Writer, Steven Barrett, rages over the Home Office calling those involved in the disorder ‘criminals’, and complains Britain has lost ‘the concept of a fair trial."
I suspect many PBers are thinking what I’m thinking. TRUSS’s upcoming appearance at Unherd is the thinly veiled genesis of her bid for the leadership. And who can blame her? Perhaps now is her time?
Truss wants to be recognised as a party elder, stateswoman, and kingmaker.
Useless fact: Liam Bryne MP has 201 videos on YouTube and somehow managed to gain just 89 subscribers in return over a 16 year period. Maybe he's embedding them elsewhere which means you don't get subscribers.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
I think £5k for cash and £10k for shares is coming soon. Right now couples are able to shelter £40k per year of their wealth into tax free growth and income. It's absolutely brilliant but potentially overly generous, we still need something fairly generous to encourage saving and investment, but maybe £20k per year is too much. I like the idea of £50k over a 5 year period and no allowance for cash ISAs, only give the tax break for equity investments so that risk taking is rewarded rather than idle cash which should be taxed as normal.
What is the purpose of ISAs? If it is to encourage saving rather than risk-taking, then cash and shares should continue to be treated equally.
As for the allowance, I'd say £20,000 per household is about right. It should target the amount paid on the mortgage, so once the mortgage is paid off as people reach their middle ages, they save the money instead of splurging on luxury imports like new cars or exotic holidays. As it happens, the average mortgage repayment is around £16,000 a year which is £20,000 as near as damn it. Again, it comes down to what is the government's motivation for ISAs in the first place.
For the government to restore its coffers, I'd suggest they look at pensions: both higher rate tax relief on contributions and also some of the shenanigans around salary sacrifice.
Higher tax rate relief on pensions does seem particularly inequitable.
Useless fact: Liam Bryne MP has 201 videos on YouTube and somehow managed to gain just 89 subscribers in return over a 16 year period. Maybe he's embedding them elsewhere which means you don't get subscribers.
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
I think £5k for cash and £10k for shares is coming soon. Right now couples are able to shelter £40k per year of their wealth into tax free growth and income. It's absolutely brilliant but potentially overly generous, we still need something fairly generous to encourage saving and investment, but maybe £20k per year is too much. I like the idea of £50k over a 5 year period and no allowance for cash ISAs, only give the tax break for equity investments so that risk taking is rewarded rather than idle cash which should be taxed as normal.
What is the purpose of ISAs? If it is to encourage saving rather than risk-taking, then cash and shares should continue to be treated equally.
As for the allowance, I'd say £20,000 per household is about right. It should target the amount paid on the mortgage, so once the mortgage is paid off as people reach their middle ages, they save the money instead of splurging on luxury imports like new cars or exotic holidays. As it happens, the average mortgage repayment is around £16,000 a year which is £20,000 as near as damn it. Again, it comes down to what is the government's motivation for ISAs in the first place.
For the government to restore its coffers, I'd suggest they look at pensions: both higher rate tax relief on contributions and also some of the shenanigans around salary sacrifice.
Higher tax rate relief on pensions does seem particularly inequitable.
Higher rate tax relief combines with salary sacrifice for a quadruple whammy. The highly-paid can use salary sacrifice contributions to reduce their salary to below £100,000 which means:-
Max Atkinson was a sociologist who studied the old rhetorical devices and politicians' speeches, and popularised the most effective, such as lists of three. He became speechwriter to Paddy Ashdown. (He died weeks ago but apparently the Telegraph obituary department did not notice.)
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
I think £5k for cash and £10k for shares is coming soon. Right now couples are able to shelter £40k per year of their wealth into tax free growth and income. It's absolutely brilliant but potentially overly generous, we still need something fairly generous to encourage saving and investment, but maybe £20k per year is too much. I like the idea of £50k over a 5 year period and no allowance for cash ISAs, only give the tax break for equity investments so that risk taking is rewarded rather than idle cash which should be taxed as normal.
What is the purpose of ISAs? If it is to encourage saving rather than risk-taking, then cash and shares should continue to be treated equally.
As for the allowance, I'd say £20,000 per household is about right. It should target the amount paid on the mortgage, so once the mortgage is paid off as people reach their middle ages, they save the money instead of splurging on luxury imports like new cars or exotic holidays. As it happens, the average mortgage repayment is around £16,000 a year which is £20,000 as near as damn it. Again, it comes down to what is the government's motivation for ISAs in the first place.
