O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
There are an average 6 or 7 special elections (by-elections) per year, plus plenty of opportunites for defections if Trump deports 10m or cuts $2tn from the budget (he will do neither).
I suspect the Dems take control even before the mid terms.
There will presumably be a special election in Matt Gaetz' district in the Florida panhandle after he becomes AG. He won the district by 66-34 in 2024. Wikipedia has it as the most Republican district in Florida.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
On topic, it's annoying the Greens get such an easy ride from the electorate.
They carry a large amount of non-environmental baggage, and the sheer impracticality of some of their environmental policies does their cause a disservice.
Branding triumphs, I guess.
'Favourable opinion' is a mixed indicator. Firstly it doesn't mean 'That's the outfit I want to join'. Popular opinion is (I think still) favourable to the Salvation Army but its membership and attenders are in tiny numbers, massively smaller than, say the CoE which has a slightly worse image than a colony of sewer rats.
Greens and LDs have a softish image in pop imagination. So 'favourable'. It doesn't mean 'vote for them' nor does it mean 'save the planet and go by bus/freeze in winter'.
Millions of people in the USA have just voted for someone they all know is a deeply evil person with deeply evil colleagues.
At the moment election winning is not about Mr Nice Lady. It's about the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (a genius). It's strong man time.
The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.
Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?
Good morning
How did they get on in the North East locals last week ?
Good morning indeed! They did very well. But that is hardly indicative of the national picture, as you know very well.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
It isn't really possible to doubt that Americans voted Trump because they wanted quite exactly what he said he would deliver. This election seems to me to have been won by a candidate and party who were infinitely more open about their precise intentions than any major UK party in July.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Nothing more that its a theoretical issue the results of which will take decades to be revealed.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
Scotus gerrymanded an extra seat for the Dems in both Alabama and Louisiana.
The actual seat changes from 2022 look likely to be:
PN GOP +2 MI GOP +1 CO GOP +1 AK GOP +1 CA Dem +1 OR Dem +1
That last is a strange comment.
eg Alabama. If this is the Alabama case I am thinking of, the Supreme Court refused to approve a Republican (who control the Alabama process) drawn map that violated the Voting Rights Act 1965 - and had been found to do so by the Alabama courts.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Nothing more that its a theoretical issue the results of which will take decades to be revealed.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
Scotus gerrymanded an extra seat for the Dems in both Alabama and Louisiana...
There is no sense in which SCOTUS "gerrymandered". What they did - as a body with a conservative majority - is refuse to accept an unlawful gerrymander by the GOP in those two states which was too egregious even for them, sending them back for reconsideration on the proper legal basis.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
What is happening in America feels like the rebirth of western civilisation. It is replacing a dead world which had lost the capacity to adapt and evolve, was consumed by internal contradictions, and was nearly certain to collapse.
I have personally felt like this is coming for a long time, and came to the view that rather than continuously mourning the loss of the familiar, it is better to just assess what is going on in neutral terms.
I think with Trump 24-28, it will be like the British Empire: Parts will be very good, parts will be very bad... it will transcend any kind of historical verdict.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
It isn't really possible to doubt that Americans voted Trump because they wanted quite exactly what he said he would deliver. This election seems to me to have been won by a candidate and party who were infinitely more open about their precise intentions than any major UK party in July.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
A fair number of Trump supporters here seemed to believe that Trump wasn't really going to do as he said. They took comfort in believing that he was lying to them.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It mixes a good idea (merging funds, cutting costs) with the stupidity of trying to force them to invest in UK infrastucture.
Ask Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System how their investment in Thames Water is going.
"Our pension funds in Britain are too small to be making the investments that get a good return for people saving for retirement and to help our economy to grow," said Rachel Reeves.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
The Harris campaign were doing basically the same. The US system stinks, but apparently its totally within the rules to pay celebs and influencer to take money to endorse you without having to disclose its as an ad, put on concerts to get people to turn up to your rallies, you can pay people to do an interview with you under the guide of it being independent and objective (even with major news networks).
That is how these campaigns go through $1bn...
There's no evidence that the Harris campaign paid celebs. That's an accusation that has been firmly denied by the Harris campaign and the celebs. It's another "electoral fraud" lie from MAGA.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
What is happening in America feels like the rebirth of western civilisation. It is replacing a dead world which had lost the capacity to adapt and evolve, was consumed by internal contradictions, and was nearly certain to collapse.
I have personally felt like this is coming for a long time, and came to the view that rather than continuously mourning the loss of the familiar, it is better to just assess what is going on in neutral terms.
I think with Trump 24-28, it will be like the British Empire: Parts will be very good, parts will be very bad... it will transcend any kind of historical verdict.
There are some parallels with the British Empire. The main actors are motivated almost solely by personal enrichment and bound together only by personal loyalty to the Monarch.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Nothing more that its a theoretical issue the results of which will take decades to be revealed.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
What's the betting the bulk of that delivery slips into the second term....
The problem is that the government are looking to the 'blob' for solutions; there are no signs at all that this is going to be anything other than failure as usual.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
I have just one comment. SFAICS the government is the only outfit in the country allowed to run a pension scheme - a gigantic one - by not setting up any fund at all but just living hand to mouth. Any other employer would find themselves in prison or bankrupt.
That seems to me to place it in the worst position possible to tell other schemes what to do and how to do it.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
I thought my post was quite clear. I find names of contempt best avoided.
Still, it’s going out with with a bang. What a fucking trip. I just went paddle boarding in the mangrove lagoons and went arse over tit into the water. Now they are solacing me with fine wines. And tiptop nibbles
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
I have just one comment. SFAICS the government is the only outfit in the country allowed to run a pension scheme - a gigantic one - by not setting up any fund at all but just living hand to mouth. Any other employer would find themselves in prison or bankrupt.
That seems to me to place it in the worst position possible to tell other schemes what to do and how to do it.
The government is very different from every other outfit in the country. I don't think your logic works.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
The Harris campaign were doing basically the same. The US system stinks, but apparently its totally within the rules to pay celebs and influencer to take money to endorse you without having to disclose its as an ad, put on concerts to get people to turn up to your rallies, you can pay people to do an interview with you under the guide of it being independent and objective (even with major news networks).
That is how these campaigns go through $1bn...
There's no evidence that the Harris campaign paid celebs. That's an accusation that has been firmly denied by the Harris campaign and the celebs. It's another "electoral fraud" lie from MAGA.
They did pay celebs. The denial from the likes of Oprah is it wasn't for an endorsement, it was for work done. Performing artists getting millions for a minutes work stinks.
The modus operandi of the perpetually martyred right.
Elvis Buñuelo @Mr_Considerate Quoted in this article: Allison Pearson, Suella Braverman, Iain Duncan Smith, Elon Musk, Fraser Nelson, Melanie Philips. Not quoted: the tweet.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
I thought my post was quite clear. I find names of contempt best avoided.
They can work as one-off verbal gags.
