Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Is your original post misphrased in some way? Because if you do have a positive test when the false positive rate is 5% it is in fact 95% (well, 95.2%) probable you have the disease.
No, if it produces false positives, and no one has the disease, then around 5% of any tested population will still test positive.
The problem is misphrased, as it calls the test “100% accurate” in detecting positive cases. It should say 100% sensitive, as it’s not 100% accurate.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
He destroyed it so effectively is was in power for 14 years, increasing its majority at two of those elections. He damaged it so extensively it could well be back in Government in 2029.
What a ####.
Cameron failed to win an election that was his to lose, wasting a term with Lib Dem hangers on. He then failed to do anything with the election he did win outright - practically by accident. He didn't overturn any of Blair's consitutional meddling - the Supreme Court, the 'independent' quangocracy, which is almost the entire reason the country is in such a weakened and sclerotic state - instead boasting that he was the heir to Blair. He failed to reverse the left wing capture of our institutions and our civil service. He then failed to win any concessions during his disastrous EU negotiations, because he didn't really want the UK to be a semi-detached member, he thought he could win a mandate for EU-max by scaring the public into voting to remain. He then failed to stick around and deal with the political fallout, which he had committed to do. Apart from that he was great.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
I don't know enough about the case to have a firm view, but the number of serious people saying the conviction is unsafe suggests that the "reasonable doubt" threshold has been passed.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
And Lord Dannatt’s political nous is ?
Seems he is very pro Europe as commented earlier but he rejected Zelensky's claim for an European Army this morning in the media
Indeed I haven't heard any leader suggest leaving NATO is the answer, more increased spending by NATO members seems to be the concensus
It's a timing thing, I'd say. If this Trumpite version is how America is going to be from now on it means our Direction of Travel is European Army. But it won't be happening in time for Ukraine. That will need some NATO.
We don’t need a European Army. We need the armies of the individual European nations, and other affected nations, to work together in a joint operation. That’s how it worked in WW2 for example.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
To be fair, I suspect I would have been also if I hadn't watched the video.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Yes, the PPV (positive predictive value) of a test depends on the prevalence in the population, this publication deals with the maths.
Three out of every 100 000 people have glioma. A patient comes into the clinic complaining of headaches and memory loss. A new blood test for diagnosis of glioma is available. She tests positive. From the literature you know that of the three people out of 100 000 with glioma, all three will likely have a positive blood test. Of the 99 997 people without glioma, 4000 will still have a positive blood test. Of the patients with a positive blood test, how many actually have glioma?
Now the answer is much more straightforward to calculate: it is 3/(3 +4000) =0.0007. Again, this is the PPV, the chance that a patient with a positive test result actually has glioma.
Trump isn't even approaching Biden levels fo senility.
He's worse...
Here’s Trump’s speech after Tulsi Gabbard was sworn in.
Take a look at the Gerald Ford, the aircraft carrier, The Ford. It was supposed to cost 3 billion, it ended up costing uh 18 billion. And they make, of course, all electric catapults which don’t work and they have all magnetic elevators to lift up 25 planes at a time, 20 planes at a time and instead of using hydraulic like on tractors that can handle anything from hurricanes to lightning to anything they use magnets. Its a new theory, magnets they’re gonna lift the planes up and it doesn’t work and there’s billions and billions of dollars of cost overuns. I met the architect and i asked “have you designed a ship before”, this is one of the biggest ships in the world, it’s like landing at LaGuardia Airport but uuhhh you look at the kind if waste, fraud and abuse that this country is going through and we have got to straighten it out
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
I always think a post like this on PB should be accompanied by a suitable piece of music.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
He destroyed it so effectively is was in power for 14 years, increasing its majority at two of those elections. He damaged it so extensively it could well be back in Government in 2029.
What a ####.
Cameron failed to win an election that was his to lose, wasting a term with Lib Dem hangers on. He then failed to do anything with the election he did win outright - practically by accident. He didn't overturn any of Blair's consitutional meddling - the Supreme Court, the 'independent' quangocracy, which is almost the entire reason the country is in such a weakened and sclerotic state - instead boasting that he was the heir to Blair. He failed to reverse the left wing capture of our institutions and our civil service. He then failed to win any concessions during his disastrous EU negotiations, because he didn't really want the UK to be a semi-detached member, he thought he could win a mandate for EU-max by scaring the public into voting to remain. He then failed to stick around and deal with the political fallout, which he had committed to do. Apart from that he was great.
I don't think that was the sole point being debated though - the premise was that the A list destroyed the party. Those things you list, were any of them down to that, or just because of poor leadership and political choices by Cameron and others?
So was the A list responsible for the MPs making those choices, or was it incidental?
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
I think the Boris magic has long since gone. These days he resembles a down and out.
You think he didn't before?
Actually Boris still has some magic. In the latest polls, IIRC, he has a higher favourability rating than any other politician in the UK (also very high negatives, but he has always been avo and marmite). This does not please me, after the Boriswave I want him gone from British politics for eternity, but it is a fact
Fuck knows who these people are, that still like and admire him, but they definitely exist
Sure. But he has always looked like a bag of shit tied round the middle. It's part of his charm.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
I always think a post like this on PB should be accompanied by a suitable piece of music.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
I think the Boris magic has long since gone. These days he resembles a down and out.
You think he didn't before?
