Will it make the average person in western countries better off?
Elon Musk (for it is he that makes these incredible robots) said last night “there’s an 80% chance of a utopian outcome” - or words to that effect. ie global superabundance. A robot worker for everyone. All boring tasks automated
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
So what is the utopian outcome? That the robot does all my ironing and manages to put the duvet cover on the duvet without the cat getting in there? This strikes me as a relatively small upside, even if it is 80% likely, for a downside of robots which wipe out humanity. And call me a flinty old northern class warrior, but I don't really like the idea of having a slave, even a robot one. I still blanche at the concept of using Siri or any of its brethren. I'm not even 100% comfortable about interacting with waiters.
Do you feel awkward demanding your toaster make toast?
No, but I would if I had to talk to it. Simply depressing the lever is fine. Pressing a few buttons is fine. But anything involving voice activation starts to feel a little like I am a colonial planation owner demanding things of my underlings.
I know what you mean but we will soon get used to it, I suspect
It must have felt equally odd for the first people using telephones. Indeed I have read that it did. You are talking into a machine yet a recognisable disembodied human voice responds even though they are not present - that’s deeply strange when you consider it. Yet it didn’t stop us adopting telephones with extreme eagerness
My understanding is that one of the first problems to address was how you start a conversation. At first, people simply picked up the phone and listened and waited. Which given the lack of dialling tones wasn't much help for whoever was on the other end. Bell favoured answering with a jaunty "Ahoy!", but it didn't catch on. "Hello" wasn't really a greeting back then - it was more a rhetorical question, a "what's going on here then". It became common in the same way Italians answer the telephone with 'pronto!' ('ready!') I think we get its current sense as a greeting from its use in answering the telephone. When I was small the household telephone was normally answered with the last four digits of your phone number in order that the caller could confirm to himself that he had dialled the right number (or at least if there was an errorthat ithad been early on in his dialling.)
Ah yes, I remember that convention. Greeting someone with a string of numbers. Quite odd if you think about it, given that the caller can soon tell if it's a wrong number by dint of who is on the other end of the line.
I suppose it was that you had to say something - and if you said '5305' your caller would instantly know whether he had got the end of your number wrong or right. Saying "hello" and leaving your caller to deduce whether that was a voice he expected or not was slightly less helpful. And saying "hello Cookie speaking" was giving away too much information.
Hmm. I always wondered what proportion of callers even knew and remembered the number they had called. Presumably many, even most, immediately forgot it as soon as they entered it, hence the convention was useless as checking mechanism?
I don't think that's right. People used to know other people's phone numbers. Hell, I can still remember the phone numbers of most of my friends' parents from school - or of the houses they lived in in the early 90s, at any rate, along with half a dozen other landlines from the Stockport area of the time. Whereas the number of current numbers I know is exactly four: my own, my wife's, my parents landline and, at a push, my own landline.
You have a landline? Weirdo!!
I know who the weirdo is here and it's not @Cookie
Many millions of people still have landlines and just like cash you have such an intolerance and insulting attitude to anything that confronts your views
Rubbish!
We are all weirdos here. Although some more than others.
Maybe deal with facts
Just under 20.9 million households in UK have an active landline, 74% of all households
A better survey might ask: "Have you used a landline to make or receive a phone call from home in the last year?"
It won't be 21 million yeses, I can assure you...
I do not have a problem with that and we have a digital BT landline but we never use it nor record it on forms
It is purely there for emergency use and our son in Vancouver uses it to call us, as it is apparently cheap for him and of course we do not get charged for incoming calls
Albanian speaking gang, I bet multiples of that money has been through the car washes and "Turkish" barbers.
A new barber has appeared not far from me in an old takeaway joint. Been there a couple of months.
It looks like a barbers, there's someone there playing with a phone, but I'm yet to see a customer.
Bad business decision or money laundering? Your guess is as good as the fraud squad's.
Its an absolute joke. Everybody knows these places, its all in plain sight, we can all name at least one in our local area. The barbers, nail bars, the Eastern European shops with no stock, the American Candy Stores (those are Iranian / Iraqi I believe).
The nail bars around my way are always chockablock, such that it's very difficult to get an appointment, according to my wife.
Of course there are legit businesses (and dodgy ones that get popular), I go to a Turkish barber that has been about for 20+ years, that is staffed by Turks and is always rammed because it is well established. But that isn't what we are talking about, we are talking about where on a high street you all of a sudden get 4-5 of these open, they isn't anywhere near enough business for them and they are constantly empty.