That's your view. Personally, I think they can be very apt. The alternative is to treat him and his views with respect they do not deserve.
O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
Scotus gerrymanded an extra seat for the Dems in both Alabama and Louisiana...
There is no sense in which SCOTUS "gerrymandered". What they did - as a body with a conservative majority - is refuse to accept an unlawful gerrymander by the GOP in those two states which was too egregious even for them, sending them back for reconsideration on the proper legal basis.
Yes, the maps have been gerrymanded to give the Dems extra seats in Alabama and Louisiana.
They may be lawful gerrymanders or morally right gerrymanders but they are still gerrymanders.
Compare the numbers:
Alabama Trump wins by 30% House seats 5 GOP 2 Dem
Louisiana Trump wins by 22% House seats 4 GOP 2 Dem
Massachusettes Harris wins by 25% House seats Dem 9 GOP 0
Connecticut Harris wins by 15% House seats Dem, 5 GOP 0
The Dems are being guaranteed some House seats in southern states whereas the GOP gets nothing throughout New England.
Gerrymandering is damaging wherever it happens but it can be even more damaging when its applied in some parts of a country and not in others.
Yet on the latest poll from More in Common, the Tories are on 29% so getting more people to support them than the 24% who view them favourably partly by squeezing the DKs.
Labour meanwhile are on just 27%, 6% below the percentage who view them favourably. Reform and the LDs are also polling below the number who view them favourably.
So Badenoch is actually doing well getting those who view the party favourably to almost all support it and adding some others too
What is happening in America feels like the rebirth of western civilisation. It is replacing a dead world which had lost the capacity to adapt and evolve, was consumed by internal contradictions, and was nearly certain to collapse.
I have personally felt like this is coming for a long time, and came to the view that rather than continuously mourning the loss of the familiar, it is better to just assess what is going on in neutral terms.
I think with Trump 24-28, it will be like the British Empire: Parts will be very good, parts will be very bad... it will transcend any kind of historical verdict.
It will certainly be a rebirth of the protectionist nationalist right
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst fellating him.
I presumed that was the intended effect.
But, you know, Musk probably sticks to prostitutes who are of age, unlike Matt Gaetz.
Well, he probably sends them little vials of his sperm to increase the population of high status males. Though perhaps not, as I guess a goodly number of the progeny would be female, and the more Musky babies (as it were) there are, the more the concept of high status is watered down.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
It isn't really possible to doubt that Americans voted Trump because they wanted quite exactly what he said he would deliver. This election seems to me to have been won by a candidate and party who were infinitely more open about their precise intentions than any major UK party in July.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
A fair number of Trump supporters here seemed to believe that Trump wasn't really going to do as he said. They took comfort in believing that he was lying to them.
Well to be fair they were probably looking at his track record on honesty
Sods law isn't it. The one time you want him to be lying through his back teeth and it turns out he was being honest!
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
It is not so much selling out to Russia, but to the global billionaire elite. Putin, House of Saud, Musk, The Waltons, Kochs et al are becoming more important and influential in GOP politics than the UK, Germany and Japan.
That Putin is Russian is irrelevant to them, that he is in favour of autocratic kleptocracy is what is important.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Imagine not consulting DEFRA before coming out with the family farm tax. Almost as if they know nothing about farming or the impact of the changes they are making.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It mixes a good idea (merging funds, cutting costs) with the stupidity of trying to force them to invest in UK infrastucture.
Ask Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System how their investment in Thames Water is going.
"Our pension funds in Britain are too small to be making the investments that get a good return for people saving for retirement and to help our economy to grow," said Rachel Reeves.
The first part of that is a flat out lie.
The point is that the pension funds aren't big enough that they can afford to say spend £100m supporting Rolls Royce building mini nukes say because you need a very big fund for that investment to not hit risk diversity issues.
The individual funds may be able to point £10m in that sort of direction but that's not enough to make a difference.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea or not though - the change by itself won't be enough and it creates a different set of risks / rewards...
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
His opening parroting of the propaganda of the West’s strategic enemy is perhaps the more concerning. The Trump issue is that Musk now has political power.
Imagine not consulting DEFRA before coming out with the family farm tax. Almost as if they know nothing about farming or the impact of the changes they are making.
It's a tax issue why would HMRC talk to DEFRA - it's not like DEFRA will employ any experts on the tax side of farming...
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Putting all the public pension funds in a small number of pots? Maybe even one?
So, in theory, this gives you economy of scale. It also means that the geniuses running it can decide that 30% of Thames Water is awesome bet.
What hasn't been talked about, yet, is the Government desire to "direct" investment towards objectives they like. Now, I've got no issue in investing in, say, Green technology. But the problem will rear its head of Picking Winners. See the apparent all-in on Carbon Capture.
And the size of the proposed mega fund(s) is Too Big To Fail.
By all accounts he’s running Tesla into the ground whenever he personally gets involved in any large decision making. So it’s not that he delegates, it is that he is actively kept away from stuff.
Good at investing yes, good at running companies, no.
Also as I said, if he’s so good why has X been such a disaster that he overpaid for massively?
Imagine not consulting DEFRA before coming out with the family farm tax. Almost as if they know nothing about farming or the impact of the changes they are making.
It's a tax issue why would HMRC talk to DEFRA - it's not like DEFRA will employ any experts on the tax side of farming...
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Putting all the public pension funds in a small number of pots? Maybe even one?
So, in theory, this gives you economy of scale. It also means that the geniuses running it can decide that 30% of Thames Water is awesome bet.
What hasn't been talked about, yet, is the Government desire to "direct" investment towards objectives they like. Now, I've got no issue in investing in, say, Green technology. But the problem will rear its head of Picking Winners. See the apparent all-in on Carbon Capture.
And the size of the proposed mega fund(s) is Too Big To Fail.
Combine those two things.....
From peanuts to groundnuts? Shame that there aren't any war surplus Shermans going cheap.
O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
Scotus gerrymanded an extra seat for the Dems in both Alabama and Louisiana...
There is no sense in which SCOTUS "gerrymandered". What they did - as a body with a conservative majority - is refuse to accept an unlawful gerrymander by the GOP in those two states which was too egregious even for them, sending them back for reconsideration on the proper legal basis.
Yes, the maps have been gerrymanded to give the Dems extra seats in Alabama and Louisiana.
They may be lawful gerrymanders or morally right gerrymanders but they are still gerrymanders.
Compare the numbers:
Alabama Trump wins by 30% House seats 5 GOP 2 Dem
Louisiana Trump wins by 22% House seats 4 GOP 2 Dem
Massachusettes Harris wins by 25% House seats Dem 9 GOP 0
Connecticut Harris wins by 15% House seats Dem, 5 GOP 0
The Dems are being guaranteed some House seats in southern states whereas the GOP gets nothing throughout New England.
Gerrymandering is damaging wherever it happens but it can be even more damaging when its applied in some parts of a country and not in others.