Actually Boris still has some magic. In the latest polls, IIRC, he has a higher favourability rating than any other politician in the UK (also very high negatives, but he has always been avo and marmite). This does not please me, after the Boriswave I want him gone from British politics for eternity, but it is a fact
Fuck knows who these people are, that still like and admire him, but they definitely exist
It probably isn't enough and with the right people though. One reason Partygate and what followed was so damaging for Boris was that it made him 'just another politician' to ordinary people who'd previously found him refreshing.
He undoubtedly still has a constituency to whom he can do no wrong, but are smaller and less potent and normal than they were. It's really only proper fans now - more than some politicians have, true, but probably not enough to compensate for being viewed with contempt outside that (a bit like Corbyn).
The other point is that he's effectively thrown away his biggest universally respected achievement in backing for Ukraine by becoming a booster for Trump - he very much will not be able to do the Lidl Churchill routine again.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
To be fair, I suspect I would have been also if I hadn't watched the video.
The problem does conflate sensitivity and accuracy. Which aren’t the same thing.
I suspect a few more would have answered it correctly had it been expressed in those terms.
Kemi is obviously a bit rubbish. What I can’t fathom is the mind blowing gap between her opinion of her own talent and everyone else’s. She carries on like she thinks she’s Elvis. It’s bizarre.
She only had to be better than Jenrick to be leader. And she's that.
Would she have beaten Mordaunt though? Not a chance. With the Conservatives having historically so few seats, the likelihood of a safe-ish seat coming up any time soon is limited. Look to a grandee getting a peerage in the honours list. Maybe that is already in motion, if Penny is back being active.
I like Penny. She’s the only leader why might tempt me to vote Tory again (other than Jenrick if I’m utterly desperate)
She needs to drop the Woke shit. Everyone else is anyway - the pendulum is swinging. Get with the vibeshift. She’s got a sharp tongue and self confidence. She can hold a sword. Er, that’s it. But heck the Tories are not overstuffed with good contenders
She’d be a good centre right candidate
I agree with your analysis of her, but there was one thing missing and I can't remember why I think this, but from memory there was no depth to her, no detail. I agree though a very good speaker, sense of humour and very human.
For Penny to be elected, a Tory MP in a very safe seat will need to fall on their sword.
Richmond and Northallerton is currently the safest Tory seat in the country with an MP who everyone seems to agree will be looking to move on to other things shortly.
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
@TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
A man who was coasting to becoming the next PM has to make sure Trump doesn't mess everything up for him at the last minute.
As for Braverman/Truss types, they are out of step even with most Conservatives. They could easily say basically the same things with less Trump worshipfulness, there may be a larger market for Trump-like ideas without attaching themselves to his personality, which plays worse over here than there.
Interestingly, Merz's criticism of Vance's speech was sharper (we don't need any lectures from America) than Scholz's (it was inappropriate). OK maybe as Chancellor you feel a bit more constrained than an opposition politician, but Merz will probably be Chancellor within a few weeks.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Yes, the PPV (positive predictive value) of a test depends on the prevalence in the population, this publication deals with the maths.
Three out of every 100 000 people have glioma. A patient comes into the clinic complaining of headaches and memory loss. A new blood test for diagnosis of glioma is available. She tests positive. From the literature you know that of the three people out of 100 000 with glioma, all three will likely have a positive blood test. Of the 99 997 people without glioma, 4000 will still have a positive blood test. Of the patients with a positive blood test, how many actually have glioma?
Now the answer is much more straightforward to calculate: it is 3/(3 +4000) =0.0007. Again, this is the PPV, the chance that a patient with a positive test result actually has glioma.
So 3 out of 100k have glioma. But what % of people with those symptoms (headache + memory loss) have it? That would presumably be higher than 3 in 100k.
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
In fairness the only thing I've picked up about Milei is that he is a bit of an economic maverick and loudmouth - I wouldn't immediately assume he would sideline as a crypto scammer.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
I don't know enough about the case to have a firm view, but the number of serious people saying the conviction is unsafe suggests that the "reasonable doubt" threshold has been passed.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
And Lord Dannatt’s political nous is ?
Seems he is very pro Europe as commented earlier but he rejected Zelensky's claim for an European Army this morning in the media
Indeed I haven't heard any leader suggest leaving NATO is the answer, more increased spending by NATO members seems to be the concensus
It's a timing thing, I'd say. If this Trumpite version is how America is going to be from now on it means our Direction of Travel is European Army. But it won't be happening in time for Ukraine. That will need some NATO.
We don’t need a European Army. We need the armies of the individual European nations, and other affected nations, to work together in a joint operation. That’s how it worked in WW2 for example.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Is your original post misphrased in some way? Because if you do have a positive test when the false positive rate is 5% it is in fact 95% (well, 95.2%) probable you have the disease.
No, if it produces false positives, and no one has the disease, then around 5% of any tested population will still test positive.
The problem is misphrased, as it calls the test “100% accurate” in detecting positive cases. It should say 100% sensitive, as it’s not 100% accurate.
So it is misphrased then, thanks. That makes sense now.
As worded it’s nonsensical which is why I was puzzled.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
I don't know enough about the case to have a firm view, but the number of serious people saying the conviction is unsafe suggests that the "reasonable doubt" threshold has been passed.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
And Lord Dannatt’s political nous is ?