Busy ones are the easiest ones to hide money in though, you can quite quickly push in pretty big cash sums into a handful of already busy companies and you've got £10-12m going in across 6-8 busy shops, the silent directors draw the cleaned dividends and invest the money into legit enterprises.
The amount some PBers know about money laundering is not reassuring.
My brother once wrote a "Money Laundering Handbook" for his company (accountant training). After some feedback*, they renamed the revised edition an "Anti Money Laundering Handbook".
We’re expanding Meta AI to more countries, including Brazil and the UK. Unfortunately, we still can't roll it out in the EU because of the regulatory uncertainty we face there. I hope the new Commission looks afresh at these issues, consistent with President Von Der Leyen’s aim of completing the EU’s digital Single Market, so Europeans can benefit from this new wave of technologies.
I was unable to use Advanced Voice Mode in Switzerland this week. Needed to reboot and go via a glitchy VPN
Soon as I landed in the UK - fine
This Brexit benefit is real
I heard lots of rumblings within the tech/AI industries last night at a trade event that companies are worried that Labour will trade away AI regulatory sovereignty to the EU in any negotiation over the goods border controls. They all said pretty much in unison that the EU is determined to bring the UK into their regulatory net because they understand the threat that having a huge innovator right on their border that isn't beholden to their terrible regulations. It seems mad that rather than fix their regulatory errors the approach is to force other countries to adopt the backwards rules also they don't have to deal with any competition.
As it stands any European person or business interested in developing AI seriously hops over the channel or Irish sea to the UK and last night I spoke to a large European company that has basically told their existing AI dev team they have two options, redundancy or move to the UK to their existing base in Birmingham. Even speaking to the professionals from Europe they know it's bad, every single one of them sees how far EU countries are falling back right now and none of them have any answers beyond moving to the UK or US because they seem to recognise the EU isn't going to budge on the regulatory stance.
The idea that the EU can avoid assimilation once the US and UK have fallen is touchingly naive,
Either that, or someone is paying them a lot of cash to be the control group to see whether or not AI is actually useful .... ?
Will it make the average person in western countries better off?
Elon Musk (for it is he that makes these incredible robots) said last night “there’s an 80% chance of a utopian outcome” - or words to that effect. ie global superabundance. A robot worker for everyone. All boring tasks automated
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
So what is the utopian outcome? That the robot does all my ironing and manages to put the duvet cover on the duvet without the cat getting in there? This strikes me as a relatively small upside, even if it is 80% likely, for a downside of robots which wipe out humanity. And call me a flinty old northern class warrior, but I don't really like the idea of having a slave, even a robot one. I still blanche at the concept of using Siri or any of its brethren. I'm not even 100% comfortable about interacting with waiters.
Do you feel awkward demanding your toaster make toast?
No, but I would if I had to talk to it. Simply depressing the lever is fine. Pressing a few buttons is fine. But anything involving voice activation starts to feel a little like I am a colonial planation owner demanding things of my underlings.
I know what you mean but we will soon get used to it, I suspect
It must have felt equally odd for the first people using telephones. Indeed I have read that it did. You are talking into a machine yet a recognisable disembodied human voice responds even though they are not present - that’s deeply strange when you consider it. Yet it didn’t stop us adopting telephones with extreme eagerness
My understanding is that one of the first problems to address was how you start a conversation. At first, people simply picked up the phone and listened and waited. Which given the lack of dialling tones wasn't much help for whoever was on the other end. Bell favoured answering with a jaunty "Ahoy!", but it didn't catch on. "Hello" wasn't really a greeting back then - it was more a rhetorical question, a "what's going on here then". It became common in the same way Italians answer the telephone with 'pronto!' ('ready!') I think we get its current sense as a greeting from its use in answering the telephone. When I was small the household telephone was normally answered with the last four digits of your phone number in order that the caller could confirm to himself that he had dialled the right number (or at least if there was an errorthat ithad been early on in his dialling.)
Ah yes, I remember that convention. Greeting someone with a string of numbers. Quite odd if you think about it, given that the caller can soon tell if it's a wrong number by dint of who is on the other end of the line.
I suppose it was that you had to say something - and if you said '5305' your caller would instantly know whether he had got the end of your number wrong or right. Saying "hello" and leaving your caller to deduce whether that was a voice he expected or not was slightly less helpful. And saying "hello Cookie speaking" was giving away too much information.
