Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
This is all very fascist obviously, but it’s also notable (to me) that Farage completely glosses over the reality that Musk sacked 80% of Twitter’s staff & as a result triggered an 84% drop in it’s revenue. He simply didn’t understand the product Twitter was selling.
The idea that you can simply hack away 80% of government employees & not end up causing great swathes of harm to people in the real world is for the birds.
What was twitter selling ? Technically it's been absolutely fine since he took over.
Advertising. Twitter was selling a safe space for major brands to advertise to a reasonably well characterised audience. Musk trashed all of that by sacking all the moderation staff, leading to (e.g.) Disney ads being placed up against white supremacist bile. Unsurprisingly the major brands took fright & left en masse, leaving Twitter with the bottom of the barrel advertisers you now see on your feed & scratching about for subscriber income.
Twitter lost a large chunk of it’s audience & income, all because Musk didn’t understand what he had bought & wasn’t interested in taking the time to learn. The technical side just about survived, but only because it had been very well engineered in the first place to deal with internal service failures. A more brittle system would have failed completely & perhaps never recovered.
As it is, various Twitter systems still either don’t work or work only some of the time. It may well survive in it’s new form & it’s perfectly possible that Musk will turn it into some income generating powerhouse but that’s in the future: As it is now it’s merely a sad shadow of its former self.
RCP average now +0.1 Harris. The polls have the race as a toss up. Evens the pair. The betting is almost 60:40 in Trump's favour. Harris almost 2.5 when the polls have her at 2.0. You could make 25% on your money if you backed Harris at 2.5 and were able to lay her back at 2.0. Will this prove to be the biggest Political Betting value opportunity ever? Huge liquidity available.
I'd say it's fairly common thinking amongst educated here that having fewer/no children is absolutely fine and would do a great service to the planet, so its not really a problem.
This ignores the very serious social, political and economic consequences if it continues unchecked - which could ultimately lead to states falling apart into (and not excluding at the extremes) bankruptcy, disorder and anarchy.
What you probably want is some sort of long-term population stabilisation.
Yes, I'm quite concerned about the prospect of rapid population falls.
I suspect that culturally and economically it's quite hard to hit on close to replacement level. There are feedbacks which will push away from stability.
The idea of a world with a global fertility rate below 1.5 is quite depressing.
It is so depressing. Children are the most incredible gift and the source of almost all joy in the world. There is an upside for the natural world from a lower human population, but it's hard to see a rapidly falling population as anything other than a tragedy.
The upside to the natural world from a falling population is overdone. What matters most in that respect is what technology we have, and how we use it. That's what we can change most quickly and will have the greatest impact.
I get quite cross about people arguing against having children on an environmental basis.
Well indeed. Environmentalism, to me, is all about creating and maintaining an environment that is best able to sustain human life. It is not about reducing the number of humans in order to leave the planet in some sort of pristine state.
I'd say it's fairly common thinking amongst educated here that having fewer/no children is absolutely fine and would do a great service to the planet, so its not really a problem.
This ignores the very serious social, political and economic consequences if it continues unchecked - which could ultimately lead to states falling apart into (and not excluding at the extremes) bankruptcy, disorder and anarchy.
What you probably want is some sort of long-term population stabilisation.
Yes, I'm quite concerned about the prospect of rapid population falls.
I suspect that culturally and economically it's quite hard to hit on close to replacement level. There are feedbacks which will push away from stability.
The idea of a world with a global fertility rate below 1.5 is quite depressing.
It is so depressing. Children are the most incredible gift and the source of almost all joy in the world. There is an upside for the natural world from a lower human population, but it's hard to see a rapidly falling population as anything other than a tragedy.
It really does depend on exactly *who* is having/raising the children. Or failing to have them.This is the uncomfortable truth.
Our society has arguably been hyper-reproductive in the 'wrong' areas, and pretty barren amongst those whose offspring would, on balance, have the potential to make a more positive impact.
I know this is a generalisation and I'd never argue for any forceful intervention of any kind, but it is the reality, however unpalatable.
Genetics, background, culture, geography, money, time, intellect, consciousness, politics - all stuff that can make a difference.
This is why it pisses me off when politicians say 'talent is evenly distributed but opportunity isn't '. What evidence is the first assertion based on? Has there been some big Trading Places-style experiment that we weren't told about.
I just wish the academics who talk about “fascism” day in and day out could expand their alarmist repertoire even a tiny bit, if only to make the discourse less boring. Here’s one suggestion (just to help articulate a view I emphatically do *not* share): a much more interesting historical analogy would be Napoleon III, who attempted two failed coups, was elected to the presidency as a champion of the working class against the liberal elite, and then made himself Emperor.
The problem with 'fascism' is that it is relatively poorly-defined, as we've seen on previous discussions on here. It seems to be that people think they know it when they see it; but others disagree with those personal definitions and examples.
I'm happy to call Putin a fascist, and think I can argue the point fairly well. But Trump? No, not yet. He and his ilk are happy to use some of the tactics fascists use: e.g. disagreement is treason; fear of difference; machismo and weaponry. Others are not much present: e.g. the cult of tradition.
But Trump et al don't need to be fascist to do terrible things, and calling them 'fascists!' might well be counter-productive. They are bad on their own terms.