For the government to restore its coffers, I'd suggest they look at pensions: both higher rate tax relief on contributions and also some of the shenanigans around salary sacrifice.
Higher tax rate relief on pensions does seem particularly inequitable.
Higher rate tax relief combines with salary sacrifice for a quadruple whammy. The highly-paid can use salary sacrifice contributions to reduce their salary to below £100,000 which means:-
"Man arrested in Pakistan for 'spreading false information' about Southport attack suspect
A Pakistani web developer who helped spread false information that contributed to a wave of far-right riots across the UK has been arrested in the city of Lahore.
Farhan Asif is accused of spreading a false name in connection with the murder of three young girls in Southport last month via sensationalist aggregation website Channel3Now."
If you want an example of how and why the humanities - when taught well - are important and have their place there's a great one in Elon Musk's (Physics and Economics) disastrous running of Twitter.
He's had tremendous success in fields that were essentially about cracking an engineering problem and marketing it. It's undoubtedly true that it takes a degree of genius to spot that if you can solve an engineering problem like getting the performance electric cars in line with ICE ones, or cheaper space travel, then doing it, there'll be huge demand.
But social media is a different problem, in that once you've built the underlying tech - not all that difficult these days, as we've seen with recent Twitter clones - it's more like managing a delicate ecosystem and understanding how to manage communities in a way that makes them first desirable to users and then advertisers/sellers.
Which is where the humanities comes in. History, philosophy, literature, and the more thorough branches of cultural and social studies (admittedly there's been some dreck) can give you a far better idea of the human consequences of doing certain things to your online ecosystem than treating everything as a problem that can be 'hardcored' by adding features you can charge for.
That is not an argument for humanities, plenty of people have humanities degrees such as Boris Johnson doesn't make them less of a fuck up managing stuff.
Of course anyone who has studied anything can be a fuck up managing things. Humanities or sciences. I'm not sure Boris Johnson is indicative of your average humanities graduate, given his glide through life. Anymore than he is of Oxford University - which seems to produce a certain amount of over-entitled thickos and cranks as well as some of our finest minds.
Point is, if we're talking about the best, different disciplines provide different skills that are suited to different spheres. At one point we maybe overvalued the humanities, but now may be in danger of going the other way by assuming everything is a tech and engineering problem. When really, if you want to understand certain phenomena, you don't want someone who's a coder or engineer, you want someone who understands the past, the dynamics of human relationships, and the principles those have been governed on. Which more often than not will mean at least listening to someone with a humanities degree.
If exchange watchers have noticed a switch to Trump today, more than likely fuelled by RFK likely dropping out and endorsing the Orange One..the same RFK who reached out to Kamala last week and got trashed...and that same RFK who trades on his name and is a massive Bellend.....
What massive reward has Trump 2.0 offered?
Secretary of State?
Vaccine Czar?
Nothing.
This isn’t even a promise (which would anyway be worthless from Trump), but RFK is probably dumb or desperate enough not to notice.
Reporter: Would you consider putting RFK Jr in your administration?
"Man arrested in Pakistan for 'spreading false information' about Southport attack suspect
A Pakistani web developer who helped spread false information that contributed to a wave of far-right riots across the UK has been arrested in the city of Lahore.
Farhan Asif is accused of spreading a false name in connection with the murder of three young girls in Southport last month via sensationalist aggregation website Channel3Now."
It looks like the Pakistani channel spread the fake news but was not the original source.
If exchange watchers have noticed a switch to Trump today, more than likely fuelled by RFK likely dropping out and endorsing the Orange One..the same RFK who reached out to Kamala last week and got trashed...and that same RFK who trades on his name and is a massive Bellend.....
What massive reward has Trump 2.0 offered?
Secretary of State?
Vaccine Czar?
Nothing.
This isn’t even a promise (which would anyway be worthless from Trump), but RFK is probably dumb or desperate enough not to notice.
Reporter: Would you consider putting RFK Jr in your administration?
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker just DISMANTLED Donald Trump at the DNC:
"Donald Trump thinks we should trust him on the economy because he claims to be very rich. Take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only one thing: stupidity." https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1826073650329694665
Random factoid - I think Mesa is the largest city in the entire US that votes Republican.