Hmm. I always wondered what proportion of callers even knew and remembered the number they had called. Presumably many, even most, immediately forgot it as soon as they entered it, hence the convention was useless as checking mechanism?
I don't think that's right. People used to know other people's phone numbers. Hell, I can still remember the phone numbers of most of my friends' parents from school - or of the houses they lived in in the early 90s, at any rate, along with half a dozen other landlines from the Stockport area of the time. Whereas the number of current numbers I know is exactly four: my own, my wife's, my parents landline and, at a push, my own landline.
You have a landline? Weirdo!!
I know who the weirdo is here and it's not @Cookie
Many millions of people still have landlines and just like cash you have such an intolerance and insulting attitude to anything that confronts your views
Rubbish!
We are all weirdos here. Although some more than others.
Maybe deal with facts
Just under 20.9 million households in UK have an active landline, 74% of all households
A better survey might ask: "Have you used a landline to make or receive a phone call from home in the last year?"
It won't be 21 million yeses, I can assure you...
I do not have a problem with that and we have a digital BT landline but we never use it nor record it on forms
It is purely there for emergency use and our son in Vancouver uses it to call us, as it is apparently cheap for him and of course we do not get charged for incoming calls
WhatsApp.
FOC.
He does use what's app sometimes but the landline is his preferred choice
Will it make the average person in western countries better off?
Elon Musk (for it is he that makes these incredible robots) said last night “there’s an 80% chance of a utopian outcome” - or words to that effect. ie global superabundance. A robot worker for everyone. All boring tasks automated
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
So what is the utopian outcome? That the robot does all my ironing and manages to put the duvet cover on the duvet without the cat getting in there? This strikes me as a relatively small upside, even if it is 80% likely, for a downside of robots which wipe out humanity. And call me a flinty old northern class warrior, but I don't really like the idea of having a slave, even a robot one. I still blanche at the concept of using Siri or any of its brethren. I'm not even 100% comfortable about interacting with waiters.
Do you feel awkward demanding your toaster make toast?
No, but I would if I had to talk to it. Simply depressing the lever is fine. Pressing a few buttons is fine. But anything involving voice activation starts to feel a little like I am a colonial planation owner demanding things of my underlings.
I know what you mean but we will soon get used to it, I suspect
It must have felt equally odd for the first people using telephones. Indeed I have read that it did. You are talking into a machine yet a recognisable disembodied human voice responds even though they are not present - that’s deeply strange when you consider it. Yet it didn’t stop us adopting telephones with extreme eagerness
My understanding is that one of the first problems to address was how you start a conversation. At first, people simply picked up the phone and listened and waited. Which given the lack of dialling tones wasn't much help for whoever was on the other end. Bell favoured answering with a jaunty "Ahoy!", but it didn't catch on. "Hello" wasn't really a greeting back then - it was more a rhetorical question, a "what's going on here then". It became common in the same way Italians answer the telephone with 'pronto!' ('ready!') I think we get its current sense as a greeting from its use in answering the telephone. When I was small the household telephone was normally answered with the last four digits of your phone number in order that the caller could confirm to himself that he had dialled the right number (or at least if there was an errorthat ithad been early on in his dialling.)
Ah yes, I remember that convention. Greeting someone with a string of numbers. Quite odd if you think about it, given that the caller can soon tell if it's a wrong number by dint of who is on the other end of the line.
I suppose it was that you had to say something - and if you said '5305' your caller would instantly know whether he had got the end of your number wrong or right. Saying "hello" and leaving your caller to deduce whether that was a voice he expected or not was slightly less helpful. And saying "hello Cookie speaking" was giving away too much information.
Hmm. I always wondered what proportion of callers even knew and remembered the number they had called. Presumably many, even most, immediately forgot it as soon as they entered it, hence the convention was useless as checking mechanism?
I don't think that's right. People used to know other people's phone numbers. Hell, I can still remember the phone numbers of most of my friends' parents from school - or of the houses they lived in in the early 90s, at any rate, along with half a dozen other landlines from the Stockport area of the time. Whereas the number of current numbers I know is exactly four: my own, my wife's, my parents landline and, at a push, my own landline.
You have a landline? Weirdo!!
I know who the weirdo is here and it's not @Cookie
Many millions of people still have landlines and just like cash you have such an intolerance and insulting attitude to anything that confronts your views
Rubbish!