Seems he is very pro Europe as commented earlier but he rejected Zelensky's claim for an European Army this morning in the media
Indeed I haven't heard any leader suggest leaving NATO is the answer, more increased spending by NATO members seems to be the concensus
It's a timing thing, I'd say. If this Trumpite version is how America is going to be from now on it means our Direction of Travel is European Army. But it won't be happening in time for Ukraine. That will need some NATO.
We don’t need a European Army. We need the armies of the individual European nations, and other affected nations, to work together in a joint operation. That’s how it worked in WW2 for example.
Well whatever is built for the longer term defence of Europe needs cohesion, common purpose and economies of scale. What it's called isn't so important.
Kemi is obviously a bit rubbish. What I can’t fathom is the mind blowing gap between her opinion of her own talent and everyone else’s. She carries on like she thinks she’s Elvis. It’s bizarre.
She only had to be better than Jenrick to be leader. And she's that.
Would she have beaten Mordaunt though? Not a chance. With the Conservatives having historically so few seats, the likelihood of a safe-ish seat coming up any time soon is limited. Look to a grandee getting a peerage in the honours list. Maybe that is already in motion, if Penny is back being active.
I like Penny. She’s the only leader why might tempt me to vote Tory again (other than Jenrick if I’m utterly desperate)
She needs to drop the Woke shit. Everyone else is anyway - the pendulum is swinging. Get with the vibeshift. She’s got a sharp tongue and self confidence. She can hold a sword. Er, that’s it. But heck the Tories are not overstuffed with good contenders
She’d be a good centre right candidate
I agree with your analysis of her, but there was one thing missing and I can't remember why I think this, but from memory there was no depth to her, no detail. I agree though a very good speaker, sense of humour and very human.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
He destroyed it so effectively is was in power for 14 years, increasing its majority at two of those elections. He damaged it so extensively it could well be back in Government in 2029.
What a ####.
Cameron failed to win an election that was his to lose, wasting a term with Lib Dem hangers on. He then failed to do anything with the election he did win outright - practically by accident. He didn't overturn any of Blair's consitutional meddling - the Supreme Court, the 'independent' quangocracy, which is almost the entire reason the country is in such a weakened and sclerotic state - instead boasting that he was the heir to Blair. He failed to reverse the left wing capture of our institutions and our civil service. He then failed to win any concessions during his disastrous EU negotiations, because he didn't really want the UK to be a semi-detached member, he thought he could win a mandate for EU-max by scaring the public into voting to remain. He then failed to stick around and deal with the political fallout, which he had committed to do. Apart from that he was great.
Hey I don’t think he was that good (though for different reasons to you) but the post I was replying to said he destroyed the Tory Party. Given that it was in power for eight years after he left, and picked other leaders who went on to win elections, he plainly did not.
That's true, and why I couldn't (and didn't) vote for him.
You managed to be quite happy in a party with Osborne, Cameron, Gove, Cummings, and a whole host of other pond life, so its a bit much to try to pass off your poor judgement as some sort of moral stand.
I'd rather be in a pond with them than in a lake with you and Liz Truss.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
I don't know enough about the case to have a firm view, but the number of serious people saying the conviction is unsafe suggests that the "reasonable doubt" threshold has been passed.
I have been thinking for a while now that the end of NATO might be a good thing for Europe
It's not like we have any other choice. NATO is dead. Nobody can trust the US, so we should assume that they have effectively left NATO, and plan for them to be a potential adversary.
Not according to Lord Dannatt this morning who rejected the idea of an European Army affirming support for NATO
Lord Dannatt must have his head in the sand then.
And your military knowledge is ?
And Lord Dannatt’s political nous is ?
Seems he is very pro Europe as commented earlier but he rejected Zelensky's claim for an European Army this morning in the media
Indeed I haven't heard any leader suggest leaving NATO is the answer, more increased spending by NATO members seems to be the concensus
It's a timing thing, I'd say. If this Trumpite version is how America is going to be from now on it means our Direction of Travel is European Army. But it won't be happening in time for Ukraine. That will need some NATO.
We don’t need a European Army. We need the armies of the individual European nations, and other affected nations, to work together in a joint operation. That’s how it worked in WW2 for example.
I might have watched a different WW2 from the one you did as I’m not sure the individual European nations worked together?
The huge problem is not so much men (and the ladies of course - but my god I shudder to think what would happen to the female soldiers captured by Russians considering what they do to the men) and kit but Intelligence.
How does Europe replicate the Intelligence capabilities of the US satellite reconnaissance, planes, signals intelligence. We do have good capabilities but nothing like the US has.
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
What this calls for is a nation uniting distraction activity! Hmmm, I wonder what he could try...?
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
To be fair, I suspect I would have been also if I hadn't watched the video.
The problem does conflate sensitivity and accuracy. Which aren’t the same thing.
I suspect a few more would have answered it correctly had it been expressed in those terms.
Reminds me of a conspiracy theorist who tried to apply Bayes’ theorem to historical events.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Yes, the PPV (positive predictive value) of a test depends on the prevalence in the population, this publication deals with the maths.
Three out of every 100 000 people have glioma. A patient comes into the clinic complaining of headaches and memory loss. A new blood test for diagnosis of glioma is available. She tests positive. From the literature you know that of the three people out of 100 000 with glioma, all three will likely have a positive blood test. Of the 99 997 people without glioma, 4000 will still have a positive blood test. Of the patients with a positive blood test, how many actually have glioma?
Now the answer is much more straightforward to calculate: it is 3/(3 +4000) =0.0007. Again, this is the PPV, the chance that a patient with a positive test result actually has glioma.