I think it’s more that he and his ilk (including Farage but not Boris or Meloni) have parted ways with all aspects of the post war consensus and believe some things we all assumed were gone. We had all drunk the “end of history” koolaid and it doesn’t compute.
I just wish the academics who talk about “fascism” day in and day out could expand their alarmist repertoire even a tiny bit, if only to make the discourse less boring. Here’s one suggestion (just to help articulate a view I emphatically do *not* share): a much more interesting historical analogy would be Napoleon III, who attempted two failed coups, was elected to the presidency as a champion of the working class against the liberal elite, and then made himself Emperor.
(* In 2016, after his sarcastic dedication of "The Entertainer" to then-Republican candidate Donald Trump was taken as a serious endorsement, Joel told the New York Daily News in an email that he would be voting for Hillary Clinton.)
IMHO on balance 🇺🇸 electorate is more sexist than it is racist . Remarkable if @KamalaHarris overcomes both.
I think that’s a very lazy characterisation, the US has had a large number of female elected officials including a female Speaker and VP, countless governors, Senators etc.
RCP average now +0.1 Harris. The polls have the race as a toss up. Evens the pair. The betting is almost 60:40 in Trump's favour. Harris almost 2.5 when the polls have her at 2.0. You could make 25% on your money if you backed Harris at 2.5 and were able to lay her back at 2.0. Will this prove to be the biggest Political Betting value opportunity ever? Huge liquidity available.
+1
It occurs to me than Trump Supporters are more likely to place bets on this election than Harris supporters? Apart from the people who bet to make money and have no political preference for either candidate.
IMHO on balance 🇺🇸 electorate is more sexist than it is racist . Remarkable if @KamalaHarris overcomes both.
For all the political problems we have in the UK we are quite lucky that the race and sex of candidates doesn't really carry much weight. That's not to say it's not a issue for some at the fringes, but it barely gets any traction.
IMHO on balance 🇺🇸 electorate is more sexist than it is racist . Remarkable if @KamalaHarris overcomes both.
For all the political problems we have in the UK we are quite lucky that the race and sex of candidates doesn't really carry much weight. That's not to say it's not a issue for some at the fringes, but it barely gets any traction.
He has calculated some sort of "Advantage" score based on relative turnout of Republican/Democrat registered voters compared to 2016 or 2020, and so puts Trump ahead by 18% in Pennsylvania, because being behind by 400k in early votes is a lot better than 2020.
IMHO on balance 🇺🇸 electorate is more sexist than it is racist . Remarkable if @KamalaHarris overcomes both.
For all the political problems we have in the UK we are quite lucky that the race and sex of candidates doesn't really carry much weight. That's not to say it's not a issue for some at the fringes, but it barely gets any traction.
Let’s not pat ourselves too hard on the back, there are different pinch points. Khan wasn’t attacked for being Asian, but he was for being Muslim.
Final call. I think Harris wins on greater female turnout. Don't have any evidence more than a hunch. Maybe wishcasting? Haven't bet on this as I'm aware I don't know. But you've got to make your choice. Billy Bragg "Which Side are you On?" Not confident there won't be trouble.
The no booze without food thing does get really old very quickly, in Korea
Also it’s near impossible to buy Tabasco in central Seoul
These tiny things begin to grate
I was there for a few days in Sep 2012. Seems like yesterday. Where's the time gone? We did the visiting the North Korean border tunnels trip. American soldiers everywhere in that area.
Going to be in line for awhile never seen it this long
So they still haven't sorted this problem out after all this time. I've never waited more than 2 minutes.
It's not a problem to the people trying to reduce voting levels in urban areas. Long queues are the system working as intended.
Yes. I think it's easy for PBers, who are generally office-based or retired, to not appreciate how precious a daytime hour is to shift workers, particularly if they have children. You might have to take time off work.
And look at how early the polls close in some states.
IMHO on balance 🇺🇸 electorate is more sexist than it is racist . Remarkable if @KamalaHarris overcomes both.
For all the political problems we have in the UK we are quite lucky that the race and sex of candidates doesn't really carry much weight. That's not to say it's not a issue for some at the fringes, but it barely gets any traction.
Outside the likes of the leftie race grifters and the far right, literally nobody mentioned Kwarteng or Sunak race or the sex of Truss. That was not the reason they failed electorally.
So what is the playlist tonight as we wait for results? I'll start off with Steely Dan - Haitian Divorce.
Sorry, Donald, they have fallen out of love....
Spotify has a few.
Duran Duran and Election day and who was that guy who sang "i want to be elected" ? Ozzy Osborne ? That's another.
It was Simon Le Bon's side project Arcadia in 1985 with Election Day. (The other Duran Duran side project at the time was Power Station with Robert Palmer, whose biggest hit was Some Like It Hot).
In totally-legitimate-political-betting news, there remains £2.5m looking to back Trump at 1.7 on Betfair. Just next to every other betting level where there is up to £0.05m ready to be staked.
I think we may as well ignore betting odds as a guide to how well candidates are doing until polls close.
The £2.5m firewall has moved into 1.65...
My guess is Trump's odds shorten further over the course of today as someone tries to build a narrative around Trump winning on election day.
