Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
I now want to see one of those color coded maps showing the travel time from every place in London to Heathrow, and another showing the same for Gatwick. My hunch is that on average it is quicker to get to the former, simply because the train link is faster.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
It’s also a pain if you jump into an unfamiliar car, because decades-old standards for button labels have been replaced with some mishmash of touch screen labels which might on a hire car be in a foreign language!
All those media wh*res ramping Farage as the next PM or some such rubbish could well be totally missing the direction of travel. Ed Davey's decent, intelligent moderation is finally getting the attention it deserves. His piece in the Guardian yesterday is a thoughtful dissection of the threat of Musk and the other tech cronies. The mood music across Europe concerning the new Trump order is strongly negative, and the bombastic, tawdry style of the new administration unlikely to improve Trump's already low popularity here. Trump scepticism has a solid franchise with the voters- Sir Ed could well gain massively by expressing this.
Trump is America first. He is unlikely to care a great deal about what people in Europe think of him. Improving his popularity in the US is what matters to him not in the EU.
You missed the point- it's what the negative view of Trump does in UK and European politics that I'm talking about. In any event the best way to get any kind of deal with a grifter like Trump is to be fully prepared to walk away.
The best way to get any kind of deal with anyone is to be fully prepared to walk away. Some of us knew this in 2016.
I actually laughed. How did that turn out?
In general the best deals are the ones where you get the most of what you want for the fewest concessions on the stuff you really don't want.
Parliament refused to let our negotiators walk away... that's the whole point...
So Boris Johnson pointed out, won a majority and was able to walk away, and then did a deal so crap he later pretended it had nothing to do with him.
They forgot the other party could also walk away.
By that time, much of the damage had been done, of course, since he wasn't able to pretend that the entire previous three years hadn't happened.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
It should be pointed out that the UK's biggest clusters of AI will be in London, Cambridge (and to a lesser extent Oxford). That's where the machine learning & AI talent go to university, and that's where the venture capital funding is.
That's why silcon valley (and Seattle) will be the world capital of AI
It's much more down to to the fact Bill Hewlett and David Packard started their company in Palo Alto and Bill Gates was brought up in Seattle, than any amount of regulation.
Those historical advantages are nigh on impossible to overcome and are very long lasting.
And yet any AI dev in Berlin worth anything is heading to London to get a job because everything has dried up in Europe. Berlin was a big up and coming place to do business in ML and AI but after the EU passed their regulations on it everything dried up and the investment diverted to the UK.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
What a fucking shit article. Just about everything is voice controlled on modern BMWs so you don't have to dick around with the touchscreen.
I'm dailying a 4Motion V6 2004 Phaeton (remember them?) at the moment. The interior is a retro button-fest and it's a fucking ergonomic nightmare. Solid car otherwise.
Erm, you and TSE seem dangerously close to agreeing with the Telegraph that touchscreens are awful. You just suggest that rather than go back to buttons, there are superior replacements – voice control or steering wheel.
I never said they were awful and I like them when they are well executed. It is very possible to implement them in such a way that looks and works like shit though.
I struggle to reconcile that he is the brightest man on the planet, has a compulsive need to be liked by everyone, and his actions of 20 hour long social media sessions designed to insult and offend. Wouldn't it make more sense he just likes to insult and offend?
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
I do not need to use mine as everything is in front of me and voice control is excellent
On the discussion yesterday, here is the interview where Musk's father specifically mentions ( at around 3 : 00 ) naming his son partly after the character in Von Braun's book.
The Elon is a benevolent dictator who will run Mars, in the 1952 book.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
It’s also a pain if you jump into an unfamiliar car, because decades-old standards for button labels have been replaced with some mishmash of touch screen labels which might on a hire car be in a foreign language!
Surely not unintentional from the manufacturers in response to the longer life of cars of the last 15-20 years compared with those 20 years earlier.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
It should be pointed out that the UK's biggest clusters of AI will be in London, Cambridge (and to a lesser extent Oxford). That's where the machine learning & AI talent go to university, and that's where the venture capital funding is.
That's why silcon valley (and Seattle) will be the world capital of AI
It's much more down to to the fact Bill Hewlett and David Packard started their company in Palo Alto and Bill Gates was brought up in Seattle, than any amount of regulation.
Those historical advantages are nigh on impossible to overcome and are very long lasting.
Not Edinburgh, traditional home of British AI, since their machine was cancelled.