John Giles, the Mormon Republican mayor of Mesa, the most conservative city in Arizona:
“I have an urgent message for the majority of Americans who like me are in the political middle: John McCain’s Republican Party is gone… let’s turn the page. Let’s put country first.” https://x.com/hunterschwarz/status/1826083094958584243
The contrast between the Dems and Labour could not be more stark. The DNC is buzzing or are they hyping themselves up? It’s hard to tell. The glass vase strategy wasn’t available, they had to go for it, but it’s unclear if this strategy which is obviously energising the core to stratospheric level is going to work. I imagine some unaligned folk might be turned off by the DNC.
I did Highers and A-levels, including maths, further maths, physics and chemistry.
None were easy. Chemistry was the hardest.
I was the same. I'm very poor at retaining information but very good at retaining knowledge.
So I was/am poor at languages, history, geography, chemistry but excellent at maths and physics.
Information is one-off facts. For example I had to learn by heart από ξηρά και από θάλασσα for my Greek -O Level (though I still remember it because I made such an effort and scrambled a pass). History facts, Geography facts. Chemistry facts. Really difficult to remember. I'm hopeless at remembering faces and names.
Knowledge is re-usable abstractions - principles, models, heuristics, rules, equations. I can remember them and delight in exploiting them.
I think of my neural network as a Xmas tree with information as baubles (not securely attached) and knowledge as strings (much more securely attached and accessible)
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
"Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
The Guardian is saying this is news?? Jeez...
CGT rates to be same as IT nailed on
Rachel possibly won't increase the ISA limit either!
ISA is bloody ridiculous. Far too high an amount per year.
Encourage small amounts of saving by ordinary folks not a vehicle for the rich to escape tax.
I think there's a fair chance the limit will be reduced to £10,000pa from 2025.
I think £5k for cash and £10k for shares is coming soon. Right now couples are able to shelter £40k per year of their wealth into tax free growth and income. It's absolutely brilliant but potentially overly generous, we still need something fairly generous to encourage saving and investment, but maybe £20k per year is too much. I like the idea of £50k over a 5 year period and no allowance for cash ISAs, only give the tax break for equity investments so that risk taking is rewarded rather than idle cash which should be taxed as normal.
What is the purpose of ISAs? If it is to encourage saving rather than risk-taking, then cash and shares should continue to be treated equally.
As for the allowance, I'd say £20,000 per household is about right. It should target the amount paid on the mortgage, so once the mortgage is paid off as people reach their middle ages, they save the money instead of splurging on luxury imports like new cars or exotic holidays. As it happens, the average mortgage repayment is around £16,000 a year which is £20,000 as near as damn it. Again, it comes down to what is the government's motivation for ISAs in the first place.
For the government to restore its coffers, I'd suggest they look at pensions: both higher rate tax relief on contributions and also some of the shenanigans around salary sacrifice.
Higher tax rate relief on pensions does seem particularly inequitable.
Higher rate tax relief combines with salary sacrifice for a quadruple whammy. The highly-paid can use salary sacrifice contributions to reduce their salary to below £100,000 which means:-
they avoid income tax
they get a 40 per cent uplift
they qualify for free child care
I've forgotten the fourth one
Not the highest paid, they can only get tax relief on a few grand of pensions contributions (used to be 4k but might be 10k now iirc).
Among the changes Reeves is believed to be considering are:
- Raising more money from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. - Sticking to plans for a 1% increase in public spending even though it would involve cuts for some Whitehall departments. - Rejecting pressure to scrap the two-child benefit cap. - Changing the way debt is measured to exclude the Bank of England.
Forgive my ignorance, is that last point the same one that Luckyguy and others have been promoting?
The last point has been debated endlessly for weeks now by various analysts and economists and pol types. It's a pretty dry area of policy and all about technicalities.
The logic of it is pretty simple. QE involved printing very large quantities of new cash (not literally but on a computer screen). That "cash" was used to buy existing assets (bonds) from the banks improving liquidity and allowing them to lend more money into an economy that needed more demand. The bonds bought with the "cash" have fallen in value because they had very low rates of interest and gilts now have a higher rate. So there is a notional "loss". But it is a loss on artificial money that no tax payer ever paid. To require the taxpayer to indemnify the Bank on that "loss" from the made up "money" is absurd. To have to cut spending or increase taxes to do it is just insane.
It is.
But it also means admitting QE involved printing money. Real money, quite literally.
Yes on a computer screen, but computer money is every bit as real as notes.
True. And the old adage of there being no such thing as a free lunch has been proven right once again. The select committee of the House of Commons did a really good paper on this. What it made clear is that when we went into QE we had no clear idea of how to get out of it again or reverse it and, surprise, surprise, it has proven to be a lot more expensive than we expected.