It is though interesting to see how people are willing to support gerrymanders, vote rigging, bribery, lawfare as long as it is by 'their side'.
It ends in a manichaean mentality of 'our side good, their side bad' and supporting damaging policies just because it upsets the other side more.
Imagine not consulting DEFRA before coming out with the family farm tax. Almost as if they know nothing about farming or the impact of the changes they are making.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Both Tesla and SpaceX came very near going bust in 2008. They were largely saved by government contracts, directly and indirectly. If Musk had started/got involved with either company a couple of years earlier, he would be a nobody today - just another name on a long list of chancers who tried and failed.
He has been lucky, and to some extent has made his own luck. But the luck was still there.
I still maintain that he owes SpaceX to the late Jerry Pournelle.
By all accounts he’s running Tesla into the ground whenever he personally gets involved in any large decision making. So it’s not that he delegates, it is that he is actively kept away from stuff.
Good at investing yes, good at running companies, no.
Also as I said, if he’s so good why has X been such a disaster that he overpaid for massively?
Sure, he over paid for X perhaps 3 fold, destroyed its advertising base, pissed off many of its users, but bought the Presidency, so think of it as a loss leader aimed at a bigger goal.
O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
Scotus gerrymanded an extra seat for the Dems in both Alabama and Louisiana...
There is no sense in which SCOTUS "gerrymandered". What they did - as a body with a conservative majority - is refuse to accept an unlawful gerrymander by the GOP in those two states which was too egregious even for them, sending them back for reconsideration on the proper legal basis.
Yes, the maps have been gerrymanded to give the Dems extra seats in Alabama and Louisiana.
They may be lawful gerrymanders or morally right gerrymanders but they are still gerrymanders.
Compare the numbers:
Alabama Trump wins by 30% House seats 5 GOP 2 Dem
Louisiana Trump wins by 22% House seats 4 GOP 2 Dem
Massachusettes Harris wins by 25% House seats Dem 9 GOP 0
Connecticut Harris wins by 15% House seats Dem, 5 GOP 0
The Dems are being guaranteed some House seats in southern states whereas the GOP gets nothing throughout New England.
Gerrymandering is damaging wherever it happens but it can be even more damaging when its applied in some parts of a country and not in others.
How about the Electoral College?
Trump won the popular vote by 2% Electors GOP 312, Dem 226
By all accounts he’s running Tesla into the ground whenever he personally gets involved in any large decision making. So it’s not that he delegates, it is that he is actively kept away from stuff.
Good at investing yes, good at running companies, no.
Also as I said, if he’s so good why has X been such a disaster that he overpaid for massively?
Sure, he over paid for X perhaps 3 fold, destroyed its advertising base, pissed off many of its users, but bought the Presidency, so think of it as a loss leader aimed at a bigger goal.
Imagine not consulting DEFRA before coming out with the family farm tax. Almost as if they know nothing about farming or the impact of the changes they are making.
It's a tax issue why would HMRC talk to DEFRA - it's not like DEFRA will employ any experts on the tax side of farming...
All policies have consequences, and those consequences will have costs. It'd be nice to know that the HMRC might consider first and second order consequences when making policy, especially as those consequences may effect the tax take. And DEFRA might have a firmer hand on those consequences than HMRC...
What is happening in America feels like the rebirth of western civilisation. It is replacing a dead world which had lost the capacity to adapt and evolve, was consumed by internal contradictions, and was nearly certain to collapse.
I have personally felt like this is coming for a long time, and came to the view that rather than continuously mourning the loss of the familiar, it is better to just assess what is going on in neutral terms.
I think with Trump 24-28, it will be like the British Empire: Parts will be very good, parts will be very bad... it will transcend any kind of historical verdict.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Nothing more that its a theoretical issue the results of which will take decades to be revealed.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
What's the betting the bulk of that delivery slips into the second term....
Until they deal with three issues, this country will not be able to grow.
1) The Process State. It is quite clear that a substantial number of people in public life believe that the Process is the goal. As @Cyclefree (and I) put it, they want a process that removes discretion and human morality from decision making - check the boxes in the right order and perfection will result. The reality is, of course, vast delays and injustice. And attempts to fix it by making the process bigger and longer are a mathematical certainty to fail.
2) As a side effect of this, cost control has been utterly lost. You will hear people saying "Oh, but Medical Inflation is running at X+Y%, with regular inflation at X%". The same amount of money is providing less and less.
3) Much of the policy of the permanent system of government is predicated on a static population. Yet we have a population that is growing at rates seen in some emerging nations. Instead of "Next year we might budget for replacing that hospital building", we need "New town goes here. Hospital here. School here...."
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Both Tesla and SpaceX came very near going bust in 2008. They were largely saved by government contracts, directly and indirectly. If Musk had started/got involved with either company a couple of years earlier, he would be a nobody today - just another name on a long list of chancers who tried and failed.
He has been lucky, and to some extent has made his own luck. But the luck was still there.
I still maintain that he owes SpaceX to the late Jerry Pournelle.
Lots of businesses / business people can point to that time when the business was on the rock, struggle to make payroll etc. But its what you do when it breaks for you..Tesla have been the leader in EVs, challengers are now there, can they adapt. SpaceX, is supposedly very very profitable and Starlink will be the product that drives internet on all planes.
Imagine not consulting DEFRA before coming out with the family farm tax. Almost as if they know nothing about farming or the impact of the changes they are making.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
The Harris campaign were doing basically the same. The US system stinks, but apparently its totally within the rules to pay celebs and influencer to take money to endorse you without having to disclose its as an ad, put on concerts to get people to turn up to your rallies, you can pay people to do an interview with you under the guide of it being independent and objective (even with major news networks).
That is how these campaigns go through $1bn...
There's no evidence that the Harris campaign paid celebs. That's an accusation that has been firmly denied by the Harris campaign and the celebs. It's another "electoral fraud" lie from MAGA.
They did pay celebs. The denial from the likes of Oprah is it wasn't for an endorsement, it was for work done. Performing artists getting millions for a minutes work stinks.
Oprah Winfrey was never “paid a personal fee” by Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, according to her production banner Harpo Productions. The statement comes as a denial of a rumor that Winfrey was paid $1 million by the campaign, which had been reported by some outlets.
“The campaign paid for the production costs of ‘Unite for America,’ a live-streaming event that took place Sept. 19 outside Detroit, Mich.,” a spokesperson for Harpo shared in a statement. “Oprah Winfrey was at no point during the campaign paid a personal fee, nor did she receive a fee from Harpo.”
I see nothing wrong with paying for production costs.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Putting all the public pension funds in a small number of pots? Maybe even one?
So, in theory, this gives you economy of scale. It also means that the geniuses running it can decide that 30% of Thames Water is awesome bet.
What hasn't been talked about, yet, is the Government desire to "direct" investment towards objectives they like. Now, I've got no issue in investing in, say, Green technology. But the problem will rear its head of Picking Winners. See the apparent all-in on Carbon Capture.