For AI the biggest cost is electricity, both for powering thousands of machines and for cooling them. American electricity is cheap and getting cheaper; ours is not. Unless something can be worked out with solar panels and not paying grid prices, British AI is doomed to be second rate. Regional governments might look at whether they can build new datacentres in naturally sunny but cold parts of the country. https://www.switchcraft.co.uk/energy/understanding-energy/uk-energy-bills-vs-europe-are-we-paying-more-than-other-countries/
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
I now want to see one of those color coded maps showing the travel time from every place in London to Heathrow, and another showing the same for Gatwick. My hunch is that on average it is quicker to get to the former, simply because the train link is faster.
For a pleasant environment and easy access, I'd probably be going for living in the Hyde Park Estate, roughly where Chez Blair is located.
Not the cheapest place, mind - but some places with very pleasant communal gardens, if not quite on the Maida Vale level.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
It should be pointed out that the UK's biggest clusters of AI will be in London, Cambridge (and to a lesser extent Oxford). That's where the machine learning & AI talent go to university, and that's where the venture capital funding is.
That's why silcon valley (and Seattle) will be the world capital of AI
It's much more down to to the fact Bill Hewlett and David Packard started their company in Palo Alto and Bill Gates was brought up in Seattle, than any amount of regulation.
Those historical advantages are nigh on impossible to overcome and are very long lasting.
And yet any AI dev in Berlin worth anything is heading to London to get a job because everything has dried up in Europe. Berlin was a big up and coming place to do business in ML and AI but after the EU passed their regulations on it everything dried up and the investment diverted to the UK.
Venture cap was a problem even without AI regulation.
12 hours and counting - notary reads every single word of Series A docs in Germany out loud in front of founders. In person.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
"Rachel Reeves to water down non-dom tax raid Chancellor prepares Bill amendment after exodus of millionaires from Britain"
Telegraph
FFS. Too late. Damage done. Bye bye lots of millionaires and their taxes. They won't come back
Just how fucking stupid are they, that they didn't see this coming?
It has seemed to me over decades that there has been a slow shift towards foresight becoming rarer & rarer. Maybe it's to do with lack of consequences being experienced; maybe it's to do with the shortening of attention span; mabe even things like credit cards reducing the need to plan ahead.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
Direct trains from Heathrow to Ilford (albeit every 30 mins), no direct trains from Gatwick to Ilford
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
Oh, sure, absolutely. But having done the Amazon driver training (though something much better came up so I never delivered for them) - and done a few days for Evri - I know all about the pressures on the drivers, and it's easy to blame them when the system is at fault.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
The problem isn’t necessarily the hardware, although that will be of variable quality, but software.
On my old car I ripped out the OEM head unit, and spent all of about 20 minutes putting in a new one with CarPlay, voice control etc.
That’s just not going to be possible with these integrated touch screens, which at some point will fail to pair with your new phone and be basically worthless. It’ll be like having Windows XP today.
Signing bits of paper in a stadium full of drooling magas is clearly the preferred mode of governing for this president. At some point however there'll be things which require some layered thought and political skill to accomplish. This is when it all goes pear.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
I think they might finally have realised if they don't grow the economy Labour will face an extinction level election in 2029, under 50 seats bad.
The next big step is to shit can Ed Miliband and get someone who will build a proper energy generation network immediately and rip up the planning rules on power generation. Bung Rolls Royce £5bn to get the first 2 SMRs built while we're at it.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Certainly in the last couple of days there have been signs that they may have started to move in the right direction.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
The problem isn’t necessarily the hardware, although that will be of variable quality, but software.
On my old car I ripped out the OEM head unit, and spent all of about 20 minutes putting in a new one with CarPlay, voice control etc.
That’s just not going to be possible with these integrated touch screens, which at some point will fail to pair with your new phone and be basically worthless. It’ll be like having Windows XP today.
The hands-free capability on my 2012 VW doesn't work with my latest mobile. It did with my old one, and it doesn't pair with Apple, either. So it already happens.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
I think they might finally have realised if they don't grow the economy Labour will face an extinction level election in 2029, under 50 seats bad.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
The problem isn’t necessarily the hardware, although that will be of variable quality, but software.
On my old car I ripped out the OEM head unit, and spent all of about 20 minutes putting in a new one with CarPlay, voice control etc.
That’s just not going to be possible with these integrated touch screens, which at some point will fail to pair with your new phone and be basically worthless. It’ll be like having Windows XP today.
The hands-free capability on my 2012 VW doesn't work with my latest mobile. It did with my old one, and it doesn't pair with Apple, either. So it already happens.