IMHO on balance 🇺🇸 electorate is more sexist than it is racist . Remarkable if @KamalaHarris overcomes both.
For all the political problems we have in the UK we are quite lucky that the race and sex of candidates doesn't really carry much weight. That's not to say it's not a issue for some at the fringes, but it barely gets any traction.
Outside the likes of the leftie race grifters and the far right, literally nobody mentioned Kwarteng or Sunak race or the sex of Truss. That was not the reason they failed electorally.
Does the necklace of TRUSS count ? Not that I know its significance.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
It's a fiction he can sell to Red Wallers. Enough think that the public sector are all just layabouts. There are some here who regularly express that view. After its happened and their local services are almost entirely wiped out, then they'll realise their mistake.
America may be about to become a very grim place. And those imagining that their lives would simply go on as before, untouched in any major way by the potential fear and chaos, are making a big mistake.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
This is all very fascist obviously, but it’s also notable (to me) that Farage completely glosses over the reality that Musk sacked 80% of Twitter’s staff & as a result triggered an 84% drop in it’s revenue. He simply didn’t understand the product Twitter was selling.
The idea that you can simply hack away 80% of government employees & not end up causing great swathes of harm to people in the real world is for the birds.
I'm not sure that one followed from the other with Twitter. The drop in advertising revenue has more to do with his brand positioning than the reduction in headcount.
It's worth remembering that before Musk bought it, Twitter was mostly making thumping losses, and it's business model looked pretty unsustainable. The jury is still out of Musk's version, but I think it's by no means impossible he'll end up making it wash it's face.
If Harris won Nevada, as Ralston predicts, then she can afford to lose Penn as long as she gains either Georgia or N Carolina.
Bear in mind that Biden won 306 ECVs and Trump still dragged the process out into January, with violence on the streets. Harris does only need 270 ECVs to win but if she does land in the 270s, it'll get very ugly before it gets better - assuming that Trump doesn't manage to persuade Congress and/or the courts to fiddle the result for him (which is unlikely but certainly not impossible).
Unless it is 268 each Congress has no power to intervene directly and in 2020 remember even most GOP Senators voted that Biden had won even if most GOP House Reps voted to challenge state results and say Trump had won.
The courts cannot intervene either unless to stop the count but Trump would have to be ahead in that states count anyway at that point
It's 269 for a tie. But leaving that aside:
Congress has absolute discretion to count the votes, which also means validating the votes. It can throw out a state's votes if it considers those votes to be invalid - and it can use whatever argument it likes to come to such a determination. There is no obligation on Congress to produce a 538 total, or to 'find' votes in place of a set it doesn't like.
The count in Congress has generally been entirely procedural but it isn't, necessarily: it's a functional part of the process and if there is dispute as to who the valid Electors are, or should be, or whether they have cast their votes correctly or not, Congress can choose not to count them.
Now, I agree that it's unlikely that the GOP would have the votes to play such shenanigans and that Trump also actually lost the election. In reality, it'd take a Red Wave to give the Republicans the votes - and such a wave would almost certainly bring Trump victory via the normal route. Nonetheless, if he wants to play silly, it's an option.
How the courts could intervene, and to do what, is pretty much unclear but US courts, and especially the Supreme Court, tend not to be shy about asserting their powers over pretty much everything else.
I'd say it's fairly common thinking amongst educated here that having fewer/no children is absolutely fine and would do a great service to the planet, so its not really a problem.
This ignores the very serious social, political and economic consequences if it continues unchecked - which could ultimately lead to states falling apart into (and not excluding at the extremes) bankruptcy, disorder and anarchy.
What you probably want is some sort of long-term population stabilisation.
Yes, I'm quite concerned about the prospect of rapid population falls.
I suspect that culturally and economically it's quite hard to hit on close to replacement level. There are feedbacks which will push away from stability.
The idea of a world with a global fertility rate below 1.5 is quite depressing.
It is so depressing. Children are the most incredible gift and the source of almost all joy in the world. There is an upside for the natural world from a lower human population, but it's hard to see a rapidly falling population as anything other than a tragedy.
It really does depend on exactly *who* is having/raising the children. Or failing to have them.This is the uncomfortable truth.
Our society has arguably been hyper-reproductive in the 'wrong' areas, and pretty barren amongst those whose offspring would, on balance, have the potential to make a more positive impact.
I know this is a generalisation and I'd never argue for any forceful intervention of any kind, but it is the reality, however unpalatable.
Genetics, background, culture, geography, money, time, intellect, consciousness, politics - all stuff that can make a difference.
This is why it pisses me off when politicians say 'talent is evenly distributed but opportunity isn't '. What evidence is the first assertion based on? Has there been some big Trading Places-style experiment that we weren't told about.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
The latest figures are 1.77m early votes, but that 56-43 margin is still there.
A 13% split. If we again take the last ABC split of women voters favouring Harris by 11%, that is another huge firewall banked by Harris.
I'm calling it at....4.12 Eastern Time on the 5th November:
KAMALA HARRIS WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
@MarqueeMark your enthusiasm is infectious but from a betting point of view I must confess I take all your posts with a very large pinch of salt!
We need cold hard objectivity over the next 24 hours. Not to grasp the best bits of news we want to hear.
