Yes. Regrets, he may have a few, but then again, apparently, too few to mention.
Trump would find admitting he made a mistake more embarrassing than replacing his VP. He won't do it.
I don't think Vance is going to be replaced, but Trump could brazen it out if he did it. Everything is always someone else's fault, a big conspiracy against him, this would be no different.
Edit: It wouldn't be his mistake, it would be him fixing someone else's mistake/betrayal/whatever.
It's not just that it would involve Trump admitting a mistake - it's too late to replace Vance on the ballot in most places. I can only think of Thomas Eagleton in fairly recent times - but he was dropped by McGovern about a month earlier than we're at now.
Also, he's a fairly weak VP candidate, and that may cost Trump some votes at the margins (which could of course matter in a very close election). But he's not unelectably bad - he's weak in the sense Dan Quayle was weak.
Trump won’t care who his VP is. Trump’s gonna win bigly because he’s Trump (in his imagination). Nobody else matters.
I think you underestimate Trump's rationality in electoral matters. He's quite self-aware about his own reputation for braggadocio, and leans into it with little jokes.The fact that his persona means he says, "I'm winning bigly" doesn't mean that's his real view (and nor does the fact he repeatedly claims to have won in 2020 mean he really believes it). He knows perfectly well he was cruising against Biden and is now in a dogfight - it's convenient for opponents to claim otherwise, but the truth for all his bluster is he's not living in a total fantasy world.
In March, Trump attended a hearing in federal court in Florida.
During that hearing, prosecutors told the judge that the “60-day rule” does not apply to cases like Trump’s that have already been charged and are now in the hands of the judicial system. https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1828575793871470718
Everybody wants to be a cat, Because a cats the only cat who knows where its at
When my youngest was four he announced he wanted to be a cat, I asked him why and he said because cats don’t have to go to nursery and more importantly cats could leave the house without an adult, unlike him.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Yes. Regrets, he may have a few, but then again, apparently, too few to mention.
Trump would find admitting he made a mistake more embarrassing than replacing his VP. He won't do it.
I don't think Vance is going to be replaced, but Trump could brazen it out if he did it. Everything is always someone else's fault, a big conspiracy against him, this would be no different.
Edit: It wouldn't be his mistake, it would be him fixing someone else's mistake/betrayal/whatever.
No.
Trump would believe he was brazening it out. Millions of others would rightly regard it as the admission of a stupid mistake. There's a difference.
Trump is not omnipotent. Increasingly, he looks like a satire of himself.
This is the problem with a bonfire of regulations housebuilding scheme. We can't even enforce standards as they are and it's ruining the finances and living conditions of young people desperate to get on the housing ladder.
It's mad that I've had fewer issues in a 150 year old tenement, built to house dockers in what was the seediest part of Edinburgh.
Turning this round - wouldn't it be better to have a modest quantity of regulations actually enforced, rather than millions of them ignored by everyone?
Did this sort of nonsense happen before ? These sorts of issues seem much more prevalent on new build estates compared to previous times.
Shoddy building work has been around since Ug moved out of his cave. Larger developers have also always tended to be the most shoddy - small time builders who trade on their reputations have much more incentive to get stuff right first time around.
The main issue is that the rapidly growing burden of regulation is imposing substantial costs on smaller builders, so squeezing them out in favour of the bigger (and generally worse) players.
Rewinding building regs to those in force in say 2000 would have much more effect on the cost of housing than Barty's preferred abolition of planning permission.
Though it is the requirement for planning permission that is giving permission to the big developers to build 100s of homes in estates, while preventing small developers from getting permission to build small quantities of homes.
If small developers didn't need permission to build, they'd be able to do so.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
I don't particularly disagree with you about a lot of the evils of the planning system, but simply abolishing planning won't reduce house prices much, not least because of massive compliance costs on smaller developers from building regs.
When building a nice 4 bed costs the thick end of 300k without considering land or planning costs, that sets a floor for the price even if there was no planning and land was free. The only route I can see to reduced build costs is a reduction in the scope of building regs.
A very very bad idea. We already have homes for poor people being built in ex commercial property that have no windows. And grenfell. We need constant iteration of improving standards. Quality matters.
If you want to know how to deal with housing I’ll tell you, and it’s supported by the Local Government Association.
Let councils charge council tax on the stalled homes sitting unstarted unbuilt in land banks and uncompleted developments.
There are 1.5million plots with planning permission. Stalled. Tax that and all of a sudden the chance of us getting some houses built is going to improve.
That would get the opposite of what you want - those 1.5 million houses would get built alright, but no one would put anything else into the planning system for after that point, as they would just be generating tax liabilities.
What you want is a few, but sane, building regs, actually efforced. What we have is the total opposite, insane numbers of regs, little meaningful result, lots of cost. The fix for this is not more regs - it's to abolish most of them, then actually enforce the ones that are worth having.
This is the problem with a bonfire of regulations housebuilding scheme. We can't even enforce standards as they are and it's ruining the finances and living conditions of young people desperate to get on the housing ladder.
It's mad that I've had fewer issues in a 150 year old tenement, built to house dockers in what was the seediest part of Edinburgh.
Turning this round - wouldn't it be better to have a modest quantity of regulations actually enforced, rather than millions of them ignored by everyone?
Did this sort of nonsense happen before ? These sorts of issues seem much more prevalent on new build estates compared to previous times.
Shoddy building work has been around since Ug moved out of his cave. Larger developers have also always tended to be the most shoddy - small time builders who trade on their reputations have much more incentive to get stuff right first time around.