And the size of the proposed mega fund(s) is Too Big To Fail.
Combine those two things.....
I am surprised that they are not going ahead with portable pensions. That seemed sensible. I'm up to 5, can only imagine how many some people must have and the small amounts in them.
Imagine not consulting DEFRA before coming out with the family farm tax. Almost as if they know nothing about farming or the impact of the changes they are making.
It's a tax issue why would HMRC talk to DEFRA - it's not like DEFRA will employ any experts on the tax side of farming...
They might (that's a stretch, admittedly) have some experts on the economic structure of farming. Which is vital data for assessing what the impact of tax changes is.
So far, the partisans of this idea have come up with
1) It is brilliant and will stop all the IHT avoidance 2) The farmers can trivially avoid IHT with tax planning 3) The tax planning won't cost anything.
And now we have
4) There was no need to get any advice on changing a tax.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
What is happening in America feels like the rebirth of western civilisation. It is replacing a dead world which had lost the capacity to adapt and evolve, was consumed by internal contradictions, and was nearly certain to collapse.
I have personally felt like this is coming for a long time, and came to the view that rather than continuously mourning the loss of the familiar, it is better to just assess what is going on in neutral terms.
I think with Trump 24-28, it will be like the British Empire: Parts will be very good, parts will be very bad... it will transcend any kind of historical verdict.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
It isn't really possible to doubt that Americans voted Trump because they wanted quite exactly what he said he would deliver. This election seems to me to have been won by a candidate and party who were infinitely more open about their precise intentions than any major UK party in July.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
A fair number of Trump supporters here seemed to believe that Trump wasn't really going to do as he said. They took comfort in believing that he was lying to them.
Well to be fair they were probably looking at his track record on honesty
Sods law isn't it. The one time you want him to be lying through his back teeth and it turns out he was being honest!
I have some very good friends in the US who are Trump supporters.
Their views are - I suspect - not uncommon. They think the Democratic Party has been taken over by identity politics and woke, and they want a more businesslike administration.
They run a successful business, making clothes that are sold "own label" by large supermarkets and department stores. The clothes are all imported from low cost parts of the world, and are most commonly made in China.
In the event that Trump were to implement his tariffs they would be absolutely personally hammered. They told me - scoffing- that Trump isn't really going to implement the tariffs, he's just going to use the threat of them with the Chinese government to extract some better terms.
I hope they are right. But I can't help feel that there are a great many people who voted for Trump on the basis that he wouldn't do what he said he'll do.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Branson did build Virgin Records first. (Although I'm not disagreeing with Mike Oldfield's morse code message.)
This has been one of the greatest travel writing assignments of my life, one after another
PRO TRAVEL WRITING TIP
If you get offered five weeks of intensely luxurious travel, all for free, taking in all of Japan, and Korea, and then one of the world’s best hotels in the Philippines, meeting samurai sword sword makers, 82 year old fisherwomen, the Imperial Princess of Japan, a goalkeeper for Bayern Munich who made zero appearances, a Bristolian punk rocker in Osaka’s red light district, a ginseng seller in Seoul, a guard on the DMZ, a conch soup chef, Japanese women that weave mother of pearl, the bathkeepers of ancient Kinosaki-onsen, an octopus chopper in Busan, a soju maker in Busan, too many sojus in Busan, the 4th best surfer in General Luna and the woman that runs Yukio Mishima’s favorite bar in Shinjuku - SAY YES
I think a lot of people would turn it all down. Do not do this
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Both Tesla and SpaceX came very near going bust in 2008. They were largely saved by government contracts, directly and indirectly. If Musk had started/got involved with either company a couple of years earlier, he would be a nobody today - just another name on a long list of chancers who tried and failed.
He has been lucky, and to some extent has made his own luck. But the luck was still there.
I still maintain that he owes SpaceX to the late Jerry Pournelle.
Jerry Pournelle went down the SSTO rabbithole - hence advocating for what became DC-X
O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
Scotus gerrymanded an extra seat for the Dems in both Alabama and Louisiana...
There is no sense in which SCOTUS "gerrymandered". What they did - as a body with a conservative majority - is refuse to accept an unlawful gerrymander by the GOP in those two states which was too egregious even for them, sending them back for reconsideration on the proper legal basis.
Yes, the maps have been gerrymanded to give the Dems extra seats in Alabama and Louisiana.
They may be lawful gerrymanders or morally right gerrymanders but they are still gerrymanders.
Compare the numbers:
Alabama Trump wins by 30% House seats 5 GOP 2 Dem
Louisiana Trump wins by 22% House seats 4 GOP 2 Dem
Massachusettes Harris wins by 25% House seats Dem 9 GOP 0
Connecticut Harris wins by 15% House seats Dem, 5 GOP 0
The Dems are being guaranteed some House seats in southern states whereas the GOP gets nothing throughout New England.
Gerrymandering is damaging wherever it happens but it can be even more damaging when its applied in some parts of a country and not in others.
How about the Electoral College?
Trump won the popular vote by 2% Electors GOP 312, Dem 226
The effect of the all or nothing system.
If the Nebraska / Maine approach was taken nationwide then it would be approximately:
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Nothing more that its a theoretical issue the results of which will take decades to be revealed.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
What's the betting the bulk of that delivery slips into the second term....
Until they deal with three issues, this country will not be able to grow.
1) The Process State. It is quite clear that a substantial number of people in public life believe that the Process is the goal. As @Cyclefree (and I) put it, they want a process that removes discretion and human morality from decision making - check the boxes in the right order and perfection will result. The reality is, of course, vast delays and injustice. And attempts to fix it by making the process bigger and longer are a mathematical certainty to fail.
2) As a side effect of this, cost control has been utterly lost. You will hear people saying "Oh, but Medical Inflation is running at X+Y%, with regular inflation at X%". The same amount of money is providing less and less.
3) Much of the policy of the permanent system of government is predicated on a static population. Yet we have a population that is growing at rates seen in some emerging nations. Instead of "Next year we might budget for replacing that hospital building", we need "New town goes here. Hospital here. School here...."
Your diagnosis for why medical inflation is higher than normal inflation is wrong.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It mixes a good idea (merging funds, cutting costs) with the stupidity of trying to force them to invest in UK infrastucture.
Ask Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System how their investment in Thames Water is going.
"Our pension funds in Britain are too small to be making the investments that get a good return for people saving for retirement and to help our economy to grow," said Rachel Reeves.
The first part of that is a flat out lie.
Indeed. My pension fund is in a small SIPP. It will get a good return at low cost. Very likely lower cost than these mega funds will charge Joe Average.
There is little evidence of fund managers being able to consistently significantly outperform the market. Maybe a handful do. But would they really be the ones managing these funds or will we end up with the right people, with the careers and connections to appear safe and reliable.
So I would normally think it a very bad idea, not disastrous but adding extra charges for no good reason.