My post is hard-nosed objectivity! Based on two data points: the very real actual polling numbers from the official Georgia website, showing how far ahead women voters are with 56% of all those entitled to vote having done so (so 100% objectivity); and the last ABC poll which showed how the female voters were breaking decisivley to Harris (with males beaking less solidly for Trump) - which you could argue with but it doesn't seem out of line with other pollsters you could choose.
You really don't need other data points to go "bloody hell!"
I hope you are not wishcasting like all our Trumpian friends, who claim not to be wishcasting.
If you think so, attack the maths...
No I am hoping you have this buttoned down.
My heart says women will win it for Harris my head says (with lots of ramping from William Glenn) a similar win to 2016 for Trump.
@Steven_Swinford Kemi Badenoch was left infuriated after The Times disclosed that she had appointed Robert Jenrick as her shadow justice secretary yesterday
Badenoch had wanted to announce Jenrick’s appointment today so the appointments of Priti Patel as shadow foreign secretary and Mel Stride as shadow chancellor would take the headlines
She must have leaked the news to someone in the first place.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
I just wish the academics who talk about “fascism” day in and day out could expand their alarmist repertoire even a tiny bit, if only to make the discourse less boring. Here’s one suggestion (just to help articulate a view I emphatically do *not* share): a much more interesting historical analogy would be Napoleon III, who attempted two failed coups, was elected to the presidency as a champion of the working class against the liberal elite, and then made himself Emperor.
The problem with 'fascism' is that it is relatively poorly-defined, as we've seen on previous discussions on here. It seems to be that people think they know it when they see it; but others disagree with those personal definitions and examples.
I'm happy to call Putin a fascist, and think I can argue the point fairly well. But Trump? No, not yet. He and his ilk are happy to use some of the tactics fascists use: e.g. disagreement is treason; fear of difference; machismo and weaponry. Others are not much present: e.g. the cult of tradition.
But Trump et al don't need to be fascist to do terrible things, and calling them 'fascists!' might well be counter-productive. They are bad on their own terms.
This has been my concern for a while, especially with the "end of democracy" paranoia.
Because it's too easy for voters to see that he didn't do any of that really bad stuff last time, and you end up with wolf-crying.
@Steven_Swinford Kemi Badenoch was left infuriated after The Times disclosed that she had appointed Robert Jenrick as her shadow justice secretary yesterday
Badenoch had wanted to announce Jenrick’s appointment today so the appointments of Priti Patel as shadow foreign secretary and Mel Stride as shadow chancellor would take the headlines
She must have leaked the news to someone in the first place.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
This is all very fascist obviously, but it’s also notable (to me) that Farage completely glosses over the reality that Musk sacked 80% of Twitter’s staff & as a result triggered an 84% drop in it’s revenue. He simply didn’t understand the product Twitter was selling.
The idea that you can simply hack away 80% of government employees & not end up causing great swathes of harm to people in the real world is for the birds.
I'm not sure that one followed from the other with Twitter. The drop in advertising revenue has more to do with his brand positioning than the reduction in headcount.
It's worth remembering that before Musk bought it, Twitter was mostly making thumping losses, and it's business model looked pretty unsustainable. The jury is still out of Musk's version, but I think it's by no means impossible he'll end up making it wash it's face.
Many caught out in the reduction in headcount were the people who Musk stupidly thought did nothing, but actually did things like ensure that the brands who gave Twitter its money do not have their ads placed next to posts they might see as objectionable.
This forced many brands off the platform, and has led to Musk blaming everyone else but himself.
Haven't been on ChatGPT for about a year, so I thought I'd see if they've improved their factual information replies.
They haven't.
My question: "How many votes did the Conservatives poll in the Huntingdon constituency at the 1983 general election?"
Answer: "In the 1983 UK general election, the Conservative Party candidate in the Huntingdon constituency, John Major, received 32,833 votes, winning with 54.2% of the vote. This was a strong performance in a safe Conservative seat, marking the beginning of a prominent political career for Major, who would later become Prime Minister."
I'd say it's fairly common thinking amongst educated here that having fewer/no children is absolutely fine and would do a great service to the planet, so its not really a problem.
This ignores the very serious social, political and economic consequences if it continues unchecked - which could ultimately lead to states falling apart into (and not excluding at the extremes) bankruptcy, disorder and anarchy.
What you probably want is some sort of long-term population stabilisation.
Yes, I'm quite concerned about the prospect of rapid population falls.
I suspect that culturally and economically it's quite hard to hit on close to replacement level. There are feedbacks which will push away from stability.
The idea of a world with a global fertility rate below 1.5 is quite depressing.
It is so depressing. Children are the most incredible gift and the source of almost all joy in the world. There is an upside for the natural world from a lower human population, but it's hard to see a rapidly falling population as anything other than a tragedy.
It really does depend on exactly *who* is having/raising the children. Or failing to have them.This is the uncomfortable truth.
Our society has arguably been hyper-reproductive in the 'wrong' areas, and pretty barren amongst those whose offspring would, on balance, have the potential to make a more positive impact.
I know this is a generalisation and I'd never argue for any forceful intervention of any kind, but it is the reality, however unpalatable.