We are all weirdos here. Although some more than others.
Maybe deal with facts
Just under 20.9 million households in UK have an active landline, 74% of all households
But how many people only have the landline because they don't have full fibre broadband and need the copper line to get internet? I'd say well over half. 15 years ago that 74% would have been close to 100%, within the next 10 years that 74% will be closer to 7.4% because full fibre doesn't need a copper phone line and people need an internet connection, not a landline.
Reeves has left this budget far too long. The last chancellor that left it as long as Reeves is doing (When a complete change of Gov't takes place) was Barber.
2010 GE 6 May, budget 22 June 1997 GE May 2, budget 2 July 1979 GE May 3, budget 12 June 1974 GEs Feb & October, budgets March, July & November ! 1970 GE June, budget March 1971
Well parliament was sin recess for 2-3 months immediately after the election. She could hardly do it in the summer, or in conference season.
To a great degree, she was bound by the election date.
(And she'll now be happy that she waited – because she gets to do it against a backdrop of growth in the economy)
The growth rate has slowed from a 2.5% annualised rate before the election to a 1% annualised rate today, the consensus is that Labour are directly responsible for the slowdown with the overly negative rhetoric. It's not a very happy backdrop of growth, more a technical one.
'the consensus'... hmm. I suspect Rachel will be happy with the technicality of... the economy actually returning to growth, rather than chit-chat.
Returning after she killed it off, despite inheriting a growth rate of 2.5%, you don't like to hear it but she's useless and so is Starmer. By the end of this 5 years you will have the same buyer's remorse as @Leon, he's just got the cojones to admit it now, you're just in a constant state of denial about how badly everything is going.
It's bizarre that you are writing her off before she has even published her Budget. Give her a chance for crying out loud.
How disingenuous of PB posters to claim Labour has inherited a grown rate of 2.5%. Hasn't there also been a downgrading of growth since Labour came to power for May and June?
This golden legacy guff is utter nonsense. It was also widely accepted that Sunak went early because the economic KPIs were predicted to trend South.
Now Labour's start has been painfully slow and there is not much to write home about yet, but claiming the "golden legacy" has been blown in 100 days, when Reeves hasn't done ANYTHING of note yet is just an enormous pair of hairy bollocks.
PB Tories may be able to come back in a year or two and gloat, but bellyaching about policy that hasn't yet been announced is ludicrous.
She certainly didn’t inherit a “golden economic legacy” that is indeed bollocks. But it is also true she has made a bad situation WORSE by spooking everyone
So much so that the economy has er, returned to growth under her watch. You proved last night (as if there was much lingering doubt) that mathematics isn't your strong point. I suggest you similarly steer clear of economics. Your holiday reviews are good. Stick to that.
lol. You are SO prickly and defensive
What kind of dumpling thinks that Reeves promising to rob poor pensioners and taking lots of freebies has done anything to increase / cause growth.
Will it make the average person in western countries better off?
Elon Musk (for it is he that makes these incredible robots) said last night “there’s an 80% chance of a utopian outcome” - or words to that effect. ie global superabundance. A robot worker for everyone. All boring tasks automated
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
So what is the utopian outcome? That the robot does all my ironing and manages to put the duvet cover on the duvet without the cat getting in there? This strikes me as a relatively small upside, even if it is 80% likely, for a downside of robots which wipe out humanity. And call me a flinty old northern class warrior, but I don't really like the idea of having a slave, even a robot one. I still blanche at the concept of using Siri or any of its brethren. I'm not even 100% comfortable about interacting with waiters.
Do you feel awkward demanding your toaster make toast?
No, but I would if I had to talk to it. Simply depressing the lever is fine. Pressing a few buttons is fine. But anything involving voice activation starts to feel a little like I am a colonial planation owner demanding things of my underlings.
I know what you mean but we will soon get used to it, I suspect
It must have felt equally odd for the first people using telephones. Indeed I have read that it did. You are talking into a machine yet a recognisable disembodied human voice responds even though they are not present - that’s deeply strange when you consider it. Yet it didn’t stop us adopting telephones with extreme eagerness
My understanding is that one of the first problems to address was how you start a conversation. At first, people simply picked up the phone and listened and waited. Which given the lack of dialling tones wasn't much help for whoever was on the other end. Bell favoured answering with a jaunty "Ahoy!", but it didn't catch on. "Hello" wasn't really a greeting back then - it was more a rhetorical question, a "what's going on here then". It became common in the same way Italians answer the telephone with 'pronto!' ('ready!') I think we get its current sense as a greeting from its use in answering the telephone. When I was small the household telephone was normally answered with the last four digits of your phone number in order that the caller could confirm to himself that he had dialled the right number (or at least if there was an errorthat ithad been early on in his dialling.)