However, with the volatility in the US, which is where a very large chunk of our retirement funds should end up, maybe it is not a bad time to direct some of that investment back home instead, even at the expense of optimal returns and higher cost. So I would downgrade it to probably a bad idea.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
I thought my post was quite clear. I find names of contempt best avoided.
They can work as one-off verbal gags.
That's your view. Personally, I think they can be very apt. The alternative is to treat him and his views with respect they do not deserve.
And that's far more dangerous.
I want a world where people are treated with respect and dignity. That's obviously a very different world to the one Musk is after, which is why I took issue with your claim that only people who like Musk would take issue with calling him absurd names.
I'm glad that you've now dropped that justification.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Branson did build Virgin Records first. (Although I'm not disagreeing with Mike Oldfield's morse code message.)
Sure, as did Trump early on with his dad were building things. But they got out that game and became a serial seller of their brand / marketer. Both ahead of their time in some respects, as that is literally what loads of personalities do now e.g Prime, is made by a long standing drinks manufacturer, but Logan Paul and KSI put their name to a new invented brand. The Rock will put this name to basically anything.
What is happening in America feels like the rebirth of western civilisation. It is replacing a dead world which had lost the capacity to adapt and evolve, was consumed by internal contradictions, and was nearly certain to collapse.
I have personally felt like this is coming for a long time, and came to the view that rather than continuously mourning the loss of the familiar, it is better to just assess what is going on in neutral terms.
I think with Trump 24-28, it will be like the British Empire: Parts will be very good, parts will be very bad... it will transcend any kind of historical verdict.
I'd like some of whatever you've been taking!
You’d better get used to this because the same revolution is coming to all of the west
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
It isn't really possible to doubt that Americans voted Trump because they wanted quite exactly what he said he would deliver. This election seems to me to have been won by a candidate and party who were infinitely more open about their precise intentions than any major UK party in July.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
A fair number of Trump supporters here seemed to believe that Trump wasn't really going to do as he said. They took comfort in believing that he was lying to them.
Well to be fair they were probably looking at his track record on honesty
Sods law isn't it. The one time you want him to be lying through his back teeth and it turns out he was being honest!
I have some very good friends in the US who are Trump supporters.
Their views are - I suspect - not uncommon. They think the Democratic Party has been taken over by identity politics and woke, and they want a more businesslike administration.
They run a successful business, making clothes that are sold "own label" by large supermarkets and department stores. The clothes are all imported from low cost parts of the world, and are most commonly made in China.
In the event that Trump were to implement his tariffs they would be absolutely personally hammered. They told me - scoffing- that Trump isn't really going to implement the tariffs, he's just going to use the threat of them with the Chinese government to extract some better terms.
I hope they are right. But I can't help feel that there are a great many people who voted for Trump on the basis that he wouldn't do what he said he'll do.
Boris kept such a coalition together brilliantly, for about 2 years.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
It isn't really possible to doubt that Americans voted Trump because they wanted quite exactly what he said he would deliver. This election seems to me to have been won by a candidate and party who were infinitely more open about their precise intentions than any major UK party in July.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
A fair number of Trump supporters here seemed to believe that Trump wasn't really going to do as he said. They took comfort in believing that he was lying to them.
Well to be fair they were probably looking at his track record on honesty
Sods law isn't it. The one time you want him to be lying through his back teeth and it turns out he was being honest!
I have some very good friends in the US who are Trump supporters.
Their views are - I suspect - not uncommon. They think the Democratic Party has been taken over by identity politics and woke, and they want a more businesslike administration.
They run a successful business, making clothes that are sold "own label" by large supermarkets and department stores. The clothes are all imported from low cost parts of the world, and are most commonly made in China.
In the event that Trump were to implement his tariffs they would be absolutely personally hammered. They told me - scoffing- that Trump isn't really going to implement the tariffs, he's just going to use the threat of them with the Chinese government to extract some better terms.
I hope they are right. But I can't help feel that there are a great many people who voted for Trump on the basis that he wouldn't do what he said he'll do.
Said he'll do or promised he'll do.
Didn't Trump promise to halve prices ?
And why shouldn't they assume that Trump will fail to do what he said or promised to do ?
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I have said this before. I never believed the i'm buying twitter as i am a free speech supporter.
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away cut API access by others to twitter data, setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
Its likely the future won't be one LLM to rule them all, rather different LLMs for different tasks.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
I thought my post was quite clear. I find names of contempt best avoided.
They can work as one-off verbal gags.
That's your view. Personally, I think they can be very apt. The alternative is to treat him and his views with respect they do not deserve.
And that's far more dangerous.
I want a world where people are treated with respect and dignity. That's obviously a very different world to the one Musk is after, which is why I took issue with your claim that only people who like Musk would take issue with calling him absurd names.
I'm glad that you've now dropped that justification.
The point is that “Musky Baby” is just fucking CRINGE and makes many people have a small testicular or even ovarian prolapse, as they internally shrink away from the CRINGE
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Nothing more that its a theoretical issue the results of which will take decades to be revealed.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
What's the betting the bulk of that delivery slips into the second term....
Until they deal with three issues, this country will not be able to grow.
1) The Process State. It is quite clear that a substantial number of people in public life believe that the Process is the goal. As @Cyclefree (and I) put it, they want a process that removes discretion and human morality from decision making - check the boxes in the right order and perfection will result. The reality is, of course, vast delays and injustice. And attempts to fix it by making the process bigger and longer are a mathematical certainty to fail.
2) As a side effect of this, cost control has been utterly lost. You will hear people saying "Oh, but Medical Inflation is running at X+Y%, with regular inflation at X%". The same amount of money is providing less and less.
3) Much of the policy of the permanent system of government is predicated on a static population. Yet we have a population that is growing at rates seen in some emerging nations. Instead of "Next year we might budget for replacing that hospital building", we need "New town goes here. Hospital here. School here...."
Your diagnosis for why medical inflation is higher than normal inflation is wrong.
I didn't diagnose the reason for medical inflation. But, like a number o other public services, more money is providing less. Yes, there are more expensive treatments. And a few more ancient crumblies. But they do not account for what is going on.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Both Tesla and SpaceX came very near going bust in 2008. They were largely saved by government contracts, directly and indirectly. If Musk had started/got involved with either company a couple of years earlier, he would be a nobody today - just another name on a long list of chancers who tried and failed.
He has been lucky, and to some extent has made his own luck. But the luck was still there.
I still maintain that he owes SpaceX to the late Jerry Pournelle.
Jerry Pournelle went down the SSTO rabbithole - hence advocating for what became DC-X
Musk specifically rejected SSTO from the start.
You do now about Pournelle campaigning and lobbying to get federal funding for private spaceflight? Due to him and others, the law was changed to allow contracts such as COTS.
And if you don't think the brilliant DC-X fed into what SpaceX (and Blue Origin...) are doing, then you are being rather silly.