That's surprising, isn't it just Bluetooth? My 2015 Corsa uses Bluetooth for calls and audio and - tbh - that's all I need it to do.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Yes, this is what I've been thinking. Actually, all this stuff was part of their original pitch. And then they got in and had six months of madness for no readily apparent reason during which absolutely every decision they made was wrong and ludicrous and baffling (I exaggerate, but only slightly). And now they're being forced to compromise with reality. Perhaps it will turn out that they do do the things that need doing. Perhaps it will turn out that they're actually moderately competent at it.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Agreed - I was talking about regulation in general. There are not a few in Europe who acknowledge the problem. But the pace of change (another thing needing sorting) is for now glacially slow.
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
Direct trains from Heathrow to Ilford (albeit every 30 mins), no direct trains from Gatwick to Ilford
Well, you don't expect people from Ilford to go South of the River, do you?
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
And the high cost of repair of complicated systems. There was a recent chat between used car dealers on YouTube (which I can't find right now; High Peak Autos was there but I can't see it on his channel). Anyway, the conclusion was that used cars will in future be sold with more faults as it will be uneconomic to fix them. Still roadworthy but buyer beware on aircon and electric windows, sort of thing.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
Much of society runs on this basis. See the actual price put on a human life, QALYS and Nice....
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
The bad-good axis of regulation may be more important than the less-more axis. Maybe.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
The problem isn’t necessarily the hardware, although that will be of variable quality, but software.
On my old car I ripped out the OEM head unit, and spent all of about 20 minutes putting in a new one with CarPlay, voice control etc.
That’s just not going to be possible with these integrated touch screens, which at some point will fail to pair with your new phone and be basically worthless. It’ll be like having Windows XP today.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No. But we need an acknowledgement that bad regulation makes things *worse*
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
And the high cost of repair of complicated systems. There was a recent chat between used car dealers on YouTube (which I can't find right now; High Peak Autos was there but I can't see it on his channel). Anyway, the conclusion was that used cars will in future be sold with more faults as it will be uneconomic to fix them. Still roadworthy but buyer beware on aircon and electric windows, sort of thing.
That's the case already. I've still got a little old Hyundai that I kept for the kids to learn to drive. The car drives fine and has recently passed an MoT, but the aircon doesn't work, nor does one of the electric windows. The car's probably only worth a few hundred quid, and it's simply not worth ths cost of trying to get these problems fixed. So it'll be sold with those problems (I will of course inform any buyer) or, perhaps more likely, scrapped.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
It’s also a pain if you jump into an unfamiliar car, because decades-old standards for button labels have been replaced with some mishmash of touch screen labels which might on a hire car be in a foreign language!
Surely not unintentional from the manufacturers in response to the longer life of cars of the last 15-20 years compared with those 20 years earlier.
Built in obsolescence. Same with Ipads and the like
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
Direct trains from Heathrow to Ilford (albeit every 30 mins), no direct trains from Gatwick to Ilford
Well, you don't expect people from Ilford to go South of the River, do you?
I needed to go south of the River to do the railways of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, etc!
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
The bad-good axis of regulation may be more important than the less-more axis. Maybe.
Consider Grenfell. Ask about fire safety before that happened - you'd get a bigass word salad, liberally salted with references to regulations, laws, kite marks, standards. One of those American Caesar Salads which is weighed in kilos and has three kinds of cheese on it......
All of which left out a couple of tiny, unimportant facts. That Grenfell tower was being covered in firelighters. And that the fire safety rules/regs were actually not being implemented.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
I think they might finally have realised if they don't grow the economy Labour will face an extinction level election in 2029, under 50 seats bad.
The next big step is to shit can Ed Miliband and get someone who will build a proper energy generation network immediately and rip up the planning rules on power generation. Bung Rolls Royce £5bn to get the first 2 SMRs built while we're at it.
Repurpose some of that carbon capture allocation for budgeting purposes. Finding out if RR can create a viable SMR production line which can genuinely lower the cost (and increase the speed of delivery) of nuclear is a far better bet from the POV of climate change as well as the economy.
While they're about it, bung them another few hundred million to invest in Astro Mechanica, which represents a possible black swan threat to their engine business. (And promises far more fuel efficient aero engines.) https://www.astromecha.co
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No. But we need an acknowledgement that bad regulation makes things *worse*
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Yes, I entirely agree with you. But the answer to over-regulation isn't no regulation, which seems to be the path PB would like us to pursue with regard to AI. I seem to remember apocalyptic warnings on AI being issued by certain members of the forum only a few months ago. Now it's, "Oh, sod regulation, we need the investment."