The main issue is that the rapidly growing burden of regulation is imposing substantial costs on smaller builders, so squeezing them out in favour of the bigger (and generally worse) players.
Rewinding building regs to those in force in say 2000 would have much more effect on the cost of housing than Barty's preferred abolition of planning permission.
Though it is the requirement for planning permission that is giving permission to the big developers to build 100s of homes in estates, while preventing small developers from getting permission to build small quantities of homes.
If small developers didn't need permission to build, they'd be able to do so.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
I don't particularly disagree with you about a lot of the evils of the planning system, but simply abolishing planning won't reduce house prices much, not least because of massive compliance costs on smaller developers from building regs.
When building a nice 4 bed costs the thick end of 300k without considering land or planning costs, that sets a floor for the price even if there was no planning and land was free. The only route I can see to reduced build costs is a reduction in the scope of building regs.
But given building regs are routinely ignored now, any such relaxation is not going to result in a fall in costs.
If you want loads of high quality, medium density housing that maximises the number of dwellings (rather than profit), you have to tax or borrow your way to council housing. That's the experience of previous material expansions in the housing stock.
The other is heavy industry investing in the accomodation for their workforces, but that doesn't really exist now outside the Armed Forces (and even then, the lack of decent accomodation is part of the reason they are struggling to recruit people into bases in Scotland).
Except that building regs aren't ignored now, they are just useless. Rooms full of expensively pointless paperwork exists to satisfy them, whilst simultaneously they are of little benefit in stopping large housebuilds building shoddily.
Back in the day, council houses were often notorious for shoddy workmanship.
Except where the inspections were independent and rigorous.
The problem is that real inspections and oversight have been deprecated in favour of more paperwork requirements.
JD Vance would have been my bet for 2028. Tbh I'm not sure the cat lady thing is that harmful. Fair-minded spectators know what he meant but FFS man, stop digging.
Yes. Regrets, he may have a few, but then again, apparently, too few to mention.
Trump would find admitting he made a mistake more embarrassing than replacing his VP. He won't do it.
I don't think Vance is going to be replaced, but Trump could brazen it out if he did it. Everything is always someone else's fault, a big conspiracy against him, this would be no different.
Edit: It wouldn't be his mistake, it would be him fixing someone else's mistake/betrayal/whatever.
No.
Trump would believe he was brazening it out. Millions of others would rightly regard it as the admission of a stupid mistake. There's a difference.
Trump is not omnipotent. Increasingly, he looks like a satire of himself.
Well, Trump has managed to convince a huge chunk of people that he didn't lose in 2020, and he doesn't care much what the rest of the country thinks, so why would he care what Democrats think of him?
Point being that fear of looking like a chump has never stopped him before, and it wouldn't stop him from changing his VP pick.
OT just returned from hospital on one of Sadiq Khan's shiny new electric buses with air conditioning and a usb charger for (almost) every seat.
Most importantly were they USB-C chargers is all okay with you?
Yes, thanks to all PBers for their best wishes and advice. The quacks gave me a chest X-ray, two ECGs and took enough blood to float a battleship, or at least a small dinghy, before chucking me out with a follow-up plan.
One thing I did note was that LAS ambulances seem to be crewed mainly by women.
OT just returned from hospital on one of Sadiq Khan's shiny new electric buses with air conditioning and a usb charger for (almost) every seat.
Most importantly were they USB-C chargers is all okay with you?
Yes, thanks to all PBers for their best wishes and advice. The quacks gave me a chest X-ray, two ECGs and took enough blood to float a battleship, or at least a small dinghy, before chucking me out with a follow-up plan.
One thing I did note was that LAS ambulances seem to be crewed mainly by women.
Pleased they've given you some good checks and plan on following you up.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
JD Vance would have been my bet for 2028. Tbh I'm not sure the cat lady thing is that harmful. Fair-minded spectators know what he meant but FFS man, stop digging.
There are fair-minded spectators in the US? Maybe not this year.
OT just returned from hospital on one of Sadiq Khan's shiny new electric buses with air conditioning and a usb charger for (almost) every seat.
Volvos I believe but certainly comfortable and a decent ride.
I'm a big fan of the Mercedes buses in the Isle of Man - comfortable, smooth and the drivers wait for everyone to sit down before moving off.
Enjoyed a walk through Finsbury Park this morning as I didn't fancy a 12-minute wait for a Piccadilly at Manor House. Got a look at the Arena Shopping Centre by Harringay Green Lanes station - the site of the old Harringay Arena. The cafe by Manor House Station only average.
Trump would bin Vance after the ballots are printed. Then declare it was election interference not to reprint them. Then get a lawyer with no law degree to sue. And win in the Supreme Court. But too late for the actual election.
Everybody wants to be a cat, Because a cats the only cat who knows where its at
When my youngest was four he announced he wanted to be a cat, I asked him why and he said because cats don’t have to go to nursery and more importantly cats could leave the house without an adult, unlike him.
Now he can self-ID as a cat. Speaking of which, some primary school teachers of my acquaintance were discussing who has to teach the furries class this year. There is a class where some children come to school dressed as cats, foxes, etc, and want to be treated as animals. 🙁 Personally, I would spay the parents.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
OT just returned from hospital on one of Sadiq Khan's shiny new electric buses with air conditioning and a usb charger for (almost) every seat.
Most importantly were they USB-C chargers is all okay with you?
Yes, thanks to all PBers for their best wishes and advice. The quacks gave me a chest X-ray, two ECGs and took enough blood to float a battleship, or at least a small dinghy, before chucking me out with a follow-up plan.
One thing I did note was that LAS ambulances seem to be crewed mainly by women.