By all means admire Musk and SpaceX; but you don't have to demean what everybody else did, and is doing.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I have said this before. I never believed the i'm buying twitter as i am a free speech supporter.
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away cut API access by others to twitter data, setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
I don't think the dataset is that good for training purposes - twitter required people to be brief.....
I fully get your argument but as a dataset it isn't one I would have sought - if I had been seeking something to train an AI on Reddit would have been my preferred choice...
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
Nothing more that its a theoretical issue the results of which will take decades to be revealed.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
What's the betting the bulk of that delivery slips into the second term....
Until they deal with three issues, this country will not be able to grow.
1) The Process State. It is quite clear that a substantial number of people in public life believe that the Process is the goal. As @Cyclefree (and I) put it, they want a process that removes discretion and human morality from decision making - check the boxes in the right order and perfection will result. The reality is, of course, vast delays and injustice. And attempts to fix it by making the process bigger and longer are a mathematical certainty to fail.
2) As a side effect of this, cost control has been utterly lost. You will hear people saying "Oh, but Medical Inflation is running at X+Y%, with regular inflation at X%". The same amount of money is providing less and less.
3) Much of the policy of the permanent system of government is predicated on a static population. Yet we have a population that is growing at rates seen in some emerging nations. Instead of "Next year we might budget for replacing that hospital building", we need "New town goes here. Hospital here. School here...."
Your diagnosis for why medical inflation is higher than normal inflation is wrong.
I didn't diagnose the reason for medical inflation. But, like a number o other public services, more money is providing less. Yes, there are more expensive treatments. And a few more ancient crumblies. But they do not account for what is going on.
Actually NHS productivity improved substantially in the first half of the year and is likely to improve even more second half, as the strikes stopped.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I have said this before. I never believed the i'm buying twitter as i am a free speech supporter.
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away cut API access by others to twitter data, setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
I don't think the dataset is that good for training purposes - twitter required people to be brief.....
You don't just train on twitter, but its constantly updating and also huge amount of people linking to revelant information. Also what did Musk do early on, increase the character limits and long "threads" have replaced the screenshot of notepad.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I have said this before. I never believed the i'm buying twitter as i am a free speech supporter.
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
i half agree. I believe Musk is a genuine free speech absolutist (with some hypocritical aspects of course)
He wanted to buy Twitter for that reason, then balked at the price, but got aytpically fucked over and paid way more than it’s “worth”, at least at that point on paper
He then made several decisions that made this worse, eg the silly rebranding
HOWEVER like any really bright entrepreneur and innovator, he then foresaw the advantage where others saw nothing. He ruthlessly used TwiX to get Trump into the White House (thereby quadrupling his Twitter investment for a start and making his losses into fat profits) he got the hit on Woke he wants, and now - yes - he has endless data for Grok
This is the hallmark of very bright very successful people, they can turn the mistakes we all make into big opportunities, because they can think ahead, see opportunities and extrapolate
is he a thin skinned pillock? Yes. Is he a once-in-a-century genius? Also yes
People that deny the latter are just fools, who look foolish
On local authority pension funds, it's notable that some achieve pedestrian returns. I first came across this when looking for comparators for long-term returns by the Church Commissioners.
I can see a case for consolidation, but it's a devil's tightrope to get the balance between return and risk in the right place.
Investment in infra makes sense as one element, which is what sovereign wealth funds do - steady, long term returns. But the interest of the Govt, having been bent over and the next generation BFONTed by PFI, is to reduce returns. Is there a middle way?
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
I thought my post was quite clear. I find names of contempt best avoided.
They can work as one-off verbal gags.
That's your view. Personally, I think they can be very apt. The alternative is to treat him and his views with respect they do not deserve.
And that's far more dangerous.
I want a world where people are treated with respect and dignity. That's obviously a very different world to the one Musk is after, which is why I took issue with your claim that only people who like Musk would take issue with calling him absurd names.
I'm glad that you've now dropped that justification.
The point is that “Musky Baby” is just fucking CRINGE and makes many people have a small testicular or even ovarian prolapse, as they internally shrink away from the CRINGE
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I have said this before. I never believed the i'm buying twitter as i am a free speech supporter.
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away cut API access by others to twitter data, setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
I don't think the dataset is that good for training purposes - twitter required people to be brief.....
Also requires people to be real, not bots or trolls.
While the Dead Internet theory is a bit exaggerated, there are places where ever decreasing real human activity exists.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
I thought my post was quite clear. I find names of contempt best avoided.
They can work as one-off verbal gags.
That's your view. Personally, I think they can be very apt. The alternative is to treat him and his views with respect they do not deserve.
And that's far more dangerous.
I want a world where people are treated with respect and dignity. That's obviously a very different world to the one Musk is after, which is why I took issue with your claim that only people who like Musk would take issue with calling him absurd names.
I'm glad that you've now dropped that justification.
The point is that “Musky Baby” is just fucking CRINGE and makes many people have a small testicular or even ovarian prolapse, as they internally shrink away from the CRINGE
Are you saying he's gotta stop it or else it's gonna get tiresome?
O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.
Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
There are an average 6 or 7 special elections (by-elections) per year, plus plenty of opportunites for defections if Trump deports 10m or cuts $2tn from the budget (he will do neither).
I suspect the Dems take control even before the mid terms.
There will presumably be a special election in Matt Gaetz' district in the Florida panhandle after he becomes AG. He won the district by 66-34 in 2024. Wikipedia has it as the most Republican district in Florida.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
If you like the target, it may. If you like Musk, then you need your head checking.
I didn't much like Blair. I found use of Bliar tiresome and childish.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
Please tell me what name of contempt I can use for Musk, that will not offend you?
A large part of the reason the Conservatives have such high levels of unfavourability is that they have been in government for so long. The longer you are in government, the more people you piss off. Until you get turfed out of government and the other lot have their opportunity to gradually build up a well of people who resent them and memory of the lot in power fade. This isn't the whole story, but it's a large part of it.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I have said this before. I never believed the i'm buying twitter as i am a free speech supporter.
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
i half agree. I believe Musk is a genuine free speech absolutist (with some hypocritical aspects of course)
He wanted to buy Twitter for that reason, then balked at the price, but got aytpically fucked over and paid way more than it’s “worth”, at least at that point on paper
He then made several decisions that made this worse, eg the silly rebranding
HOWEVER like any really bright entrepreneur and innovator, he then foresaw the advantage where others saw nothing. He ruthlessly used TwiX to get Trump into the White House (thereby quadrupling his Twitter investment for a start and making his losses into fat profits) he got the hit on Woke he wants, and now - yes - he has endless data for Grok
This is the hallmark of very bright very successful people, they can turn the mistakes we all make into big opportunities, because they can think ahead, see opportunities and extrapolate
is he a thin skinned pillock? Yes. Is he a once-in-a-century genius? Also yes
People that deny the latter are just fools, who look foolish
The xAI spin off was setup pretty up immediately. As was the ability to scrap data via API being shut off. That suggests was part of the plan. Their first LLM was released after 12 months, given how long these things take to train, again must have moved fast.