So 3 out of 100k have glioma. But what % of people with those symptoms (headache + memory loss) have it? That would presumably be higher than 3 in 100k.
Well yes, that’s why testing stats start to get complicated.
The consequences of a positive test come into play, too. With a Covid lateral flow test, you don’t go into work. No big deal if it’s a false positive. With a cancer test, it might mean expensive, and potentially risky interventions, which you really want to avoid if you don’t actually have cancer.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Yes, the PPV (positive predictive value) of a test depends on the prevalence in the population, this publication deals with the maths.
Three out of every 100 000 people have glioma. A patient comes into the clinic complaining of headaches and memory loss. A new blood test for diagnosis of glioma is available. She tests positive. From the literature you know that of the three people out of 100 000 with glioma, all three will likely have a positive blood test. Of the 99 997 people without glioma, 4000 will still have a positive blood test. Of the patients with a positive blood test, how many actually have glioma?
Now the answer is much more straightforward to calculate: it is 3/(3 +4000) =0.0007. Again, this is the PPV, the chance that a patient with a positive test result actually has glioma.
So 3 out of 100k have glioma. But what % of people with those symptoms (headache + memory loss) have it? That would presumably be higher than 3 in 100k.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
With 1 in 1000 it is approx 2%, with 1 in 100 you got approx 5%
Is your original post misphrased in some way? Because if you do have a positive test when the false positive rate is 5% it is in fact 95% (well, 95.2%) probable you have the disease.
No, if it produces false positives, and no one has the disease, then around 5% of any tested population will still test positive.
The problem is misphrased, as it calls the test “100% accurate” in detecting positive cases. It should say 100% sensitive, as it’s not 100% accurate.
So it is misphrased then, thanks. That makes sense now.
As worded it’s nonsensical which is why I was puzzled.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
What this calls for is a nation uniting distraction activity! Hmmm, I wonder what he could try...?
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
I always think a post like this on PB should be accompanied by a suitable piece of music.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
I always think a post like this on PB should be accompanied by a suitable piece of music.
Zadok the Priest?
That does have the desired sense of occasion but it's perhaps a bit too forbidding.
Kemi is obviously a bit rubbish. What I can’t fathom is the mind blowing gap between her opinion of her own talent and everyone else’s. She carries on like she thinks she’s Elvis. It’s bizarre.
She only had to be better than Jenrick to be leader. And she's that.
Would she have beaten Mordaunt though? Not a chance. With the Conservatives having historically so few seats, the likelihood of a safe-ish seat coming up any time soon is limited. Look to a grandee getting a peerage in the honours list. Maybe that is already in motion, if Penny is back being active.
I like Penny. She’s the only leader why might tempt me to vote Tory again (other than Jenrick if I’m utterly desperate)
She needs to drop the Woke shit. Everyone else is anyway - the pendulum is swinging. Get with the vibeshift. She’s got a sharp tongue and self confidence. She can hold a sword. Er, that’s it. But heck the Tories are not overstuffed with good contenders
She’d be a good centre right candidate
I agree with your analysis of her, but there was one thing missing and I can't remember why I think this, but from memory there was no depth to her, no detail. I agree though a very good speaker, sense of humour and very human.
For Penny to be elected, a Tory MP in a very safe seat will need to fall on their sword.
Richmond and Northallerton is currently the safest Tory seat in the country with an MP who everyone seems to agree will be looking to move on to other things shortly.
But surely Badenoch (or Jenrick) have no interest in getting her back into parliament and she has no local connections - so would she really get the selection?
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
How so?
It’s just rubbish. Like Leon at lunchtime, the Tories destroyed themselves by going for the quick fix of Johnson, without a care as to how wasted they’d be the day after.
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
In fairness the only thing I've picked up about Milei is that he is a bit of an economic maverick and loudmouth - I wouldn't immediately assume he would sideline as a crypto scammer.
He was apparently scammed into promoting it himself - the pump & dump was done, but not by him.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
Thank god the UK is merely governed by a traitor, eh?
Traitor? You can Fuck all the way to Florida Keys with that.
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
ooh, that stung! I’m like a wasp at a picnic, me
He is still a traitor
Couldn't care a jot what you think. The fact is you hate your country and genuflect to foreign strongmen. Someone like that (esp the last bit) does not get to call other people traitors.
I’m sorry if I upset you, you pitiful, etiolated, golf playing wanker-in-closets, because I’m actually kind of fond of you
Nonetheless it must be said, more in sorrow than anger, that a man who conspires to hand over a chunk of his nation’s sovereign territory, against all advice, and contrives to make his countrymen PAY for this - in the billions - and who does it in a way which will directly benefit his close friends financially…. is a traitor. What other words covers what Sir Sheer Wanker is doing? It is hard to find a clearer example of national betrayal in modern British politics, but maybe the PB historians can find such
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
The candidate sits at a desk with a question paper, an answer paper, a pen, a spare pen, and a second spare pen. Where does AI come into it?
Off topic: Kamski - Thanks much for your posts on German politics. (I'd be interested some time to learn more from you about what happened with Angela Merkel, who seemed so promising.)
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
Yes if you test positive for something very rare, which you have no risk factors for, then there's a high chance it's a false positive (unless the test produces no false positives).