Glad it went well. Otherwise you would be EvenmoredecrepitJohnL!
Yes. Regrets, he may have a few, but then again, apparently, too few to mention.
Trump would find admitting he made a mistake more embarrassing than replacing his VP. He won't do it.
I don't think Vance is going to be replaced, but Trump could brazen it out if he did it. Everything is always someone else's fault, a big conspiracy against him, this would be no different.
Edit: It wouldn't be his mistake, it would be him fixing someone else's mistake/betrayal/whatever.
No.
Trump would believe he was brazening it out. Millions of others would rightly regard it as the admission of a stupid mistake. There's a difference.
Trump is not omnipotent. Increasingly, he looks like a satire of himself.
Well, Trump has managed to convince a huge chunk of people that he didn't lose in 2020, and he doesn't care much what the rest of the country thinks, so why would he care what DemocratsIndependents think of him?
Point being that fear of looking like a chump has never stopped him before, and it wouldn't stop him from changing his VP pick.
If you change your post as above, you might see why...
Everybody wants to be a cat, Because a cats the only cat who knows where its at
When my youngest was four he announced he wanted to be a cat, I asked him why and he said because cats don’t have to go to nursery and more importantly cats could leave the house without an adult, unlike him.
Now he can self-ID as a cat. Speaking of which, some primary school teachers of my acquaintance were discussing who has to teach the furries class this year. There is a class where some children come to school dressed as cats, foxes, etc, and want to be treated as animals. 🙁 Personally, I would spay the parents.
Chuck them in a small cage with some Whiskas and a water bowl. What could be easier?
This is the problem with a bonfire of regulations housebuilding scheme. We can't even enforce standards as they are and it's ruining the finances and living conditions of young people desperate to get on the housing ladder.
It's mad that I've had fewer issues in a 150 year old tenement, built to house dockers in what was the seediest part of Edinburgh.
Turning this round - wouldn't it be better to have a modest quantity of regulations actually enforced, rather than millions of them ignored by everyone?
Did this sort of nonsense happen before ? These sorts of issues seem much more prevalent on new build estates compared to previous times.
Shoddy building work has been around since Ug moved out of his cave. Larger developers have also always tended to be the most shoddy - small time builders who trade on their reputations have much more incentive to get stuff right first time around.
The main issue is that the rapidly growing burden of regulation is imposing substantial costs on smaller builders, so squeezing them out in favour of the bigger (and generally worse) players.
Rewinding building regs to those in force in say 2000 would have much more effect on the cost of housing than Barty's preferred abolition of planning permission.
Though it is the requirement for planning permission that is giving permission to the big developers to build 100s of homes in estates, while preventing small developers from getting permission to build small quantities of homes.
If small developers didn't need permission to build, they'd be able to do so.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
I don't particularly disagree with you about a lot of the evils of the planning system, but simply abolishing planning won't reduce house prices much, not least because of massive compliance costs on smaller developers from building regs.
When building a nice 4 bed costs the thick end of 300k without considering land or planning costs, that sets a floor for the price even if there was no planning and land was free. The only route I can see to reduced build costs is a reduction in the scope of building regs.
A very very bad idea. We already have homes for poor people being built in ex commercial property that have no windows. And grenfell. We need constant iteration of improving standards. Quality matters.
If you want to know how to deal with housing I’ll tell you, and it’s supported by the Local Government Association.
Let councils charge council tax on the stalled homes sitting unstarted unbuilt in land banks and uncompleted developments.
There are 1.5million plots with planning permission. Stalled. Tax that and all of a sudden the chance of us getting some houses built is going to improve.
That would get the opposite of what you want - those 1.5 million houses would get built alright, but no one would put anything else into the planning system for after that point, as they would just be generating tax liabilities.
What you want is a few, but sane, building regs, actually efforced. What we have is the total opposite, insane numbers of regs, little meaningful result, lots of cost. The fix for this is not more regs - it's to abolish most of them, then actually enforce the ones that are worth having.
You are confusing Planning Permission and Building Regulations
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Cultural shifts happened a lot quicker. I did my A-Levels in 1992 and went off to do a gap yah in India teaching English for six months. When I left it was the tail end of Madchester (the music press was awaiting The Happy Mondays' "Yes Please" with increasingly hilarious reports from Barbados), shoegaze, and grunge.
When got back in early 93 Suede were just starting, heralding 3 and a half years of Britpop shite. Okay, it had its moments (I actually quite like Suede and Pulp were ace in that period) but a lot of it was twee bollocks. There was definitely a cultural shift of sorts while I was away. And I missed nearly the entire run of 'Eldorado', which I've always regretted.
Then Britpop definitively ended when the BBC played 'Walkaway' by Cast over the closing credits of England's Euro '96 semi-final loss. The following year everyone seemed to have a mobile phone. Except me.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Phone versus smartphone didn't matter much for the culture of already very online people, but it made everyone else from pensioners to nail techs suddenly very online, and that has changed the world.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Phone versus smartphone didn't matter much for the culture of already very online people, but it made everyone else from pensioners to nail techs suddenly very online, and that has changed the world.
My wife has decided she wants her first smart phone for her birthday next week. The final citadels of the non digital world are crumbling around us.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
I have watched it about twice a year since buying the VHS in about 1996 (still got the tape, nothing to play it in) so hard to relate to these Proustian reminiscences.
Rearranging the scenes in real chronological order is a useful mental exercise when e.g. under the dentist's drill.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Cultural shifts happened a lot quicker. I did my A-Levels in 1992 and went off to do a gap yah in India teaching English for six months. When I left it was the tail end of Madchester (the music press was awaiting The Happy Mondays' "Yes Please" with increasingly hilarious reports from Barbados), shoegaze, and grunge.