I struggle to reconcile that he is the brightest man on the planet, has a compulsive need to be liked by everyone, and his actions of 20 hour long social media sessions designed to insult and offend. Wouldn't it make more sense he just likes to insult and offend?
Some in the shadow cabinet are pushing her to be more explicit in her rejection of Truss’s economic agenda, in what they are saying would be a “Krushchev moment”, referring to the former Russian leader’s denunciation of Stalinism in 1956.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No. But we need an acknowledgement that bad regulation makes things *worse*
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Yes, I entirely agree with you. But the answer to over-regulation isn't no regulation, which seems to be the path PB would like us to pursue with regard to AI. I seem to remember apocalyptic warnings on AI being issued by certain members of the forum only a few months ago. Now it's, "Oh, sod regulation, we need the investment."
The EU regulation is "Stop pretty much all of it"
The problem is that we don't live in North Korea. So "AI" will happen. Outside the EU.
The question then is, what regulation can actually make things better and how much it will cost?
It may even be that existing rules on information security etc are sufficient.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
I now want to see one of those color coded maps showing the travel time from every place in London to Heathrow, and another showing the same for Gatwick. My hunch is that on average it is quicker to get to the former, simply because the train link is faster.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
One of the climate models is suggesting a low pressure of 932mb might reach the UK by Friday - this would be the lowest air pressure ever recorded here, if it comes to pass. A serious storm is incoming.
Currently a red warning for Northern Ireland. Amber and yellow for the rest of us.
Two red wind warnings as the Met Office morning meeting has progressed.
Whole NI warning between 7am-2pm tomorrow. South and Central Scotland warning between 10am-5pm tomorrow, broadly triangular from below Stranraer to East Lothian to Jura/Islay, an area which takes in both Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Strongest storm to hit the British Isles (if we are allowed that these days) since 1703?
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
The point is more that, in some cases, there is no lesson to be learned in that we are already doing as much as can reasonably be done, in a free society, to prevent such events. I'm thinking here of attacks by psychos rather than Grenfell, btw.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
Exactly. Shit happened. Shit happens. Shit will happen. We move on.
However culprits must be caught and punished. We have laws against crimes. Let's enforce them.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
The point is more that, in some cases, there is no lesson to be learned in that we are already doing as much as can reasonably be done, in a free society, to prevent such events. I'm thinking here of attacks by psychos rather than Grenfell, btw.
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
Direct trains from Heathrow to Ilford (albeit every 30 mins), no direct trains from Gatwick to Ilford
Well, you don't expect people from Ilford to go South of the River, do you?
I needed to go south of the River to do the railways of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, etc!
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No. But we need an acknowledgement that bad regulation makes things *worse*
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Yes, I entirely agree with you. But the answer to over-regulation isn't no regulation, which seems to be the path PB would like us to pursue with regard to AI. I seem to remember apocalyptic warnings on AI being issued by certain members of the forum only a few months ago. Now it's, "Oh, sod regulation, we need the investment."
AI and Biotech are both examples of technologies that don't respect national regulation.
In an ideal world countries would co-operate and have a similar set of regulations with mutual trust to enforce and develop them.
In the actual world, China will do whatever it thinks best to become the dominant superpower, as will Trump's America.
Given that, game theory suggests the least bad option may well be little to no regulation for someone like the UK, even if that accelerates the destruction of the human race......
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!
Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No. But we need an acknowledgement that bad regulation makes things *worse*
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Yes, I entirely agree with you. But the answer to over-regulation isn't no regulation, which seems to be the path PB would like us to pursue with regard to AI. I seem to remember apocalyptic warnings on AI being issued by certain members of the forum only a few months ago. Now it's, "Oh, sod regulation, we need the investment."
AI and Biotech are both examples of technologies that don't respect national regulation.
In an ideal world countries would co-operate and have a similar set of regulations with mutual trust to enforce and develop them.
In the actual world, China will do whatever it thinks best to become the dominant superpower, as will Trump's America.
Given that, game theory suggests the least bad option may well be little to no regulation for someone like the UK, even if that accelerates the destruction of the human race......
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No. But we need an acknowledgement that bad regulation makes things *worse*
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Yes, I entirely agree with you. But the answer to over-regulation isn't no regulation, which seems to be the path PB would like us to pursue with regard to AI. I seem to remember apocalyptic warnings on AI being issued by certain members of the forum only a few months ago. Now it's, "Oh, sod regulation, we need the investment."