Genetics, background, culture, geography, money, time, intellect, consciousness, politics - all stuff that can make a difference.
This is why it pisses me off when politicians say 'talent is evenly distributed but opportunity isn't '. What evidence is the first assertion based on? Has there been some big Trading Places-style experiment that we weren't told about.
Kind of. You can look at adopted children, e.g. Sacerdote (2002, "The Nature and Nurture of Economic Outcomes," American Economic Review, 92 (2): 344–348). He concludes:
I find that being raised in a high-SES family (or in a high-income town) greatly increases the probability that a child will attend college and increases the selectivity of the college attended. [...] These findings support the notion that environment can be incredibly potent in determining children’s outcomes and that environment’s potency may vary with the outcome considered.
Black et al. (2020) also looked at adoptees, now in Sweden:
Wealth is highly correlated between parents and their children; however, little is known about the extent to which these relationships are genetic or determined by environmental factors. We use administrative data on the net wealth of a large sample of Swedish adoptees merged with similar information for their biological and adoptive parents. Comparing the relationship between the wealth of adopted and biological parents and that of the adopted child, we find that, even prior to any inheritance, there is a substantial role for environment and a much smaller role for pre-birth factors and we find little evidence that nature/nurture interactions are important. When bequests are taken into account, the role of adoptive parental wealth becomes much stronger. Our findings suggest that wealth transmission is not primarily because children from wealthier families are inherently more talented or more able but that, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden, wealth begets wealth.
Bjorklund et al. (2005) in Sweden came to similar conclusions on earnings comparing sibling types (monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, other siblings).
Haven't been on ChatGPT for about a year, so I thought I'd see if they've improved their factual information replies.
They haven't.
My question: "How many votes did the Conservatives poll in the Huntingdon constituency at the 1983 general election?"
Answer: "In the 1983 UK general election, the Conservative Party candidate in the Huntingdon constituency, John Major, received 32,833 votes, winning with 54.2% of the vote. This was a strong performance in a safe Conservative seat, marking the beginning of a prominent political career for Major, who would later become Prime Minister."
In fact he polled 34,254 votes at that election.
Can you follow up to ask for the source of that incorrect number?
The weathers looking a bit wet for parts of the mid west . The current radar though does show a gap over Madison WI and Detroit MI . Perhaps it’s a sign !
Haven't been on ChatGPT for about a year, so I thought I'd see if they've improved their factual information replies.
They haven't.
My question: "How many votes did the Conservatives poll in the Huntingdon constituency at the 1983 general election?"
Answer: "In the 1983 UK general election, the Conservative Party candidate in the Huntingdon constituency, John Major, received 32,833 votes, winning with 54.2% of the vote. This was a strong performance in a safe Conservative seat, marking the beginning of a prominent political career for Major, who would later become Prime Minister."
In fact he polled 34,254 votes at that election.
Accuracy is for low status people.
Quickly generating, big, thick documents is much more important.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
This is all very fascist obviously, but it’s also notable (to me) that Farage completely glosses over the reality that Musk sacked 80% of Twitter’s staff & as a result triggered an 84% drop in it’s revenue. He simply didn’t understand the product Twitter was selling.
The idea that you can simply hack away 80% of government employees & not end up causing great swathes of harm to people in the real world is for the birds.
I'm not sure that one followed from the other with Twitter. The drop in advertising revenue has more to do with his brand positioning than the reduction in headcount.
It's worth remembering that before Musk bought it, Twitter was mostly making thumping losses, and it's business model looked pretty unsustainable. The jury is still out of Musk's version, but I think it's by no means impossible he'll end up making it wash it's face.
Twitter had started making profit a few years before Musk took over. It took time to get there, but was looking sustainable.
This is the real Deep State that's being voted on.
Neither candidate wants to talk about it, but the stakes today for the Supreme Court’s future are huge. A GOP win could cement this majority for another generation or two. A Dem win could protect theirs or shrink this majority. Divided gov’t means a R Senate could stymie Harris. https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1853791927738536132
Imagine a 6/3 - or possibly 7/2 - court, to the right of the current one. For the next couple of decades.
At best, President Harris might make it 5/4 to the liberals - but with a likely GOP Senate doing the confirming,
If Harris won Nevada, as Ralston predicts, then she can afford to lose Penn as long as she gains either Georgia or N Carolina.
Bear in mind that Biden won 306 ECVs and Trump still dragged the process out into January, with violence on the streets. Harris does only need 270 ECVs to win but if she does land in the 270s, it'll get very ugly before it gets better - assuming that Trump doesn't manage to persuade Congress and/or the courts to fiddle the result for him (which is unlikely but certainly not impossible).
Unless it is 268 each Congress has no power to intervene directly and in 2020 remember even most GOP Senators voted that Biden had won even if most GOP House Reps voted to challenge state results and say Trump had won.
The courts cannot intervene either unless to stop the count but Trump would have to be ahead in that states count anyway at that point
It's 269 for a tie. But leaving that aside:
Congress has absolute discretion to count the votes, which also means validating the votes. It can throw out a state's votes if it considers those votes to be invalid - and it can use whatever argument it likes to come to such a determination. There is no obligation on Congress to produce a 538 total, or to 'find' votes in place of a set it doesn't like.