So for a population screening test, or a test done as a legal requirement (for an individual without risk factors, and assuming most people don't have the disease) 95% will be way too high. But, if the test is used to confirm a clinical diagnosis (which might be the context the GPs were thinking of if we're being generous) 95% could be too low, depending on how certain the clinical diagnosis is.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
No, it's conditional probability. Its impossible to know what percentage have the disease, because it depends upon what percentage of those you tested did have the disease originally.
Lets say you screen everyone who you have good reason to think might have the disease but only 10% of them actually do. From a sample of 1000 then 100 would accurately test positive who do have the disease, of the other 900 then 45 would be expected to falsely test positive.
Of the 145 positive tests, 100 are accurate positive tests (69%) while 45 are false positive tests (31%).
The percentage of tests that are false positives are conditional upon the percentage who actually did have the disease.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
Well, yeah, it entirely depends on the proportion of people having the relevant condition in the entire population.
No it doesn’t. If returning a positive, it’s 5/105, or 1/21.
@No_Offence_Alan is correct. Work out the percentage if 1 in 100 has it, then 1 in 1000 has it, then 1 in 1,000,000 has it. The chances of you having it changes depending upon the number of people who have it in the population, because you will always get 5% positive results yet we have changed the percentage of people who have it in the population.
You’ve changed the numbers across a population, but the question was about the numbers among those testing positive, not across the entire population.
Ignoring selection bias, then one out of 21 testing positive won’t have the disease. You’re talking about the chances of your having the disease before you test.
Or you’re presupposing you test the entire population.
OK, I am wrong.
I always think a post like this on PB should be accompanied by a suitable piece of music.
Carmina Burana ? Zadok the Priest ?
Yakety Sax ?
Also Sprach Zarathustra.
It's actually tricky. I want to combine sense of a (rare) occasion with a celebratory feel whilst keeping it light (but not too light).
I'm normally quite good at this sort of thing but I'm struggling to nail it here.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
I assume Jenrick’s personal hygiene is somewhat better than Trump’s. He looks freshly washed. So there’s that. More of a Vance, maybe.
Yes, he looks technically spotless. "Oily" is perhaps the word. You just wouldn't trust the guy. Not with money, not with a secret, not with your vote. I know I wouldn't. My alt right side vastly prefers Nigel Farage.
I agree. Good point.
Oh shit, have I messed up?
I do agree with you on some things Kinabalu. Even the biggest imbecile can occasionally make a good point.
Indeed. You've managed at least half of that equation, I await breathlessly..
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
Not entirely true, on the latest Yougov 11% of 2024 LDs have switched to the Kemi Tories and just 5% of 2024 Tories have gone LD.
By contrast 23% of 2024 Conservatives have gone Reform and just 4% of 2024 Reform voters have gone Tory. So Kemi clearly does have some appeal to LDs which say Jenrick wouldn't but she also has less appeal to Reform voters than Jenrick might
Re the first sentence - Why do you, or anyone, think that is? It doesn't make any sense to me. My only thought is ex Tories who wanted to swap to Labour (but had to vote tactically for the LDs) to get rid of the Tories at the GE are now unhappy with Labour so are returning to the Tories. But that seems a bit convoluted.
Quite possibly but as I said Kemi also clearly has some appeal to ex Tory LDs which Jenrick likely wouldn't have
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
If you put your wedge in crypto, you're a gambler, not an investor.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
A man who was coasting to becoming the next PM has to make sure Trump doesn't mess everything up for him at the last minute.
As for Braverman/Truss types, they are out of step even with most Conservatives. They could easily say basically the same things with less Trump worshipfulness, there may be a larger market for Trump-like ideas without attaching themselves to his personality, which plays worse over here than there.
Interestingly, Merz's criticism of Vance's speech was sharper (we don't need any lectures from America) than Scholz's (it was inappropriate). OK maybe as Chancellor you feel a bit more constrained than an opposition politician, but Merz will probably be Chancellor within a few weeks.
I don't know much about Vance but I have spent an hour watching an educated right of centre analysis of him on Youtube made for an intelligent US audience. Now he came over very favourably and to some extent that was they type of programme it was.
But all the European analysis seems to be this guy isn't from the US Establishment, he is a backwoodsman, Trump has picked him as VP, therefore he MUST be thick and not as bien pensant wise as our European lobby hacks. They didn't have a clue as to what he was saying as he didn't follow the Blairite "Sun shines out of your wonderful arses" script they took for granted they would get. Therefore he must be uncouth and ignorant, heaven forbid a mid-westerner could be more urbane, more educated that a lobby hack.
It might be that Trump underestimated him when he made his VP candidate, probably did. But Vance is the most thoughtful person I have seen for a very long time. If the lobby and the German leaders weren't bright enough to understand the subtlety of the new American VP then that says more about their qualities than his.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
Thank god the UK is merely governed by a traitor, eh?
Traitor? You can Fuck all the way to Florida Keys with that.
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
ooh, that stung! I’m like a wasp at a picnic, me
He is still a traitor
Couldn't care a jot what you think. The fact is you hate your country and genuflect to foreign strongmen. Someone like that (esp the last bit) does not get to call other people traitors.