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
It isn't really possible to doubt that Americans voted Trump because they wanted quite exactly what he said he would deliver. This election seems to me to have been won by a candidate and party who were infinitely more open about their precise intentions than any major UK party in July.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
A fair number of Trump supporters here seemed to believe that Trump wasn't really going to do as he said. They took comfort in believing that he was lying to them.
Well to be fair they were probably looking at his track record on honesty
Sods law isn't it. The one time you want him to be lying through his back teeth and it turns out he was being honest!
I have some very good friends in the US who are Trump supporters.
Their views are - I suspect - not uncommon. They think the Democratic Party has been taken over by identity politics and woke, and they want a more businesslike administration.
They run a successful business, making clothes that are sold "own label" by large supermarkets and department stores. The clothes are all imported from low cost parts of the world, and are most commonly made in China.
In the event that Trump were to implement his tariffs they would be absolutely personally hammered. They told me - scoffing- that Trump isn't really going to implement the tariffs, he's just going to use the threat of them with the Chinese government to extract some better terms.
I hope they are right. But I can't help feel that there are a great many people who voted for Trump on the basis that he wouldn't do what he said he'll do.
It isn't possible for anyone to doubt that Trump has authoritarian and anti-democratic instincts and might act on them. It isn't possible that business people didn't know that Trump was protectionist. It isn't possible that voters didn't know Trump has particular and peculiar ideas of justice. USA voters voted thus at the very least, and on the basis of being fully informed, even if a voter felt that this or that particular detail may not be fulfilled.
What more could Trump have done to indicate he meant what he said?
Comments
I dunno. I think the GOP might hold that.
Greens and LDs have a softish image in pop imagination. So 'favourable'. It doesn't mean 'vote for them' nor does it mean 'save the planet and go by bus/freeze in winter'.
Millions of people in the USA have just voted for someone they all know is a deeply evil person with deeply evil colleagues.
At the moment election winning is not about Mr Nice Lady. It's about the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (a genius). It's strong man time.
This of course makes the result even worse. The majority wanted this. rather than it being a misunderstanding. It was not hiding and it was in plain sight.
This seems to e something with more immediate effect:
Labour’s pledge to build 1.5 million new homes by 2029 and deliver the “biggest growth in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation” has been plunged into doubt by the official who has been leading the plan.
In an email to his staff seen by i, Peter Denton, chief executive of the Government’s Homes England agency, which is responsible for boosting housing supply; describes them as “amazing and incredible ambitions”.
He adds that “realistically”, this is a “two parliamentary term approach”. That would stretch the end date to 2034 – twice the length of time ministers set for their flagship new housing target.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-will-miss-its-new-homes-pledge-says-official-leading-the-plan-3379711?srsltid=AfmBOoocWKI1t1t3vuOIFv8yA8bcgYK2-CdvtjN58Wb77vllv7Sj1Wof
eg Alabama. If this is the Alabama case I am thinking of, the Supreme Court refused to approve a Republican (who control the Alabama process) drawn map that violated the Voting Rights Act 1965 - and had been found to do so by the Alabama courts.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/09/supreme-court-voting-rights-alabama
But, you know, Musk probably sticks to prostitutes who are of age, unlike Matt Gaetz.
I didn't like Cameron or Osborne. I found use of Chameron and Gideon boring and lame.
I felt a strong antipathy towards May. I found use of Maybot to be excruciatingly accurate, but unkind and unnecessary.
I thought that Johnson was one of the most mendacious and dangerous people to have ever been PM. I found use of FLSOJ to be immature and puerile.
Elon Musk is many things, including a complete arsehole. Every time you refer to him as Musky Baby you demean yourself and it's the textual equivalent of nails being dragged down a blackboard. Please, for the sake of my sanity, desist.
I have personally felt like this is coming for a long time, and came to the view that rather than continuously mourning the loss of the familiar, it is better to just assess what is going on in neutral terms.
I think with Trump 24-28, it will be like the British Empire: Parts will be very good, parts will be very bad... it will transcend any kind of historical verdict.
Ask Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System how their investment in Thames Water is going.
"Our pension funds in Britain are too small to be making the investments that get a good return for people saving for retirement and to help our economy to grow," said Rachel Reeves.
The first part of that is a flat out lie.
That seems to me to place it in the worst position possible to tell other schemes what to do and how to do it.
They can work as one-off verbal gags.
*sob*
Still, it’s going out with with a bang. What a fucking trip. I just went paddle boarding in the mangrove lagoons and went arse over tit into the water. Now they are solacing me with fine wines. And tiptop nibbles
Elvis Buñuelo
@Mr_Considerate
Quoted in this article: Allison Pearson, Suella Braverman, Iain Duncan Smith, Elon Musk, Fraser Nelson, Melanie Philips.
Not quoted: the tweet.
https://x.com/Mr_Considerate/status/1856852399446528247
And that's far more dangerous.
They may be lawful gerrymanders or morally right gerrymanders but they are still gerrymanders.
Compare the numbers:
Alabama
Trump wins by 30%
House seats 5 GOP 2 Dem
Louisiana
Trump wins by 22%
House seats 4 GOP 2 Dem
Massachusettes
Harris wins by 25%
House seats Dem 9 GOP 0
Connecticut
Harris wins by 15%
House seats Dem, 5 GOP 0
The Dems are being guaranteed some House seats in southern states whereas the GOP gets nothing throughout New England.
Gerrymandering is damaging wherever it happens but it can be even more damaging when its applied in some parts of a country and not in others.
Labour meanwhile are on just 27%, 6% below the percentage who view them favourably. Reform and the LDs are also polling below the number who view them favourably.
So Badenoch is actually doing well getting those who view the party favourably to almost all support it and adding some others too
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Though perhaps not, as I guess a goodly number of the progeny would be female, and the more Musky babies (as it were) there are, the more the concept of high status is watered down.
Sods law isn't it. The one time you want him to be lying through his back teeth and it turns out he was being honest!
https://time.com/7018266/trump-republicans-koch-network-2024/
It doesn't matter if Musk doesn't do the day to day running as long as he is getting what he wants - the money, the fame, the influence.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
The individual funds may be able to point £10m in that sort of direction but that's not enough to make a difference.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea or not though - the change by itself won't be enough and it creates a different set of risks / rewards...
That's as maybe, but he was smart enough to get him on board to begin with.
So, in theory, this gives you economy of scale. It also means that the geniuses running it can decide that 30% of Thames Water is awesome bet.
What hasn't been talked about, yet, is the Government desire to "direct" investment towards objectives they like. Now, I've got no issue in investing in, say, Green technology. But the problem will rear its head of Picking Winners. See the apparent all-in on Carbon Capture.
And the size of the proposed mega fund(s) is Too Big To Fail.