The count in Congress has generally been entirely procedural but it isn't, necessarily: it's a functional part of the process and if there is dispute as to who the valid Electors are, or should be, or whether they have cast their votes correctly or not, Congress can choose not to count them.
Now, I agree that it's unlikely that the GOP would have the votes to play such shenanigans and that Trump also actually lost the election. In reality, it'd take a Red Wave to give the Republicans the votes - and such a wave would almost certainly bring Trump victory via the normal route. Nonetheless, if he wants to play silly, it's an option.
How the courts could intervene, and to do what, is pretty much unclear but US courts, and especially the Supreme Court, tend not to be shy about asserting their powers over pretty much everything else.
No it can't, Congress needs 2/3 majorities in both Chambers to invalidate state votes.
As I said in 2020 not even a majority of GOP Senators voted for that let alone a majority of Democratic Congressional representatives and Senators so it is not happening.
As I also said the Courts have no constitutional power to do anything but stop the count, as they did in Florida in 2000 but if Harris is ahead in a state already when they do that it makes no difference anyway
Haven't been on ChatGPT for about a year, so I thought I'd see if they've improved their factual information replies.
They haven't.
My question: "How many votes did the Conservatives poll in the Huntingdon constituency at the 1983 general election?"
Answer: "In the 1983 UK general election, the Conservative Party candidate in the Huntingdon constituency, John Major, received 32,833 votes, winning with 54.2% of the vote. This was a strong performance in a safe Conservative seat, marking the beginning of a prominent political career for Major, who would later become Prime Minister."
In fact he polled 34,254 votes at that election.
Can you follow up to ask for the source of that incorrect number?
It doesn't know the source of the incorrect number it's an hallucination..
Haven't been on ChatGPT for about a year, so I thought I'd see if they've improved their factual information replies.
They haven't.
My question: "How many votes did the Conservatives poll in the Huntingdon constituency at the 1983 general election?"
Answer: "In the 1983 UK general election, the Conservative Party candidate in the Huntingdon constituency, John Major, received 32,833 votes, winning with 54.2% of the vote. This was a strong performance in a safe Conservative seat, marking the beginning of a prominent political career for Major, who would later become Prime Minister."
In fact he polled 34,254 votes at that election.
Can you follow up to ask for the source of that incorrect number?
It doesn't know the source of the incorrect number it's an hallucination..
I was just curious how it would justify the number.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
This is all very fascist obviously, but it’s also notable (to me) that Farage completely glosses over the reality that Musk sacked 80% of Twitter’s staff & as a result triggered an 84% drop in it’s revenue. He simply didn’t understand the product Twitter was selling.
The idea that you can simply hack away 80% of government employees & not end up causing great swathes of harm to people in the real world is for the birds.
I'm not sure that one followed from the other with Twitter. The drop in advertising revenue has more to do with his brand positioning than the reduction in headcount.
It's worth remembering that before Musk bought it, Twitter was mostly making thumping losses, and it's business model looked pretty unsustainable. The jury is still out of Musk's version, but I think it's by no means impossible he'll end up making it wash it's face.
Twitter had started making profit a few years before Musk took over. It took time to get there, but was looking sustainable.
Then Musk took over.
This isn't really true. It made money in only 2 years its entire existence before dropping again to unprofitability, and it was really just accounting trickery. It doubled its head count during COVID, which was ridiculous.
Now, under Musk ownership, a fair criticism is, is the company being improved?
The underlying problem Twitter has always had, it doesn't know its users, which makes advertising value on the platform far less attractive and valuable than Facebook. The genius of Meta is they know so much about every user on all its platforms and has tech to find out more / monetarise this. Twitter has very poor tech behind the scenes and has had limited product development way before Musk.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
This is all very fascist obviously, but it’s also notable (to me) that Farage completely glosses over the reality that Musk sacked 80% of Twitter’s staff & as a result triggered an 84% drop in it’s revenue. He simply didn’t understand the product Twitter was selling.
The idea that you can simply hack away 80% of government employees & not end up causing great swathes of harm to people in the real world is for the birds.
All very fascist? I thought they were lovers of bureaucracy and the big state (provided it was putting their policies into action). The one thing they weren't was libertarian individualists like Musk.
Farage: "This is the sexy bit: Elon comes in and takes a knife to the [US] deep state. Just like when he bought Twitter he sacked 80 per cent of the staff.
There are going to be mass lay-offs, whole departments closing and I’m hoping and praying that’s the blueprint for what we then do on our side of the pond.
Because that’s what Reform UK believes in - that we’re over-bureaucratised and none of it works. This assault on the bureaucratic state is the thing that’s really exciting."
Really? That's what Reform voters want? 80% of the state slashed and burned.
The Red Wallers he's after???
I very much doubt it.
This is all very fascist obviously, but it’s also notable (to me) that Farage completely glosses over the reality that Musk sacked 80% of Twitter’s staff & as a result triggered an 84% drop in it’s revenue. He simply didn’t understand the product Twitter was selling.
The idea that you can simply hack away 80% of government employees & not end up causing great swathes of harm to people in the real world is for the birds.
I'm not sure that one followed from the other with Twitter. The drop in advertising revenue has more to do with his brand positioning than the reduction in headcount.