I’m sorry if I upset you, you pitiful, etiolated, golf playing wanker-in-closets, because I’m actually kind of fond of you
Nonetheless it must be said, more in sorrow than anger, that a man who conspires to hand over a chunk of his nation’s sovereign territory, against all advice, and contrives to make his countrymen PAY for this - in the billions - and who does it in a way which will directly benefit his close friends financially…. is a traitor. What other words covers what Sir Sheer Wanker is doing? It is hard to find a clearer example of national betrayal in modern British politics, but maybe the PB historians can find such
Arrant nonsense and in any case the topic was you genuflecting before foreign strongmen. I don't want to have to type that sentence again so I suggest you take it on the chin and move on.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
No, we got 50mph and "average speed cameras" creeping in everywhere. Which are like purgatory.
The M3 has had them all the way down to Farnborough for over 10 years now.
And the eternal roadworks
One of the things at which this country is especially incompetent is managing these kinds of repairs. The railways are just as bad. Most weekends and every single bank holiday, the shitty replacement buses are wheeled out.
If and when we are asked to send our 27 remaining fully operational soldiers to Ukraine they'll probably be made to travel all the way there on some crappy old coach that's normally used for ferrying around school kids during the week.
We already have an European Army, it's called NATO
Just what I said yesterday and not sure why anyone would think differently
There's a massive issue now with command structures though surely?
We cannot have American military in the chain of command as it is quite clear that whatever their own personal views on the matter their commander in chief is now an ally of Russia and has no interest in protecting europe.
We do not know yet where Trump will stand not least because he has said he will do a deal with Putin but if Putin disagrees he will back Ukraine with military force
It is impossible to know what comes next but the US will still be a NATO member and support NATO countries that increase their defence spending
Surely that's the point?
If the US cannot be trusted to be consistent, which is what that statement ways, they cannot be in the chain of command?
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
If you put your wedge in crypto, you're a gambler, not an investor.
The peak price of the token was about 30 c and there are 10 million in circulation. Noone has lost hundreds of millions, and as you say crypto is an inherently risky gamble. This story is a nonsense
I still think, with regard to 2028, that the Dems need to change the game and spend the next 6 months having a form of primary where they select a leader of the party - the person who is going to stand as Presidential candidate in 2028. Get the infighting over early, give that person the backing for the full three years, allow them to appoint shadows to each department whose sole focus is tearing apart their GOP opposite number. Become a shadow government, let the voters get to know them, trust them, get as close to “experience” as possible.
Will be a big change in how US politics is done but might be their best chance of getting back in the game.
And drop the “woke” crap and focus on economy, health, defence and what the average Joe or Jo actually cares about.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
No, we got 50mph and "average speed cameras" creeping in everywhere. Which are like purgatory.
The M3 has had them all the way down to Farnborough for over 10 years now.
And the eternal roadworks
One of the things at which this country is especially incompetent is managing these kinds of repairs. The railways are just as bad. Most weekends and every single bank holiday, the shitty replacement buses are wheeled out.
If and when we are asked to send our 27 remaining fully operational soldiers to Ukraine they'll probably be made to travel all the way there on some crappy old coach that's normally used for ferrying around school kids during the week.
So the ECML is currently closed every weekend for the next 6 weeks for work to be done. Do you really think it could be closed for 2 full weeks instead?
German election update with a week to go: There's been a few opinion polls in the last couple of days, which show little movement.
The most significant change over the last weeks has been a rise in support for the Left, and a fall for the BSW. It's small numbers, just a couple of percent, but it could decide which of them clears the 5% hurdle. It was looking like the BSW would make it and the Left wouldn't, but now pretty much swapped places.
How easy it is for the CDU/CSU to form a coalition looks like it will largely depend on how many of the 3 parties around 5% (Linke, BSW, FDP) make it. 0 make it = Union + SPD, or Union + Greens should both be a majority 1 makes it = Union + SPD very likely, Union + Greens probably 2 make it = Union + SPD coin toss, Union + Greens probably not 3 make it = Probably neither.
Of course, Union + Greens seems anyway less likely given the rhetoric from both camps, but it hasn't been ruled out, and its availability as an alternative gives CDU/CSU a better negotiating position in coalition talks with the SDP.
Another 3-way coalition would be a nightmare, with the government again unable to get anything done. Both Union + SPD + Greens, and Union + SPD + FDP look hopeless.
Most likely outcome: CDU/CSU most votes/seats, and go on to form a government in coalition with the SPD with Merz as chancellor.
There's also a small chance that FW (Freie Wähler - a mixed bag but closest to centre-right) will make the cut by winning 3 constituencies in Bavaria (on about 2% nationally). Or at least they themselves claim to have a good chance, having won 2 constituencies in the last Bavarian state elections. I think it's pretty unlikely - those constituencies are smaller than the federal ones and FW seem to do better in Bavaria in state elections than federal elections (though that might be because people don't want to waste their vote...). Anyway it wouldn't make much difference to the maths, except making a 2-way coalition a bit less likely.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
How for you use AI to do your exams for you in an examination hall?
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
I still think, with regard to 2028, that the Dems need to change the game and spend the next 6 months having a form of primary where they select a leader of the party - the person who is going to stand as Presidential candidate in 2028. Get the infighting over early, give that person the backing for the full three years, allow them to appoint shadows to each department whose sole focus is tearing apart their GOP opposite number. Become a shadow government, let the voters get to know them, trust them, get as close to “experience” as possible.
Will be a big change in how US politics is done but might be their best chance of getting back in the game.
And drop the “woke” crap and focus on economy, health, defence and what the average Joe or Jo actually cares about.
I don't know where this idea that the Dems were pushing woke during the last election/administration comes from. It's entirely projection from the Right and therefore they can't do much about it.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
Davey saying something about Trump will get reported. Davey saying something about river pollution won't get reported.