Combine those two things.....
By all accounts he’s running Tesla into the ground whenever he personally gets involved in any large decision making. So it’s not that he delegates, it is that he is actively kept away from stuff.
Good at investing yes, good at running companies, no.
Also as I said, if he’s so good why has X been such a disaster that he overpaid for massively?
It ends in a manichaean mentality of 'our side good, their side bad' and supporting damaging policies just because it upsets the other side more.
He has been lucky, and to some extent has made his own luck. But the luck was still there.
I still maintain that he owes SpaceX to the late Jerry Pournelle.
Trump won the popular vote by 2%
Electors GOP 312, Dem 226
1) The Process State. It is quite clear that a substantial number of people in public life believe that the Process is the goal. As @Cyclefree (and I) put it, they want a process that removes discretion and human morality from decision making - check the boxes in the right order and perfection will result. The reality is, of course, vast delays and injustice. And attempts to fix it by making the process bigger and longer are a mathematical certainty to fail.
2) As a side effect of this, cost control has been utterly lost. You will hear people saying "Oh, but Medical Inflation is running at X+Y%, with regular inflation at X%". The same amount of money is providing less and less.
3) Much of the policy of the permanent system of government is predicated on a static population. Yet we have a population that is growing at rates seen in some emerging nations. Instead of "Next year we might budget for replacing that hospital building", we need "New town goes here. Hospital here. School here...."
She seems like a grifter much like “I became a Republican overnight” Candace Owens
Oprah Winfrey was never “paid a personal fee” by Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, according to her production banner Harpo Productions. The statement comes as a denial of a rumor that Winfrey was paid $1 million by the campaign, which had been reported by some outlets.
“The campaign paid for the production costs of ‘Unite for America,’ a live-streaming event that took place Sept. 19 outside Detroit, Mich.,” a spokesperson for Harpo shared in a statement. “Oprah Winfrey was at no point during the campaign paid a personal fee, nor did she receive a fee from Harpo.”
I see nothing wrong with paying for production costs.
And its not just what you can do but being in the right place to be able to do it.
Jigsaw pieces, critical masses, pegs/holes and other analogies.
Also necessary for the man at the top to remember and reward those who are necessary for his success.
So far, the partisans of this idea have come up with
1) It is brilliant and will stop all the IHT avoidance
2) The farmers can trivially avoid IHT with tax planning
3) The tax planning won't cost anything.
And now we have
4) There was no need to get any advice on changing a tax.
Their views are - I suspect - not uncommon. They think the Democratic Party has been taken over by identity politics and woke, and they want a more businesslike administration.
They run a successful business, making clothes that are sold "own label" by large supermarkets and department stores. The clothes are all imported from low cost parts of the world, and are most commonly made in China.
In the event that Trump were to implement his tariffs they would be absolutely personally hammered. They told me - scoffing- that Trump isn't really going to implement the tariffs, he's just going to use the threat of them with the Chinese government to extract some better terms.
I hope they are right. But I can't help feel that there are a great many people who voted for Trump on the basis that he wouldn't do what he said he'll do.
PRO TRAVEL WRITING TIP
If you get offered five weeks of intensely luxurious travel, all for free, taking in all of Japan, and Korea, and then one of the world’s best hotels in the Philippines, meeting samurai sword sword makers, 82 year old fisherwomen, the Imperial Princess of Japan, a goalkeeper for Bayern Munich who made zero appearances, a Bristolian punk rocker in Osaka’s red light district, a ginseng seller in Seoul, a guard on the DMZ, a conch soup chef, Japanese women that weave mother of pearl, the bathkeepers of ancient Kinosaki-onsen, an octopus chopper in Busan, a soju maker in Busan, too many sojus in Busan, the 4th best surfer in General Luna and the woman that runs Yukio Mishima’s favorite bar in Shinjuku - SAY YES
I think a lot of people would turn it all down. Do not do this
Musk specifically rejected SSTO from the start.
If the Nebraska / Maine approach was taken nationwide then it would be approximately:
Trump 284
Harris 254
There is little evidence of fund managers being able to consistently significantly outperform the market. Maybe a handful do. But would they really be the ones managing these funds or will we end up with the right people, with the careers and connections to appear safe and reliable.
So I would normally think it a very bad idea, not disastrous but adding extra charges for no good reason.
However, with the volatility in the US, which is where a very large chunk of our retirement funds should end up, maybe it is not a bad time to direct some of that investment back home instead, even at the expense of optimal returns and higher cost. So I would downgrade it to probably a bad idea.
I'm glad that you've now dropped that justification.
It seems a bit like dogmatic opposition.
Didn't Trump promise to halve prices ?
And why shouldn't they assume that Trump will fail to do what he said or promised to do ?
After all how many governments fail to do so ?
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away cut API access by others to twitter data, setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
Its likely the future won't be one LLM to rule them all, rather different LLMs for different tasks.
And if you don't think the brilliant DC-X fed into what SpaceX (and Blue Origin...) are doing, then you are being rather silly.
By all means admire Musk and SpaceX; but you don't have to demean what everybody else did, and is doing.
I fully get your argument but as a dataset it isn't one I would have sought - if I had been seeking something to train an AI on Reddit would have been my preferred choice...
https://bsky.app/profile/rentouljohn.bsky.social/post/3larflnb4ek2e
He's left University of Kent, is a foreign billionaire underwriting him?
i half agree. I believe Musk is a genuine free speech absolutist (with some hypocritical aspects of course)
He wanted to buy Twitter for that reason, then balked at the price, but got aytpically fucked over and paid way more than it’s “worth”, at least at that point on paper
He then made several decisions that made this worse, eg the silly rebranding
HOWEVER like any really bright entrepreneur and innovator, he then foresaw the advantage where others saw nothing. He ruthlessly used TwiX to get Trump into the White House (thereby quadrupling his Twitter investment for a start and making his losses into fat profits) he got the hit on Woke he wants, and now - yes - he has endless data for Grok
This is the hallmark of very bright very successful people, they can turn the mistakes we all make into big opportunities, because they can think ahead, see opportunities and extrapolate
is he a thin skinned pillock? Yes. Is he a once-in-a-century genius? Also yes
People that deny the latter are just fools, who look foolish
I can see a case for consolidation, but it's a devil's tightrope to get the balance between return and risk in the right place.
Investment in infra makes sense as one element, which is what sovereign wealth funds do - steady, long term returns. But the interest of the Govt, having been bent over and the next generation BFONTed by PFI, is to reduce returns. Is there a middle way?
That's 2 separate questions.
While the Dead Internet theory is a bit exaggerated, there are places where ever decreasing real human activity exists.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election-data-id=2024-PG&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false
Never worked so hard. Just more stressful than the 3 day weekends gave back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJW0WSUgmmk
This isn't the whole story, but it's a large part of it.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
Could this be the new PFI?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gve4d8jljo
What more could Trump have done to indicate he meant what he said?