When got back in early 93 Suede were just starting, heralding 3 and a half years of Britpop shite. Okay, it had its moments (I actually quite like Suede and Pulp were ace in that period) but a lot of it was twee bollocks. There was definitely a cultural shift of sorts while I was away. And I missed nearly the entire run of 'Eldorado', which I've always regretted.
Then Britpop definitively ended when the BBC played 'Walkaway' by Cast over the closing credits of England's Euro '96 semi-final loss. The following year everyone seemed to have a mobile phone. Except me.
Whereas, oddly, culture has seemed to be stagnant for a decade yet we've had huge political change globally.
Perhaps that's how it works. Cultural change, particularly pop-culture change, happens when things are politically and economically stable or doing well. Whereas social and political upheaval freezes pop culture while it's underway.
Nothing much changed in pop culture during WW1 or 2, unless you count war poetry. There was little or no culture change during the period from the Wall St crash to the end of the great depression (someone will now prove me wrong with lots of counter-examples). In the relatively upbeat 1890s, 1920s and 1960s there was huge cultural evolution. The only sort of exception I can think of is the sudden arrival of punk during a very restless period of geopolitics and economics in the mid 70s.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Phone versus smartphone didn't matter much for the culture of already very online people, but it made everyone else from pensioners to nail techs suddenly very online, and that has changed the world.
Or was it the advent of Facebook that really changed things (followed rapidly by Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat etc)?
I was on online forums back in the early noughties but they were niche places for people with specific interests - weather in my case - rather than mass platforms.
This is the problem with a bonfire of regulations housebuilding scheme. We can't even enforce standards as they are and it's ruining the finances and living conditions of young people desperate to get on the housing ladder.
It's mad that I've had fewer issues in a 150 year old tenement, built to house dockers in what was the seediest part of Edinburgh.
Turning this round - wouldn't it be better to have a modest quantity of regulations actually enforced, rather than millions of them ignored by everyone?
Did this sort of nonsense happen before ? These sorts of issues seem much more prevalent on new build estates compared to previous times.
Shoddy building work has been around since Ug moved out of his cave. Larger developers have also always tended to be the most shoddy - small time builders who trade on their reputations have much more incentive to get stuff right first time around.
The main issue is that the rapidly growing burden of regulation is imposing substantial costs on smaller builders, so squeezing them out in favour of the bigger (and generally worse) players.
Rewinding building regs to those in force in say 2000 would have much more effect on the cost of housing than Barty's preferred abolition of planning permission.
Though it is the requirement for planning permission that is giving permission to the big developers to build 100s of homes in estates, while preventing small developers from getting permission to build small quantities of homes.
If small developers didn't need permission to build, they'd be able to do so.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
I don't particularly disagree with you about a lot of the evils of the planning system, but simply abolishing planning won't reduce house prices much, not least because of massive compliance costs on smaller developers from building regs.
When building a nice 4 bed costs the thick end of 300k without considering land or planning costs, that sets a floor for the price even if there was no planning and land was free. The only route I can see to reduced build costs is a reduction in the scope of building regs.
A very very bad idea. We already have homes for poor people being built in ex commercial property that have no windows. And grenfell. We need constant iteration of improving standards. Quality matters.
If you want to know how to deal with housing I’ll tell you, and it’s supported by the Local Government Association.
Let councils charge council tax on the stalled homes sitting unstarted unbuilt in land banks and uncompleted developments.
There are 1.5million plots with planning permission. Stalled. Tax that and all of a sudden the chance of us getting some houses built is going to improve.
That would get the opposite of what you want - those 1.5 million houses would get built alright, but no one would put anything else into the planning system for after that point, as they would just be generating tax liabilities.
What you want is a few, but sane, building regs, actually efforced. What we have is the total opposite, insane numbers of regs, little meaningful result, lots of cost. The fix for this is not more regs - it's to abolish most of them, then actually enforce the ones that are worth having.
You are confusing Planning Permission and Building Regulations
No. Planning is approximately a decision about "thou shalt/shalt not be permitted to build an object roughly size and shape x in place y". I used to think that restrictions on planning were one of the main drivers of increased house prices, until I watched my parents get a house built, and realised that actually the true evil is building regs.
Building regs are things like "if you build anything, thou shalt insulate it to standard x or above according to part 17 of the environmental protection standards 2013 annexe C, except under where under the provisions of the... Etc. For about 2 million pages".
Building regs add lots of cost, much of it generating paper to show that what you're doing is acceptable, and are somewhat haphazardly enforced at best. Increasing the extent of enforcement, particularly with regard to quality, whilst culling lots of the expensive paperwork excersises might well cut the cost of housing and drive up quality.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
I have watched it about twice a year since buying the VHS in about 1996 (still got the tape, nothing to play it in) so hard to relate to these Proustian reminiscences.
Rearranging the scenes in real chronological order is a useful mental exercise when e.g. under the dentist's drill.
It is a little confusing seeing Vincent striding out of the cafe at the end having already seen him gunned down.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Ah but doesn't it depend on your age. Eg somebody young in the 70s watching Happy Days would have found it a strange bygone world whereas somebody older, not so much. Likewise, an older person looking back now at the early 00s will not see it as majorly different to today but a young person probably will.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Cultural shifts happened a lot quicker. I did my A-Levels in 1992 and went off to do a gap yah in India teaching English for six months. When I left it was the tail end of Madchester (the music press was awaiting The Happy Mondays' "Yes Please" with increasingly hilarious reports from Barbados), shoegaze, and grunge.