From a practical point of view, though, the US and China have the power to regulate, and if they decide not to, as has just happened, anything we decide is nearly irrelevant in terms of outcomes.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
Exactly. Shit happened. Shit happens. Shit will happen. We move on.
However culprits must be caught and punished. We have laws against crimes. Let's enforce them.
By what if the culprits are Proper People? What about their Divine Right(s)?
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
The point is more that, in some cases, there is no lesson to be learned in that we are already doing as much as can reasonably be done, in a free society, to prevent such events. I'm thinking here of attacks by psychos rather than Grenfell, btw.
In the case of attacks by psychos, we are *not* doing all we could be doing, in terms of psychiatric care availability.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No. But we need an acknowledgement that bad regulation makes things *worse*
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Yes, I entirely agree with you. But the answer to over-regulation isn't no regulation, which seems to be the path PB would like us to pursue with regard to AI. I seem to remember apocalyptic warnings on AI being issued by certain members of the forum only a few months ago. Now it's, "Oh, sod regulation, we need the investment."
AI and Biotech are both examples of technologies that don't respect national regulation.
In an ideal world countries would co-operate and have a similar set of regulations with mutual trust to enforce and develop them.
In the actual world, China will do whatever it thinks best to become the dominant superpower, as will Trump's America.
Given that, game theory suggests the least bad option may well be little to no regulation for someone like the UK, even if that accelerates the destruction of the human race......
As I said, it's climate change all over again.
Worse than climate change imo. Climate change would have made/will make parts of the world uninhabitable and cause billions/hundreds of millions of early deaths, but plenty of places would survive still. AI and Biotech can lead to our complete destruction within a century or less.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
If you believe that there are risks associated with AI, then surely there are also upsides to regulation?
Or have we all decided that they can be ignored for the sake of profit after all?
There is a regulation and regulation.
Before 2008, for example, the government introduced a ton of regulation. Every trader had a photocopy of their passport in multiple files in HR. Every trader (or their desk monkey) had clicked through online exams on ethics ect. On and on and on.
One chap I worked with - Old School Labour - joined the company during this period. Before he encountered this stuff, he thought I was just "being a Tory". Afterwards, he agreed it was useless.
The thing is that the none of the regulations actually touched on the actual problem. Which wasn't new - how solvent is your bank? and what happens if the market throws *this* kind of wobbly?
But that was tricky to regulate. So bikesheding instead....
Yes, I'm sure there is bad regulation. But that in itself isn't an argument against regulation any more than bad policing is an argument against policing.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
Bad regulation is a problem. In of itself. This is not generally understood - "Buutt ruuuules!"
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money - Give the impression that the problem has been solved. - Stop useful things happening.
FFS, yes, bad regulation is a problem. But that doesn't mean we should ditch all regulation.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
And the in shop cafes will be replaced by franchises that will create new jobs. Our local Sainsburys closed its Cafe some time ago and replaced it with a Starbucks. Naturally I preferred it like it was before, but the Starbucks seems to be busier.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
So am I, the news is obsessed with the issue. It's a reality but tedious to continually hear about it. Even the weather girl on GMB bangs on about it when all I want to hear about is what the weather is going to be.
Facebook flooded by AI images that people think are real
I swear the people that unironically like and say stuff like "Amazing job" in the comments are THE FIRST. The VERY FIRST to be targeted by scammers. Obvious AI pictures are a truly simple way to tell who are very gullible indeed and thick as pigshit in this world.
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
Direct trains from Heathrow to Ilford (albeit every 30 mins), no direct trains from Gatwick to Ilford
Well, you don't expect people from Ilford to go South of the River, do you?
I needed to go south of the River to do the railways of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, etc!
So you don't need a plane anyway?
Last flew from Gatwick (to Barcelona) in October 2019, and I used Thameslink!
Yes, I noticed that. Google tells me that NIH researcher funding is around 38billion dollars, so that is one hell of a wedge: almost two Milibands, in fact. People are saying the UK should welcome the resulting US scientist diaspora with open arms, which should be fun. Does anybody remember "V"?
It’s not clear that this is a permanent thing, however. It looks as though it may be a temporary measure. Not that I have any faith that an NIH once Trump has put his cronies in charge won’t be problematic too.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
The point is more that, in some cases, there is no lesson to be learned in that we are already doing as much as can reasonably be done, in a free society, to prevent such events. I'm thinking here of attacks by psychos rather than Grenfell, btw.