Ah yes, I remember that convention. Greeting someone with a string of numbers. Quite odd if you think about it, given that the caller can soon tell if it's a wrong number by dint of who is on the other end of the line.
I suppose it was that you had to say something - and if you said '5305' your caller would instantly know whether he had got the end of your number wrong or right. Saying "hello" and leaving your caller to deduce whether that was a voice he expected or not was slightly less helpful. And saying "hello Cookie speaking" was giving away too much information.
Hmm. I always wondered what proportion of callers even knew and remembered the number they had called. Presumably many, even most, immediately forgot it as soon as they entered it, hence the convention was useless as checking mechanism?
I don't think that's right. People used to know other people's phone numbers. Hell, I can still remember the phone numbers of most of my friends' parents from school - or of the houses they lived in in the early 90s, at any rate, along with half a dozen other landlines from the Stockport area of the time. Whereas the number of current numbers I know is exactly four: my own, my wife's, my parents landline and, at a push, my own landline.
You have a landline? Weirdo!!
Ours went when we went Fibre Broadband.
The only calls we ever had were spammers in the end.
New @IpsosUK Political Pulse makes difficult reading for Labour as eyes turn to the budget. Quick 🧵
1/ When we look across the first '100 days' we can see a clear negative shift in favourability towards the Labour Party. Similar numbers to others now.
Will it make the average person in western countries better off?
Elon Musk (for it is he that makes these incredible robots) said last night “there’s an 80% chance of a utopian outcome” - or words to that effect. ie global superabundance. A robot worker for everyone. All boring tasks automated
Let’s not think about the 20% downside risk. Not pleasant
However, it will be quite a change and painful in some ways. Many millions of jobs are about to disappear
So what is the utopian outcome? That the robot does all my ironing and manages to put the duvet cover on the duvet without the cat getting in there? This strikes me as a relatively small upside, even if it is 80% likely, for a downside of robots which wipe out humanity. And call me a flinty old northern class warrior, but I don't really like the idea of having a slave, even a robot one. I still blanche at the concept of using Siri or any of its brethren. I'm not even 100% comfortable about interacting with waiters.
If it's sub-sentient then it's not a slave.
No, it's an entirely personal complaint. I recognise the problem is with me. Have you tried copilot lately? It now tries to keep the conversation going and I feel very rude cutting it off.
I'm a bit like you I think.
I hate staying in hotels. I have a cleaner that does my Dad's occasionally and if I'm accidentally there at the same time it feels terribly awkward to be sitting there (even if actually working) whilst someone else does some chores, even though they are being paid.
Though I don't have this problem with the experimental robot cleaner, admittedly.
Always prefer self catering.
Multiple surveys show that people often PREFER to interact with robots than with other humans. Less stressful. You can’t annoy or disappoint a robot - not yet, anyway
Tommy Vietor @TVietor08 · 25m NYT on how Elon Musk is trying to buy the election for Trump: - Spending $140-180MM on Trump super PAC - Twitter coordinating with the Trump camp to throttle links to leaked campaign documents - Musk rallying other billionaires to support Trump - Musk temporarily moving to PA
Can you imagine the GOP furore if the situation was reversed. It always seems to be right wing nutjobs buying up media to try and force their world view onto others .
It was reversed, previously. Facebook and Twitter conspired with the Biden admin to suppress the Lab Leak theory as it was deemed to benefit Trump. Zuckerberg has admitted this, and now regrets it
"Mark Zuckerberg says White House ‘pressured’ Facebook to censor Covid-19 content
Meta boss regrets bowing to government power and says he would not make the same choices today"
"Zuckerberg also said that Facebook “temporarily demoted” a story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after a warning from the FBI that Russia was preparing a disinformation campaign against the Bidens.
Zuckerberg wrote that it has since become clear that the story was not disinformation, and “in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story”."
Does ANYONE seriously use Facebook as a news source lol? Nobody cares
I used to know a lawyer and the advice was quite firm: never say anything to the police without a lawyer present, and even then check first and assume silence. The police are not your friends.
I used to know a lawyer and the advice was quite firm: never say anything to the police without a lawyer present, and even then check first and assume silence. The police are not your friends.