When got back in early 93 Suede were just starting, heralding 3 and a half years of Britpop shite. Okay, it had its moments (I actually quite like Suede and Pulp were ace in that period) but a lot of it was twee bollocks. There was definitely a cultural shift of sorts while I was away. And I missed nearly the entire run of 'Eldorado', which I've always regretted.
Then Britpop definitively ended when the BBC played 'Walkaway' by Cast over the closing credits of England's Euro '96 semi-final loss. The following year everyone seemed to have a mobile phone. Except me.
Whereas, oddly, culture has seemed to be stagnant for a decade yet we've had huge political change globally.
Perhaps that's how it works. Cultural change, particularly pop-culture change, happens when things are politically and economically stable or doing well. Whereas social and political upheaval freezes pop culture while it's underway.
Nothing much changed in pop culture during WW1 or 2, unless you count war poetry. There was little or no culture change during the period from the Wall St crash to the end of the great depression (someone will now prove me wrong with lots of counter-examples). In the relatively upbeat 1890s, 1920s and 1960s there was huge cultural evolution. The only sort of exception I can think of is the sudden arrival of punk during a very restless period of geopolitics and economics in the mid 70s.
As Lenin said:
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Chasing short term popularity in the first year after a landslide would be pretty dim.
True, but he does need to be careful not to suck all the hopes and dreams out of voters’ views of the new government like some sort of political dementor. Things done in year one can create a narrative that sticks. As Clegg and the Lib Dems can attest.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Partially that's you showing your age though.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Partially that's you showing your age though.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
The telly hasn't got any better though. It's still 99% shite. Arguably 1990s telly was of a higher standard.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
So what you want to do is to ban the terrestrial TV from showing live sports, then arrange for a friend courtsiding while you slam Betfair during the delay.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Partially that's you showing your age though.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
The telly hasn't got any better though. It's still 99% shite. Arguably 1990s telly was of a higher standard.
Because telly is for old farts now.
Everyone else is spending time online, as we are here, not watching the telly.
And streaming means it doesn't matter if its 99% shit as there's so many things out there there's something for everyone.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Partially that's you showing your age though.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
The telly hasn't got any better though. It's still 99% shite. Arguably 1990s telly was of a higher standard.
I think British TV was starting to decline in the 90s. Its high water mark was the 80s.
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Yep let the shareholders lose their arses. If they couldn’t afford to pay dividends, they shouldn’t have paid them.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Amazon claiming their new CL coverage this season will be 10 seconds delay on any modern device including phone. They have one group match per week.
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Indeed and wipe out the shareholders and not just at Thames but apparently virtually all of them who say the same
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Yep let the shareholders lose their arses. If they couldn’t afford to pay dividends, they shouldn’t have paid them.
There needs to be a huge public campaign for the Government to let the company go bust.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
So what you want to do is to ban the terrestrial TV from showing live sports, then arrange for a friend courtsiding while you slam Betfair during the delay.
This is a betting site after all!
Nah, you set up your own live video feed ahead of broadcast...and sell that to punters.
Someone is paying for that £10k drone that appears over Doncaster Common during racing...
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Its already happened.
I don't miss having live TV or the licence fee, good riddance to it. We didn't watch anything live other than sport anyway, so don't miss it.
The BBC can go the way of Thames Water for all I care now, if it has no interest in reforming or moving on from the licence fee then let it be consigned to its fate.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Amazon claiming their new CL coverage this season will be 10 seconds delay on any modern device including phone. They have one group match per week.
Live broadcasts have a delay. The delay in streaming is a mix of incompetent implementation and the originators selling the "more live" data as a side hustle.
I had some bad news today. As you know earlier in the year I complained about tooth loss with two extracted in Q1 and a third planned for Q3/4. I planned to handle this by going abroad to get implants.
Unfortunately the situation has accelerated and it appears that two, not one, will need to be extracted in Q3/Q4 and ongoing gum disease and bone loss (yes, really) bring into question my suitability for implants
The minimum treatment now required is surgery and the use of bone cement/grafts to reinforce the vanishing bone. This is beyond the capacity of the average dentist and will require the services of a more advanced one, such as a periodontist or a dental reconstruction dentist.
My question to the PB brains trust is: what qualification or job title or membership should I look for? For example, the Dip Impl Dent RCSEd is a qualification, The British Society of Peridontology and Implant Dentistry is a society, a "periodontist" is a job title.
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Indeed and wipe out the shareholders and not just at Thames but apparently virtually all of them who say the same
That’s the risk of being a shareholder.
The Universities pension fund owns 20% of Thames Water. Could be awkward. Still, never mind.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Much of the introduction to "Catastrophe" (history of WW 1) consists of a bewildering array of changes which happened 1900-1914.
I think even Cameron and Osborne had the wit to leaven the initial austerity schtick with a far off glimpse of sunlit uplands (think Teletubbies title sequence). SKS is aiming for a Clark Kent act so that the contrast when he emerges from a phone booth in 2028 will be even more striking, or so his disappointed supporters are spinning it. I will believe it when I see it.
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Indeed and wipe out the shareholders and not just at Thames but apparently virtually all of them who say the same
I want a list of the reason why not - the permanent system of government is violently against letting the market do it's thing (AKA fuck around and find out)
So far we have
- But the suppliers to Thames Water... (simples - if you are a supplier of pipe, valves and the like, you will get paid. If you are a shareholder, or bond holder, FU) - But the pension funds... (Ha Ha) - But the foreign pension funds.... (Ha Ha Ha Ha) - But the UK market reputation... (Fuck off and die horribly).