In the case of attacks by psychos, we are *not* doing all we could be doing, in terms of psychiatric care availability.
You may well be right, but it could also be the case that the amount you'd have to spend to, say, halve attacks by psychos, would end up costing more lives due to the money taken from elsewhere.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
The worst of all possible worlds is to say/do something totally out of place like 'Double verification for online knife delivery will be introduced in new tough legislation'. This was the utterly unsuitable Yvette Cooper response.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
And the in shop cafes will be replaced by franchises that will create new jobs. Our local Sainsburys closed its Cafe some time ago and replaced it with a Starbucks. Naturally I preferred it like it was before, but the Starbucks seems to be busier.
When I lived in Tower Hill, I used use the cafes in St Catherines Dock. One time, while I was taking a break between jobs, I was using the "independent" cafe there a fair bit.
The guy running it, admitted when I asked him, that he also ran the Starbucks franchise (in a little rotunda thing - about 50 meters away). As he put it "I get the anti-Starbucks customers and the Starbucks customers"...
Facebook flooded by AI images that people think are real
I swear the people that unironically like and say stuff like "Amazing job" in the comments are THE FIRST. The VERY FIRST to be targeted by scammers. Obvious AI pictures are a truly simple way to tell who are very gullible indeed and thick as pigshit in this world.
It's not just AI pictures. A depressingly large number of the commenters on YouTube are apparently unaware that the scenes they are viewing are film clips or obviously staged events.
Ugh, the Luddites are in control at The Telegraph, don’t these bellends realise you can control the settings on the steering wheel for nearly everything even before touchscreen dashboards
Touchscreen dashboards have finally taken over and ruined driving
Physical buttons are being consigned to history – but trying to prod a screen while navigating our famously poor road surfaces isn’t easy
Touchscreens can be problematic for people with certain medical problems, e.g. peripheral neuropathy. Designers should consider the needs of disabled people when... OMG, this means the Telegraph has gone WOKE!
The bigger problem isn’t the existence of the touch screen itself, which are of varying standards of good and bad design, it’s the removal of the buttons which is almost entirely for cost-saving reasons. Don’t buy a car without taking time to work out if it’s a good touch screen or a bad one, some of the bad ones are really, really bad.
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
Why? They are relatively easy to replace and the BCU (which usually controls them) is only marginally harder. They are a hell of a lot more reliable than the buttons and relays that proliferate in mid 90s to late naughties cars.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
The problem isn’t necessarily the hardware, although that will be of variable quality, but software.
On my old car I ripped out the OEM head unit, and spent all of about 20 minutes putting in a new one with CarPlay, voice control etc.
That’s just not going to be possible with these integrated touch screens, which at some point will fail to pair with your new phone and be basically worthless. It’ll be like having Windows XP today.
The hands-free capability on my 2012 VW doesn't work with my latest mobile. It did with my old one, and it doesn't pair with Apple, either. So it already happens.
That's surprising, isn't it just Bluetooth? My 2015 Corsa uses Bluetooth for calls and audio and - tbh - that's all I need it to do.
My old Samsung used to work, as did Apple. I assume it is something to do with the phones software, as Mrs J's old phone still works.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
Reform is leading in the polls, and Nigel Farage is favourite to be next PM. Labour have dozens and dozens of vulnerable seats. Starmer has very little political room for manoeuvre with the EU.
If they're paying attention they might not want to invest too much in a CU/SM lite deal that'll be comprehensively picked apart again in less than 4 years by someone who makes Boris look like Ted Heath in comparison.
Reform is leading in the polls, and Nigel Farage is favourite to be next PM. Labour have dozens and dozens of vulnerable seats. Starmer has very little political room for manoeuvre with the EU.
If they're paying attention they might not want to invest too much in a CU/SM lite deal that'll be comprehensively picked apart again in less than 4 years by someone who makes Boris look like Ted Heath in comparison.
Starmer seems to think that too but on current polls most of the redwall seats Labour won in July 2024 which backed Boris in 2019 will go Reform at the next general election. It may be a Labour minority government reliant on LD support then with Davey demanding a CU/SM deal for his support, indeed the polls suggest that is more likely than Reform most seats and Farage PM
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
When I was investiing n my pension I left it to my pension advisers to do it and they did an excellent job over 40 years
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!
Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
4 people stabbed in Croydon outside a supermarket. No lessons will be learned.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
Fine words. Are you following through with this action?