This is useful because QE was a well that politicians were getting ever keener to dip into. Now that we appreciate that the real cost is much more than anticipated I think we will be reluctant to do it again. That is a good thing. Debasing the currency was always problematic. But right now "losses" on the gilts bought should simply be written off. They should not be a draw on current tax revenues.
Sounds like a free lunch to me.
If we write off QE then we make it easier to do again too.
Comments
Knew a kid when I was growing up who ran through a glass door. Scarred him for life.
1) hold the purchases bonds until maturity, at which point the notional losses disappears as the principal is retired. However this means that the money supply is higher than desired for an extended period of time with the result there is upward pressure on inflation
2) sell the bonds, retiring the money that they receive but crystallising the losses. This reduces the pressure on inflation (by reducing the money supply) but triggers a loss on disposal which needs to be funded.
There are no clever solutions - chose a point on a line connecting those two options.
The whole “treasury indemnity” thing is irrelevant. Either (a) the Treasury indemnifies the Bank for the losses; (b) monetary policy is set based on technical accounting policies and the Court of the Bank of England not wanting to trade while insolvent; or (c) the Bank goes ahead and does it and causes a loss in the balance sheet triggering an emergency fundraising from its sole shareholder, the UK government.
At least option c would have the merit that we’d stop hearing from the SNP folks on here that they own a share in the Bank
As for the allowance, I'd say £20,000 per household is about right. It should target the amount paid on the mortgage, so once the mortgage is paid off as people reach their middle ages, they save the money instead of splurging on luxury imports like new cars or exotic holidays. As it happens, the average mortgage repayment is around £16,000 a year which is £20,000 as near as damn it. Again, it comes down to what is the government's motivation for ISAs in the first place.
For the government to restore its coffers, I'd suggest they look at pensions: both higher rate tax relief on contributions and also some of the shenanigans around salary sacrifice.
https://x.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1825855065917202652
https://www.youtube.com/@liambyrnemp/videos
(I’ll get my coat)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/08/20/max-atkinson-public-speaking-expert-died-obituary/ (£££)
Max Atkinson was a sociologist who studied the old rhetorical devices and politicians' speeches, and popularised the most effective, such as lists of three. He became speechwriter to Paddy Ashdown. (He died weeks ago but apparently the Telegraph obituary department did not notice.)
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/man-arrested-in-pakistan-for-spreading-false-information-about-southport-attack/
"Man arrested in Pakistan for 'spreading false information' about Southport attack suspect
A Pakistani web developer who helped spread false information that contributed to a wave of far-right riots across the UK has been arrested in the city of Lahore.
Farhan Asif is accused of spreading a false name in connection with the murder of three young girls in Southport last month via sensationalist aggregation website Channel3Now."
Point is, if we're talking about the best, different disciplines provide different skills that are suited to different spheres. At one point we maybe overvalued the humanities, but now may be in danger of going the other way by assuming everything is a tech and engineering problem. When really, if you want to understand certain phenomena, you don't want someone who's a coder or engineer, you want someone who understands the past, the dynamics of human relationships, and the principles those have been governed on. Which more often than not will mean at least listening to someone with a humanities degree.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1gUP_43J7wY
There are several gasps from the audience at what an utter shit the guy is.
"Donald Trump thinks we should trust him on the economy because he claims to be very rich. Take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only one thing: stupidity."
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1826073650329694665
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1826033634199089666
Milwaukee is packed! This is where Republicans had their convention.
John Giles, the Mormon Republican mayor of Mesa, the most conservative city in Arizona:
“I have an urgent message for the majority of Americans who like me are in the political middle: John McCain’s Republican Party is gone… let’s turn the page. Let’s put country first.”
https://x.com/hunterschwarz/status/1826083094958584243
Three was just too hard and the graphics were poor, although the trading concept was interesting.
The only Civ games I've played are II and VI, and the two decades between them makes comparisons a bit tricky.
Seven hour wait with wife after fall at A&E overnight. For various reasons had to give up and return next day. Then three hour wait leading to x ray…
Then diagnose broken hip. Immediate conversation with surgeon. Bed available immediately. Operation scheduled next morning.
No question about payment for an operation that could bankrupt your family in the us.
If we write off QE then we make it easier to do again too.
Key to success is quick surgery and getting up on feet as soon as possible. Delay makes it harder to get the muscle power back.
NEW THREAD
https://x.com/JasonKander/status/1826096285989941394