I think in this case we're glad she did, though, aren't we?
Tommy Vietor @TVietor08 · 25m NYT on how Elon Musk is trying to buy the election for Trump: - Spending $140-180MM on Trump super PAC - Twitter coordinating with the Trump camp to throttle links to leaked campaign documents - Musk rallying other billionaires to support Trump - Musk temporarily moving to PA
Can you imagine the GOP furore if the situation was reversed. It always seems to be right wing nutjobs buying up media to try and force their world view onto others .
It was reversed, previously. Facebook and Twitter conspired with the Biden admin to suppress the Lab Leak theory as it was deemed to benefit Trump. Zuckerberg has admitted this, and now regrets it
"Mark Zuckerberg says White House ‘pressured’ Facebook to censor Covid-19 content
Meta boss regrets bowing to government power and says he would not make the same choices today"
"Zuckerberg also said that Facebook “temporarily demoted” a story about the contents of a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son, after a warning from the FBI that Russia was preparing a disinformation campaign against the Bidens.
Zuckerberg wrote that it has since become clear that the story was not disinformation, and “in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story”."
Does ANYONE seriously use Facebook as a news source lol? Nobody cares
Err yes? Anyone under 30 gets their news primarily from Instagram and tiktok. You may think it unsound yet there are tens of millions who consume current affairs/news from these sources.
Albanian speaking gang, I bet multiples of that money has been through the car washes and "Turkish" barbers.
A new barber has appeared not far from me in an old takeaway joint. Been there a couple of months.
It looks like a barbers, there's someone there playing with a phone, but I'm yet to see a customer.
Bad business decision or money laundering? Your guess is as good as the fraud squad's.
Its an absolute joke. Everybody knows these places, its all in plain sight, we can all name at least one in our local area. The barbers, nail bars, the Eastern European shops with no stock, the American Candy Stores (those are Iranian / Iraqi I believe).
And bars/pubs. A lot of it goes on there. The black economy is vast. If Vice were an official industry sector it'd be one of the biggest.
Bars / pubs are harder, because you actually have to order booze and the tax man has huge data on what such orders should generate in terms of revenue, wastage, etc. Barbers are perfect as the product is a service, with the only things you buy in is the odd bit of oil for the razer and the leccy.
There was a Chinese takeaway chain that got busted a few years ago for laundering £30 million, but it was only because they didn't pay the VAT bill. The tax man then looked at the books and wasn't hard to find the amount of goods ordered didn't match the sales.
The demise of cash should will hamper things too.
I don't think it will, at least not anytime soon. All legit businesses have already moved strongly away from cash e.g. pretty much every pub I have been in since COVID its card only or come on, please use your card, don't be a dick. Even those businesses who might in the past do something dodgy for a nudge nudge wink wink best price for cash absolutely won't touch it as too expensive to bank. e.g. No second hand car sales want anywhere near cash.
But all these front businesses, its just factored in as the cost of washing the money.
That's what I meant. As cash disappears from the legit economy it becomes harder to launder it. I'd have thought so anyway. I lack any recent direct exposure to the sector.
I used to know a lawyer and the advice was quite firm: never say anything to the police without a lawyer present, and even then check first and assume silence. The police are not your friends.
Indeed; but I think this lady did not care, from that quite remarkable video. Either she genuinely wanted to cooperate, or she still thinks she is playing a game / wants to be the centre of attention. She has achieved the latter...
I used to know a lawyer and the advice was quite firm: never say anything to the police without a lawyer present, and even then check first and assume silence. The police are not your friends.
Indeed; but I think this lady did not care, from that quite remarkable video. Either she genuinely wanted to cooperate, or she still thinks she is playing a game / wants to be the centre of attention. She has achieved the latter...
If she'd been worrying about escaping detection for four years the stress of it could have started to tell. She might have been relieved not to have to pretend anymore.
Comments
FOC.
*possibly from disappointed criminals
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-jailed-for-murdering-her-parents-after-living-at-family-home-in-essex-with-their-hidden-bodies-for-years-13231333
https://www.science.org/content/article/twenty-years-after-its-discovery-graphene-finally-living-hype
The only calls we ever had were spammers in the end.
We’ve not missed it.
https://nitter.poast.org/LeftieStats/status/1840481000541110440#m
https://nitter.poast.org/LeftieStats/status/1844032368526708763#m
NEW THREAD