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
The point is more that, in some cases, there is no lesson to be learned in that we are already doing as much as can reasonably be done, in a free society, to prevent such events. I'm thinking here of attacks by psychos rather than Grenfell, btw.
In the case of attacks by psychos, we are *not* doing all we could be doing, in terms of psychiatric care availability.
To delve into this difficulty a bit is to dip into deep waters. The psychiatry world has diagnosable diseases, generally treatable, and a large class of untreatable conditions which people label as 'psychopathic' 'sociopathic' 'narcissist', 'borderline personality disorder', 'evil' and so on.
In our society you can lock people up for two big reasons: they have committed a crime, or they are sectionable under mental health legislation. For this you have to be crazy in a way psychiatry recognises. The untreatable stuff fills our prisons and forms a large nuisance class in many communities.
In normal language our prisons are full of people who are mad, as well as being bad. The overlap is gigantic.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
When I was investigating in my pension I left it to my pension advisers to do it and they did an excellent job over 40 years
Problem is for many with workplace DC pots they just let the pension company put them onto the lifestyle fund, or whatever shite they call it and they take their chances with it. May work for some but not for all and there have been people lose out because of it.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
4 people stabbed in Croydon outside a supermarket. No lessons will be learned.
Bloody online retailers again.
I'm sure Yvette Cooper's wise intervention mentioned upthread will see an end to such acts of barbarity.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
We used to grab lunch with the kids at the Sainsburys Cafe. It was a nice treat for the kids, the food was relatively nutritious and inexpensive, and we could combine it with the weekly shop so it was convenient too. I was sad when they changed it to a Starbucks.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
It should be pointed out that the UK's biggest clusters of AI will be in London, Cambridge (and to a lesser extent Oxford). That's where the machine learning & AI talent go to university, and that's where the venture capital funding is.
That's why silcon valley (and Seattle) will be the world capital of AI
It's much more down to to the fact Bill Hewlett and David Packard started their company in Palo Alto and Bill Gates was brought up in Seattle, than any amount of regulation.
Those historical advantages are nigh on impossible to overcome and are very long lasting.
Not Edinburgh, traditional home of British AI, since their machine was cancelled.
For AI the biggest cost is electricity, both for powering thousands of machines and for cooling them. American electricity is cheap and getting cheaper; ours is not. Unless something can be worked out with solar panels and not paying grid prices, British AI is doomed to be second rate. Regional governments might look at whether they can build new datacentres in naturally sunny but cold parts of the country. https://www.switchcraft.co.uk/energy/understanding-energy/uk-energy-bills-vs-europe-are-we-paying-more-than-other-countries/
I think that’s a bit simplistic. For example, one line of research is on what you can do with smaller, less energy-demanding models. You don’t want to be using an API to OpenAI when dealing with personal health information, so you might want to run a model locally within a hospital, at which point you have to look at something smaller. The things LLMs are actually good at (ignoring the hype) might work fine with smaller models. Bingo: you get the benefits of what an LLM can do well, but you’re not racking up a huge leccy bill and you’re not dependent on an outside company based in another country.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Certainly in the last couple of days there have been signs that they may have started to move in the right direction.
I think the government has been moving in the same direction all along. Whether commentators here have been able to perceive that may be the only thing that’s changed.
Comments
Modern cars, especially the higher-end models, are going to be a total pain in the proverbial to keep running 20 years from now, mostly because of the screens and their software.
It’s also a pain if you jump into an unfamiliar car, because decades-old standards for button labels have been replaced with some mishmash of touch screen labels which might on a hire car be in a foreign language!
https://www.thefp.com/p/how-much-can-trump-change-with-the
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
On the discussion yesterday, here is the interview where Musk's father specifically mentions ( at around 3 :
00 ) naming his son partly after the character in Von Braun's book.
The Elon is a benevolent dictator who will run Mars, in the 1952 book.
Quite staggering stuff, now indeed.
For AI the biggest cost is electricity, both for powering thousands of machines and for cooling them. American electricity is cheap and getting cheaper; ours is not. Unless something can be worked out with solar panels and not paying grid prices, British AI is doomed to be second rate. Regional governments might look at whether they can build new datacentres in naturally sunny but cold parts of the country.
https://www.switchcraft.co.uk/energy/understanding-energy/uk-energy-bills-vs-europe-are-we-paying-more-than-other-countries/
Not the cheapest place, mind - but some places with very pleasant communal gardens, if not quite on the Maida Vale level.