It's worth remembering that before Musk bought it, Twitter was mostly making thumping losses, and it's business model looked pretty unsustainable. The jury is still out of Musk's version, but I think it's by no means impossible he'll end up making it wash it's face.
Twitter had started making profit a few years before Musk took over. It took time to get there, but was looking sustainable.
Then Musk took over.
This isn't true. It made money in only 2 years, and it was really just accounting trickery.
California, Harris' and van Dyke's home state, is the only one of the big 5 states by population where she is at least matching Biden's 2020 total. In Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania she is down on Biden's total and Trump up, hence as I said a Trump popular vote win is very possible even if Harris scrapes an EC victory by holding the bluewall states even Kerry won in 2004 when Bush won the popular vote by 2%
Going to be in line for awhile never seen it this long
So they still haven't sorted this problem out after all this time. I've never waited more than 2 minutes.
Yes, but Uk elections will be max 3 things to vote for normally? I've never had to put an X in more than 4 boxes.
Whereas in the US, there could be 20-40 different things to vote for.
But that isn't a surprise. It's the same every election. The response should be: more polling places, open longer, so that people don't have to queue for so long to fill in the yard-long ballot paper.
Instead they make the prices as difficult as possible.
You need special pleading for a tie because something odd has to happen in either Maine-2 or Nebraska-2 to get there (Which indicates a landslide for either candidate). I can't see how to reach it without those both going the same way, and if they both do well it's not a tie.
This is the real Deep State that's being voted on.
Neither candidate wants to talk about it, but the stakes today for the Supreme Court’s future are huge. A GOP win could cement this majority for another generation or two. A Dem win could protect theirs or shrink this majority. Divided gov’t means a R Senate could stymie Harris. https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1853791927738536132
Imagine a 6/3 - or possibly 7/2 - court, to the right of the current one. For the next couple of decades.
At best, President Harris might make it 5/4 to the liberals - but with a likely GOP Senate doing the confirming,
The battle for the Supreme Court has already been won by the right for the foreseeable future. Clinton was right in 2016 that it was going to be a very consequential election on that front, and so it proved.
The only way that will change is when Democrats again win a government trifecta with clear majorities. That doesn’t look like having much chance of happening in the next few election cycles.
Haven't been on ChatGPT for about a year, so I thought I'd see if they've improved their factual information replies.
They haven't.
My question: "How many votes did the Conservatives poll in the Huntingdon constituency at the 1983 general election?"
Answer: "In the 1983 UK general election, the Conservative Party candidate in the Huntingdon constituency, John Major, received 32,833 votes, winning with 54.2% of the vote. This was a strong performance in a safe Conservative seat, marking the beginning of a prominent political career for Major, who would later become Prime Minister."
In fact he polled 34,254 votes at that election.
Accuracy is for low status people.
Quickly generating, big, thick documents is much more important.
Comments
I'm unsure if it should be a source of shame or pride, but I've got a copy somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLrwV_gIq3U
And the first few votes are live on the website. Updates every 5 minutes. Don't take any counts seriously for at least half an hour.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1853770339240612007
https://joeisdone.github.io/florida/
Twitter lost a large chunk of it’s audience & income, all because Musk didn’t understand what he had bought & wasn’t interested in taking the time to learn. The technical side just about survived, but only because it had been very well engineered in the first place to deal with internal service failures. A more brittle system would have failed completely & perhaps never recovered.
As it is, various Twitter systems still either don’t work or work only some of the time. It may well survive in it’s new form & it’s perfectly possible that Musk will turn it into some income generating powerhouse but that’s in the future: As it is now it’s merely a sad shadow of its former self.
Yes more women
Our society has arguably been hyper-reproductive in the 'wrong' areas, and pretty barren amongst those whose offspring would, on balance, have the potential to make a more positive impact.
I know this is a generalisation and I'd never argue for any forceful intervention of any kind, but it is the reality, however unpalatable.
Genetics, background, culture, geography, money, time, intellect, consciousness, politics - all stuff that can make a difference.
This is why it pisses me off when politicians say 'talent is evenly distributed but opportunity isn't '. What evidence is the first assertion based on? Has there been some big Trading Places-style experiment that we weren't told about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Ernest_Boulanger
IMHO on balance 🇺🇸 electorate is more sexist than it is racist . Remarkable if
@KamalaHarris overcomes both.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?539745-1/vp-harris-campaigns-allentown-pa&live
(Worth a listen to Fat Joe's endorsement/introduction at the start.)
(* In 2016, after his sarcastic dedication of "The Entertainer" to then-Republican candidate Donald Trump was taken as a serious endorsement, Joel told the New York Daily News in an email that he would be voting for Hillary Clinton.)
Not a bad track and the TOTP performance still exists as an orphan rather than being in a whole episode.
In the UK we have had ages as the main division over recent years, for example. We've often see the right outperform as older people turn out.
In the US the main division seems to be men versus women. Who will turn out in greater numbers?..
Lin-Manuel Miranda
Don't have any evidence more than a hunch. Maybe wishcasting?
Haven't bet on this as I'm aware I don't know.
But you've got to make your choice.
Billy Bragg "Which Side are you On?"
Not confident there won't be trouble.