Best option for what? A fucking doorstop? Because Gig Lamps was not the best option for LotO. That was transparently obvious from the start. Jobert Renwick would have served alt-right c-nt all over the place by now. He is sufficiently devoid of any moral restraint so that he can take on Farage in appealing to people who have horrible kids called Jaxxon and is enough of an opportunistic schemer to cause SKS and his Red Reform project a few problems.
Calm down.
Not until Lucy, our Queen of Hearts, goes free.
There was thought-provoking article by Neena Modi, professor of NeoNatal Medicine at Imperial, in the Guardian a few days ago. Made a number of points including that Cpuntess of Chester wasn't the best place for potentially really sick babies to be born as the staff as a whole weren't really up to it.
There have been lots of hospitals with really poor records in maternity and neo-natal care. But only in this one was a nurse charged and convicted of murder and attempted murder. Hard to tell whether this was because the nurse was rightly convicted or made a scapegoat for those failings.
It also requires quite a well organised conspiracy by a large number of incompetent staff and managers to frame Letby.
It isn't really a credible position to take.
Except that there were more deaths than those ascribed to Letby. There is no need for a management conspiracy if the prosecution is happy to include or exclude cases based on the shift roster.
It still requires a conspiracy to frame Letby though.
Merely having a high mortality and morbidity rate would be much less bad publicity than having a prolific serial killer nurse.
Which says something about the management. I don't think that, if she is innocent, she and her defence have gone the right way about things.
Of course the defence team ballsed up. Police and lawyers, judges and juries, do not understand technical, medical and of course probabilistic evidence, so why expect defence counsel or the accused to be any different?
And yet the appeals system is focussed on narrow points of legal procedure, as if all the other stuff was perfect. In the real world it is generally the other way round.
I saw a Hannah Fry thing the other day on GPs not understanding probabilities. Here is the example: You have a test that is 100% accurate in giving a positive result, but 5% of the time it will give a false positive. So if negative you definitely don't have the deadly disease, but if positive you might have it. What is the probability you do have it if you return a positive result.
75% of GPs asked the question said it was 95% certain you had the disease. A spectacularly wrong answer.
You can’t expect them to understand anything as vulgar as fractions…
What's the answer then? 😏
It depends upon the probability that the person tested actually has the disease. If we define that as 'x' then you can create an equation.
Tories only need to win back seats lost to the LDs for an overall majority
Their current strategy is to repel LD voters with maximum force
I notice that Davey has gone all in on calling out Trump and saying he is a disgrace etc.
Now it may be that he genuinely believes that and wants to say (and which sane person doesn't?) but may also have come up in focus groups for liberals. Conservatives like Braverman and Truss and Reform are out of step with most UK voters with their Trump cult worship. They will be even more out of step when Trump burns america to the ground and tries invading Canada.
A man who was coasting to becoming the next PM has to make sure Trump doesn't mess everything up for him at the last minute.
As for Braverman/Truss types, they are out of step even with most Conservatives. They could easily say basically the same things with less Trump worshipfulness, there may be a larger market for Trump-like ideas without attaching themselves to his personality, which plays worse over here than there.
Interestingly, Merz's criticism of Vance's speech was sharper (we don't need any lectures from America) than Scholz's (it was inappropriate). OK maybe as Chancellor you feel a bit more constrained than an opposition politician, but Merz will probably be Chancellor within a few weeks.
I don't know much about Vance but I have spent an hour watching an educated right of centre analysis of him on Youtube made for an intelligent US audience. Now he came over very favourably and to some extent that was they type of programme it was.
But all the European analysis seems to be this guy isn't from the US Establishment, he is a backwoodsman, Trump has picked him as VP, therefore he MUST be thick and not as bien pensant wise as our European lobby hacks. They didn't have a clue as to what he was saying as he didn't follow the Blairite "Sun shines out of your wonderful arses" script they took for granted they would get. Therefore he must be uncouth and ignorant, heaven forbid a mid-westerner could be more urbane, more educated that a lobby hack.
It might be that Trump underestimated him when he made his VP candidate, probably did. But Vance is the most thoughtful person I have seen for a very long time. If the lobby and the German leaders weren't bright enough to understand the subtlety of the new American VP then that says more about their qualities than his.
But Jenrick is a bit of a star, is quick witted, amoral and nasty, and would - at least - give starmer a booting at PMQs, which would cheer them up if nowt else
Sadly I can’t see Kemi improving. I feared she was a lightweight, I thought she was worth the risk anyway. But she’s turned out to be lightweight - indeed worse than feared
Better to strike now while no one cares or notices
Jenrick has a history like Badenoch of being unprepared and fluffing his lines. He’s had more car crashes than a rally driver. And he doesn’t do sharp wit. So I can imagine PMQs might not suit him either.
He is much better at the pre-recorded piece to camera where he does the whole anger with a steely glint look.
Hmmm. I haven't seen him fluff things up too much - in the HOC do you mean?
In interviews. A lot of examples where he’s gone in with a fact or an answer to a policy question, been probed on it and then fluffed his lines or contradicted himself.
There are a few examples that you can find YouTube vids of, mostly from the last 12 months since he came to prominence but I can remember some very awkward Today outings when he was a minister (and that time he ducked a commons question on his planning scandal and sent his deputy).
Citations or you’re talking nonsense
There are lots, of varying picture and sound qualities, and I’m not going to curate them for you here just type “jenrick car crash interview” into google videos.