I get the strong impression that there is a can of worms here.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Partially that's you showing your age though.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
The license fee is totally unsustainable given how rapid the change is in how people consume media.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
So what you want to do is to ban the terrestrial TV from showing live sports, then arrange for a friend courtsiding while you slam Betfair during the delay.
This is a betting site after all!
Nah, you set up your own live video feed ahead of broadcast...and sell that to punters.
Someone is paying for that £10k drone that appears over Doncaster Common during racing...
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Amazon claiming their new CL coverage this season will be 10 seconds delay on any modern device including phone. They have one group match per week.
I had some bad news today. As you know earlier in the year I complained about tooth loss with two extracted in Q1 and a third planned for Q3/4. I planned to handle this by going abroad to get implants.
Unfortunately the situation has accelerated and it appears that two, not one, will need to be extracted in Q3/Q4 and ongoing gum disease and bone loss (yes, really) bring into question my suitability for implants
The minimum treatment now required is surgery and the use of bone cement/grafts to reinforce the vanishing bone. This is beyond the capacity of the average dentist and will require the services of a more advanced one, such as a periodontist or a dental reconstruction dentist.
My question to the PB brains trust is: what qualification or job title or membership should I look for? For example, the Dip Impl Dent RCSEd is a qualification, The British Society of Peridontology and Implant Dentistry is a society, a "periodontist" is a job title.
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Indeed and wipe out the shareholders and not just at Thames but apparently virtually all of them who say the same
I want a list of the reason why not - the permanent system of government is violently against letting the market do it's thing (AKA fuck around and find out)
So far we have
- But the suppliers to Thames Water... (simples - if you are a supplier of pipe, valves and the like, you will get paid. If you are a shareholder, or bond holder, FU) - But the pension funds... (Ha Ha) - But the foreign pension funds.... (Ha Ha Ha Ha) - But the UK market reputation... (Fuck off and die horribly).
Unsecured suppliers of pipes and valves will get pennies in the pound. Otherwise agree (but without the vitriol, there's nothing inherently evil about owning waterco debt or equity)
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Amazon claiming their new CL coverage this season will be 10 seconds delay on any modern device including phone. They have one group match per week.
Well, we shall see!
Sounds optimistic but if they are trailing 10 seconds imagine it is less than 20. And will come down further in time.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Amazon claiming their new CL coverage this season will be 10 seconds delay on any modern device including phone. They have one group match per week.
Live broadcasts have a delay. The delay in streaming is a mix of incompetent implementation and the originators selling the "more live" data as a side hustle.
IPlayer streaming is usually approx 120 seconds behind BBC on proper telly. Ditto ITV Player and ITV. It’s utterly lousy… and useless during major events.
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Indeed and wipe out the shareholders and not just at Thames but apparently virtually all of them who say the same
I want a list of the reason why not - the permanent system of government is violently against letting the market do it's thing (AKA fuck around and find out)
So far we have
- But the suppliers to Thames Water... (simples - if you are a supplier of pipe, valves and the like, you will get paid. If you are a shareholder, or bond holder, FU) - But the pension funds... (Ha Ha) - But the foreign pension funds.... (Ha Ha Ha Ha) - But the UK market reputation... (Fuck off and die horribly).
Unsecured suppliers of pipes and valves will get pennies in the pound. Otherwise agree (but without the vitriol, there's nothing inherently evil about owning waterco debt or equity)
I think we should prioritise suppliers - unsecured or not - to protect the supply chain. There's an actual moral, business and national interest case to be made there.
It's not vitriol at the owners of the debt and equity - it's directed at the people using them (the debt owners) as a flimsy excuse to protect the companies using public money.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Amazon claiming their new CL coverage this season will be 10 seconds delay on any modern device including phone. They have one group match per week.
Well, we shall see!
Sounds optimistic but if they are trailing 10 seconds imagine it is less than 20. And will come down further in time.
As opposed to 1-2s delay on a Signal message from your courtsider in the ground.
I had some bad news today. As you know earlier in the year I complained about tooth loss with two extracted in Q1 and a third planned for Q3/4. I planned to handle this by going abroad to get implants.
Unfortunately the situation has accelerated and it appears that two, not one, will need to be extracted in Q3/Q4 and ongoing gum disease and bone loss (yes, really) bring into question my suitability for implants
The minimum treatment now required is surgery and the use of bone cement/grafts to reinforce the vanishing bone. This is beyond the capacity of the average dentist and will require the services of a more advanced one, such as a periodontist or a dental reconstruction dentist.
My question to the PB brains trust is: what qualification or job title or membership should I look for? For example, the Dip Impl Dent RCSEd is a qualification, The British Society of Peridontology and Implant Dentistry is a society, a "periodontist" is a job title.
Probably best is to see either a Maxilo-Facial surgeon (these are both medically and dentally trained) or possibly a Restorative dentist.
Go for the first if you can, but it won't be cheap.
Incidentally probably a good idea to get investigated as to the cause of the accelerated bone loss, such as calcium and magnesium levels, as well as Vit D etc.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Partially that's you showing your age though.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
The license fee is totally unsustainable given how rapid the change is in how people consume media.
Labour should abolish it.
Keeping the BBC onside will be important to Labour but I certainly don't see how it survives the mid 2030s review.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
I agree, it's stepwise. Things jumped from 1870-1900, 1914-1918, 1939-1945, 1955-1970, 1986-1993, 2007-2021, and stayed fairly stable in the intervening years.
Culturally, I expect that the 20s will be noted for the total collapse of traditional broadcasters amongst the working age and youth.