And look at how early the polls close in some states.
The Hidden Crisis in the UK Economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7po69QCHVs
Which is backed up experience of this guy building a company
From ROUGH School to $800 Million CEO?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbXmojTTzEk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W5aKwrsYIM
Mr Bean recorded I Want To Be Elected in 1992.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLrwV_gIq3U
https://joeisdone.github.io/pennsylvania/
My guess is Trump's odds shorten further over the course of today as someone tries to build a narrative around Trump winning on election day.
Happy Premature Analysis Based on Early Exit Polls Day to all who celebrate.
Whereas in the US, there could be 20-40 different things to vote for.
👉 https://projects.votehub.com/pages/early-voting-tracker
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/04/opinion/trump-cheney-kennedy-kelly.html
It's worth remembering that before Musk bought it, Twitter was mostly making thumping losses, and it's business model looked pretty unsustainable. The jury is still out of Musk's version, but I think it's by no means impossible he'll end up making it wash it's face.
Congress has absolute discretion to count the votes, which also means validating the votes. It can throw out a state's votes if it considers those votes to be invalid - and it can use whatever argument it likes to come to such a determination. There is no obligation on Congress to produce a 538 total, or to 'find' votes in place of a set it doesn't like.
The count in Congress has generally been entirely procedural but it isn't, necessarily: it's a functional part of the process and if there is dispute as to who the valid Electors are, or should be, or whether they have cast their votes correctly or not, Congress can choose not to count them.
Now, I agree that it's unlikely that the GOP would have the votes to play such shenanigans and that Trump also actually lost the election. In reality, it'd take a Red Wave to give the Republicans the votes - and such a wave would almost certainly bring Trump victory via the normal route. Nonetheless, if he wants to play silly, it's an option.
How the courts could intervene, and to do what, is pretty much unclear but US courts, and especially the Supreme Court, tend not to be shy about asserting their powers over pretty much everything else.
My heart says women will win it for Harris my head says (with lots of ramping from William Glenn) a similar win to 2016 for Trump.
And it is gonna be well busy at the Canada crossings in a day or two.
Because it's too easy for voters to see that he didn't do any of that really bad stuff last time, and you end up with wolf-crying.
https://x.com/mylifeIMO/status/1853639242364137895
This forced many brands off the platform, and has led to Musk blaming everyone else but himself.
They haven't.
My question: "How many votes did the Conservatives poll in the Huntingdon constituency at the 1983 general election?"
Answer: "In the 1983 UK general election, the Conservative Party candidate in the Huntingdon constituency, John Major, received 32,833 votes, winning with 54.2% of the vote. This was a strong performance in a safe Conservative seat, marking the beginning of a prominent political career for Major, who would later become Prime Minister."
In fact he polled 34,254 votes at that election.
I find that being raised in a high-SES family (or in a high-income town) greatly increases the probability that a child will attend college and increases the selectivity of the college attended. [...] These findings support the notion that environment can be incredibly potent in determining children’s outcomes and that environment’s potency may vary with the outcome considered.
Black et al. (2020) also looked at adoptees, now in Sweden:
Wealth is highly correlated between parents and their children; however, little is known about the extent to which these relationships are genetic or determined by environmental factors. We use administrative data on the net wealth of a large sample of Swedish adoptees merged with similar information for their biological and adoptive parents. Comparing the relationship between the wealth of adopted and biological parents and that of the adopted child, we find that, even prior to any inheritance, there is a substantial role for environment and a much smaller role for pre-birth factors and we find little evidence that nature/nurture interactions are important. When bequests are taken into account, the role of adoptive parental wealth becomes much stronger. Our findings suggest that wealth transmission is not primarily because children from wealthier families are inherently more talented or more able but that, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden, wealth begets wealth.
Bjorklund et al. (2005) in Sweden came to similar conclusions on earnings comparing sibling types (monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, other siblings).
Quickly generating, big, thick documents is much more important.
Then Musk took over.
Neither candidate wants to talk about it, but the stakes today for the Supreme Court’s future are huge. A GOP win could cement this majority for another generation or two. A Dem win could protect theirs or shrink this majority. Divided gov’t means a R Senate could stymie Harris.
https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/1853791927738536132
Imagine a 6/3 - or possibly 7/2 - court, to the right of the current one.
For the next couple of decades.
At best, President Harris might make it 5/4 to the liberals - but with a likely GOP Senate doing the confirming,
As I said in 2020 not even a majority of GOP Senators voted for that let alone a majority of Democratic Congressional representatives and Senators so it is not happening.
As I also said the Courts have no constitutional power to do anything but stop the count, as they did in Florida in 2000 but if Harris is ahead in a state already when they do that it makes no difference anyway
Now, under Musk ownership, a fair criticism is, is the company being improved?
The underlying problem Twitter has always had, it doesn't know its users, which makes advertising value on the platform far less attractive and valuable than Facebook. The genius of Meta is they know so much about every user on all its platforms and has tech to find out more / monetarise this. Twitter has very poor tech behind the scenes and has had limited product development way before Musk.
Instead they make the prices as difficult as possible.
The only way that will change is when Democrats again win a government trifecta with clear majorities. That doesn’t look like having much chance of happening in the next few election cycles.