12 hours and counting - notary reads every single word of Series A docs in Germany out loud in front of founders. In person.
Guys, we have GDP to grow here.
Pure prehistoric madness.
https://x.com/nathanbenaich/status/1862208030596636770
Good afternoon, everybody.
The things that kill cars will be the same 20 years hence as they are now. Rust and engine/transmission failures.
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
On my old car I ripped out the OEM head unit, and spent all of about 20 minutes putting in a new one with CarPlay, voice control etc.
That’s just not going to be possible with these integrated touch screens, which at some point will fail to pair with your new phone and be basically worthless. It’ll be like having Windows XP today.
The next big step is to shit can Ed Miliband and get someone who will build a proper energy generation network immediately and rip up the planning rules on power generation. Bung Rolls Royce £5bn to get the first 2 SMRs built while we're at it.
Instead, after a few months of worrying about the possible downsides of AI we seem to have decided to forget about them because any regulation to mitigate those downsides might cost us money. It's climate change all over again.
https://www.ft.com/content/90f7bf48-1e90-47f4-8bd8-422904b23fa6
Bad regulations
- Cost time and money
- Give the impression that the problem has been solved.
- Stop useful things happening.
Actually, all this stuff was part of their original pitch. And then they got in and had six months of madness for no readily apparent reason during which absolutely every decision they made was wrong and ludicrous and baffling (I exaggerate, but only slightly).
And now they're being forced to compromise with reality. Perhaps it will turn out that they do do the things that need doing. Perhaps it will turn out that they're actually moderately competent at it.
There are not a few in Europe who acknowledge the problem. But the pace of change (another thing needing sorting) is for now glacially slow.
Hence the comic (mentioned up thread) of certain jurisdiction demanding that legal documents are read out loud in certain circumstances.
Aside from the issue of people taking days to do this - has anyone considered the length of the documents in the first place? Sure, regulations and laws mean they have to be.....
Kemi Badenoch ‘wants Liz Truss to shut up for a while’
Tory leader told shadow cabinet last week she wanted predecessor to stop making unhelpful interventions
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/kemi-badenoch-wants-liz-truss-to-shut-up-for-a-while?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
Sainsbury’s cuts 3,000 jobs, via
@creery_j
All of which left out a couple of tiny, unimportant facts. That Grenfell tower was being covered in firelighters. And that the fire safety rules/regs were actually not being implemented.
Finding out if RR can create a viable SMR production line which can genuinely lower the cost (and increase the speed of delivery) of nuclear is a far better bet from the POV of climate change as well as the economy.
While they're about it, bung them another few hundred million to invest in Astro Mechanica, which represents a possible black swan threat to their engine business.
(And promises far more fuel efficient aero engines.)
https://www.astromecha.co
The problem is that we don't live in North Korea. So "AI" will happen. Outside the EU.
The question then is, what regulation can actually make things better and how much it will cost?
It may even be that existing rules on information security etc are sufficient.
Wouldn't fancy being in western Ireland tomorrow.
However culprits must be caught and punished. We have laws against crimes. Let's enforce them.
In an ideal world countries would co-operate and have a similar set of regulations with mutual trust to enforce and develop them.
In the actual world, China will do whatever it thinks best to become the dominant superpower, as will Trump's America.
Given that, game theory suggests the least bad option may well be little to no regulation for someone like the UK, even if that accelerates the destruction of the human race......
Facebook flooded by AI images that people think are real
The guy running it, admitted when I asked him, that he also ran the Starbucks franchise (in a little rotunda thing - about 50 meters away). As he put it "I get the anti-Starbucks customers and the Starbucks customers"...
Reform is leading in the polls, and Nigel Farage is favourite to be next PM. Labour have dozens and dozens of vulnerable seats. Starmer has very little political room for manoeuvre with the EU.
If they're paying attention they might not want to invest too much in a CU/SM lite deal that'll be comprehensively picked apart again in less than 4 years by someone who makes Boris look like Ted Heath in comparison.
In our society you can lock people up for two big reasons: they have committed a crime, or they are sectionable under mental health legislation. For this you have to be crazy in a way psychiatry recognises. The untreatable stuff fills our prisons and forms a large nuisance class in many communities.
In normal language our prisons are full of people who are mad, as well as being bad. The overlap is gigantic.
I'm sure Yvette Cooper's wise intervention mentioned upthread will see an end to such acts of barbarity.
Man arrested in Croydon following 4 injured in stabbing