Twitter is already better for live news, so it’s now just sports keeping people to linear programming.
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
Yes, and streaming does a lousy job of streaming sports – it is often 120 seconds behind. The lag is prohibitive during major live events. If that can be fixed, reliably, it might eventually take over. But, for now, proper TV has an unbeatable edge on sports – and streaming a fatal flaw.
Amazon claiming their new CL coverage this season will be 10 seconds delay on any modern device including phone. They have one group match per week.
Well, we shall see!
Sounds optimistic but if they are trailing 10 seconds imagine it is less than 20. And will come down further in time.
Again, we’ll see. So far no UK sports streaming service is anywhere near that.
Talking of old films, I went to see Pulp Fiction at the cinema last night. At the risk of making many of you feel old it was the 30th anniversary of its release.
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Going to watch Pulp Fiction at the Phoenix in Oxford in Oct 94 and then going for Chinese food afterwards with a group of about 10 from college was my No.1 Gen X zeitgeist moment of the 90s.
Is the mid-1990s the last "previous era"?
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
Partially that's you showing your age though.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
The telly hasn't got any better though. It's still 99% shite. Arguably 1990s telly was of a higher standard.
I think British TV was starting to decline in the 90s. Its high water mark was the 80s.
The 90s was a golden era for British TV - especially for comedy but also lots of great drama. I think because lots of barriers were broken down in the 80s and so commissioning editors would pretty much allow talent to go off and do what it wanted.
Reality TV and digitalisation arguably ended that in the 2000s. Once ratings begun to go into permanent decline and programmers had lots of data on hand they began producing the same old mush plus the odd prestige show.
TV comedy in particular has been killed by the panel show - as they're so cheap to make and inoffensive. No one's going to give a couple of people with a weird but possibly hilarious idea for a sitcom a load of money to make it when they can have several series of a panel show for the same cost.
Comments
Trump would find admitting he made a mistake more embarrassing than replacing his VP. He won't do it.
Edit: It wouldn't be his mistake, it would be him fixing someone else's mistake/betrayal/whatever.
Trump budget would spike deficits by nearly 5 times Harris proposal, says Penn Wharton
https://x.com/CNBC/status/1828543721710694545
Also, he's a fairly weak VP candidate, and that may cost Trump some votes at the margins (which could of course matter in a very close election). But he's not unelectably bad - he's weak in the sense Dan Quayle was weak.
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1828734275216101521
Because a cats the only cat who knows where its at
During that hearing, prosecutors told the judge that the “60-day rule” does not apply to cases like Trump’s that have already been charged and are now in the hands of the judicial system.
https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1828575793871470718
It stood up pretty well. The music was excellent and the conversational parts were still hilarious. Rather more casual racism than you would get these days. There was a bit where they were driving in a car and it was incredibly obvious that it was a movie out the back window and they were not actually driving but I suspect that was Tarentino's joke/homage to earlier films.
Well worth a watch if you can catch it.
Trump would believe he was brazening it out. Millions of others would rightly regard it as the admission of a stupid mistake. There's a difference.
Trump is not omnipotent. Increasingly, he looks like a satire of himself.
What you want is a few, but sane, building regs, actually efforced. What we have is the total opposite, insane numbers of regs, little meaningful result, lots of cost.
The fix for this is not more regs - it's to abolish most of them, then actually enforce the ones that are worth having.
Except where the inspections were independent and rigorous.
The problem is that real inspections and oversight have been deprecated in favour of more paperwork requirements.
were they USB-C chargersis all okay with you?Point being that fear of looking like a chump has never stopped him before, and it wouldn't stop him from changing his VP pick.
DJT stock is so close to being in the teens that @mattgaetz has started paying attention to it. https://t.co/GQh0rEbkOh
One thing I did note was that LAS ambulances seem to be crewed mainly by women.
I'm a big fan of the Mercedes buses in the Isle of Man - comfortable, smooth and the drivers wait for everyone to sit down before moving off.
Enjoyed a walk through Finsbury Park this morning as I didn't fancy a 12-minute wait for a Piccadilly at Manor House. Got a look at the Arena Shopping Centre by Harringay Green Lanes station - the site of the old Harringay Arena. The cafe by Manor House Station only average.
Trump would bin Vance after the ballots are printed. Then declare it was election interference not to reprint them. Then get a lawyer with no law degree to sue. And win in the Supreme Court. But too late for the actual election.
Personally, I would spay the parents.
DavidL's post got me thinking about how the passage of time is not linear. 1970s television series Happy Days looked back only 20 years but it was another world. 20 years before now, 2004, is merely a primitive version of now, with mobile but not quite smart phones, and the web just before Twitter and YouTube.
1994 had mobile phones but they were status items. Rich people with teenage children had home computers but they were by no means universal. PCs were, however, taking over offices. Britpop. Cool Britannia. Whatever happened to Oasis? Tbh in the course of writing this paragraph, I've changed my mind. 1994 was not qualitatively different from now.
When got back in early 93 Suede were just starting, heralding 3 and a half years of Britpop shite. Okay, it had its moments (I actually quite like Suede and Pulp were ace in that period) but a lot of it was twee bollocks. There was definitely a cultural shift of sorts while I was away. And I missed nearly the entire run of 'Eldorado', which I've always regretted.
Then Britpop definitively ended when the BBC played 'Walkaway' by Cast over the closing credits of England's Euro '96 semi-final loss. The following year everyone seemed to have a mobile phone. Except me.
Rearranging the scenes in real chronological order is a useful mental exercise when e.g. under the dentist's drill.
Perhaps that's how it works. Cultural change, particularly pop-culture change, happens when things are politically and economically stable or doing well. Whereas social and political upheaval freezes pop culture while it's underway.
Nothing much changed in pop culture during WW1 or 2, unless you count war poetry. There was little or no culture change during the period from the Wall St crash to the end of the great depression (someone will now prove me wrong with lots of counter-examples). In the relatively upbeat 1890s, 1920s and 1960s there was huge cultural evolution. The only sort of exception I can think of is the sudden arrival of punk during a very restless period of geopolitics and economics in the mid 70s.
I was on online forums back in the early noughties but they were niche places for people with specific interests - weather in my case - rather than mass platforms.
Building regs are things like "if you build anything, thou shalt insulate it to standard x or above according to part 17 of the environmental protection standards 2013 annexe C, except under where under the provisions of the... Etc. For about 2 million pages".
Building regs add lots of cost, much of it generating paper to show that what you're doing is acceptable, and are somewhat haphazardly enforced at best.
Increasing the extent of enforcement, particularly with regard to quality, whilst culling lots of the expensive paperwork excersises might well cut the cost of housing and drive up quality.
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."
Maybe less doom and gloom is needed from Starmer and labour
23% approval
51% disapproval
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1828810673398104174?t=5c9cU_0xQcF7OJ8N5ibY7w&s=19
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1828810675919229293?t=snufQEZ3jLPBdyrsibg4VA&s=19
Netflix have done a couple of very successful live broadcast comedy shows this year, but they’re inevitably picking a time slot for the larger US audience.
My kids see things from the 90s or hear things described from the 90s and its utterly alien to them and sounds like the 50s would have to me.
The idea of only watching what's being broadcast, everyone watching the same thing or not watching anything at all; the idea of live TV broadcasts let alone the idea of being unable to pause/rewind live TV; the lack of streaming; the lack of YouTube and self-broadcasts.
When I watched TV in the 80s I'd watch cartoons made for then like He Man or Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles (not allowed to use the word Ninja in the UK), as well as cartoons from my parents generation like Flintstones, Scooby Doo, Tom & Jerry etc.
When my kids watch "TV" now they go on Kids YouTube and watch streamers like Mariah Elizabeth or Aphmau.
The cultural change from then to now is leaps and bounds.
Very poor start from Reeves frankly.
This is a betting site after all!
Everyone else is spending time online, as we are here, not watching the telly.
And streaming means it doesn't matter if its 99% shit as there's so many things out there there's something for everyone.
She has been in post for 2 months now and AFAIK not a SINGLE PBer has yet referred to her as
Rachel Theeves
Standards are slipping...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lgl9kypno
A company as badly run as that with so many questions over where the money has gone should not be asking for hiked bills in a monopoly they have mismanaged to survive.
Not, at least, until they have explained how debts ballooned while they were paying dividends claiming large profits - and recovered that money....
Someone is paying for that £10k drone that appears over Doncaster Common during racing...
I don't miss having live TV or the licence fee, good riddance to it. We didn't watch anything live other than sport anyway, so don't miss it.
The BBC can go the way of Thames Water for all I care now, if it has no interest in reforming or moving on from the licence fee then let it be consigned to its fate.
Unfortunately the situation has accelerated and it appears that two, not one, will need to be extracted in Q3/Q4 and ongoing gum disease and bone loss (yes, really) bring into question my suitability for implants
The minimum treatment now required is surgery and the use of bone cement/grafts to reinforce the vanishing bone. This is beyond the capacity of the average dentist and will require the services of a more advanced one, such as a periodontist or a dental reconstruction dentist.
My question to the PB brains trust is: what qualification or job title or membership should I look for? For example, the Dip Impl Dent RCSEd is a qualification, The British Society of Peridontology and Implant Dentistry is a society, a "periodontist" is a job title.
Would be grateful for pointer, folks
Kind regards,
@viewcode
The Universities pension fund owns 20% of Thames Water. Could be awkward. Still, never mind.
So far we have
- But the suppliers to Thames Water... (simples - if you are a supplier of pipe, valves and the like, you will get paid. If you are a shareholder, or bond holder, FU)
- But the pension funds... (Ha Ha)
- But the foreign pension funds.... (Ha Ha Ha Ha)
- But the UK market reputation... (Fuck off and die horribly).
I get the strong impression that there is a can of worms here.
Labour should abolish it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Health_Service
As does the system run by the VA.
https://dronedj.com/2021/07/09/and-theyre-off-uk-drone-pilots-feed-live-horse-race-videos-to-betting-rings/
https://www.wired.com/story/horse-racing-drone/
That would be a cool job to do if I was in the UK.
A friend had similar issues and as far as I know he went to a specialist dentist in Birmingham
The treatment was as no doubt you expect very expensive (£35, 000) and lengthy
I hope I have not upset you and wish you well in receiving treatment and hopefully less expensive
It's not vitriol at the owners of the debt and equity - it's directed at the people using them (the debt owners) as a flimsy excuse to protect the companies using public money.
Go for the first if you can, but it won't be cheap.
Incidentally probably a good idea to get investigated as to the cause of the accelerated bone loss, such as calcium and magnesium levels, as well as Vit D etc.
Reality TV and digitalisation arguably ended that in the 2000s. Once ratings begun to go into permanent decline and programmers had lots of data on hand they began producing the same old mush plus the odd prestige show.
TV comedy in particular has been killed by the panel show - as they're so cheap to make and inoffensive. No one's going to give a couple of people with a weird but possibly hilarious idea for a sitcom a load of money to make it when they can have several series of a panel show for the same cost.