But here’s one of the more embarrassing ones on one of the topics that makes him squirm the most. An extended illustration of Jenrick in policy interview rather than tirade mode.
Meh. A moderately bruising interview taking place live in the the middle of the first lockdown madness - and Jenrick also has to cope with loonies shouting at him from the silent london streets (london was especially crazy during that first lockdown)
If that’s the best you can do then pfff
I would link the more recent ones where he’s repeatedly caught lying about asylum data but they’re all accompanied by irritating editorialising by the YouTubers. Braverman is a bit better at saying bonkers stuff with a straight face. Jenrick still squirms a bit.
It comes down to your views about Mickey Mouse. Jenrick's problem is he pretends to be straight talking when he's actually a weasel. When confronted with his comments, say, on covering up children's murals to create a hostile environment, he then pretends he didn't say what he actually said. Being found out does depend on people confronting him on his comments.
We are operating in a post-Trump reality now where concepts like probity, honesty and consistency have very little political equity.
I agree Jenrick being a charlatan out purely for himself is no handicap these days. The biggest politics job in the world has just gone to one of those on steroids (turn of phrase, not alleging that, don't want to be extradited and sent to a prison in Florida or Texas).
The problem is his persona. It's repellent. You feel you'd need a good wash after even the briefest encounter with him. Trump, Vance, Farage, Johnson, etc, I and people like me might find these characters a turn-off, but the sad truth is they have a positive appeal to many. I can't see that with Jenrick.
Thank god the UK is merely governed by a traitor, eh?
Traitor? You can Fuck all the way to Florida Keys with that.
You don't live here and don't want to live here. You can identify only with your own hackneyed version of what this country should look like. And you constantly suck up to a foreign power who wishes us harm.
We all know where the treachery's coming from. You're lucky us Brits are such a tolerant bunch.
ooh, that stung! I’m like a wasp at a picnic, me
He is still a traitor
Couldn't care a jot what you think. The fact is you hate your country and genuflect to foreign strongmen. Someone like that (esp the last bit) does not get to call other people traitors.
I’m sorry if I upset you, you pitiful, etiolated, golf playing wanker-in-closets, because I’m actually kind of fond of you
Nonetheless it must be said, more in sorrow than anger, that a man who conspires to hand over a chunk of his nation’s sovereign territory, against all advice, and contrives to make his countrymen PAY for this - in the billions - and who does it in a way which will directly benefit his close friends financially…. is a traitor. What other words covers what Sir Sheer Wanker is doing? It is hard to find a clearer example of national betrayal in modern British politics, but maybe the PB historians can find such
Arrant nonsense and in any case the topic was you genuflecting before foreign strongmen. I don't want to have to type that sentence again so I suggest you take it on the chin and move on.
Why? Tormenting you gives me a tiny pointless hit of ugly and gratuitous pleasure, so I will obviously continue
You've only yourself to blame, for acting like a scalded cat in reaction to my prior remarks, that only encourages me
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
How for you use AI to do your exams for you in an examination hall?
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
My sister said that her university has reintroduced vivas at undergrad level for suspected AI use and around 9/10 students are being caught in the net, half of them are being forced to redo and pass a a viva or face a fail grade. More will do this too.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
What this calls for is a nation uniting distraction activity! Hmmm, I wonder what he could try...?
80s nostalgia is still big right now.
It's 40 years since The Breakfast Club came out. We are further from it than the Breakfast Club was from VJ Day
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
How for you use AI to do your exams for you in an examination hall?
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
He’s also forgotten science and engineering, which don’t involve essays or dissertations in the same way.
Following on from the earlier discussions, has the Trump administration said anything about 5 Eyes yet?
They will have been busy being briefed that it isn’t a one way street, and while they are in the driving seat, they need the other seats occupied as well.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
How for you use AI to do your exams for you in an examination hall?
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
He’s also forgotten science and engineering, which don’t involve essays or dissertations in the same way.
Yes, famously, science and engineering will be largely unaffected by AI
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
How for you use AI to do your exams for you in an examination hall?
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
He’s also forgotten science and engineering, which don’t involve essays or dissertations in the same way.
Yes, famously, science and engineering will be largely unaffected by AI
You can’t become a physicist or engineer without a University or labs. Your whole thesis falls down for subjects with practical work and where you are in the building 9-5 every day.
I still think, with regard to 2028, that the Dems need to change the game and spend the next 6 months having a form of primary where they select a leader of the party - the person who is going to stand as Presidential candidate in 2028. Get the infighting over early, give that person the backing for the full three years, allow them to appoint shadows to each department whose sole focus is tearing apart their GOP opposite number. Become a shadow government, let the voters get to know them, trust them, get as close to “experience” as possible.
Will be a big change in how US politics is done but might be their best chance of getting back in the game.
And drop the “woke” crap and focus on economy, health, defence and what the average Joe or Jo actually cares about.
No, the primaries for both parties are set in stone, you don't have a 4 year presidential campaign and the elected President often picks his Cabinet from outside politics anyway.
Opposition to Presidents comes from Congress, culminating in the midterms.
The next election will largely be decided on the impact of Trump's tariffs etc on the economy anyway whatever the Dems do
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
SNP also forecast to lose 9 MSPs, main gainers Reform
Scotland is the bellwether here. Starver's Labour is headed for national and total wipe-out
On at least half the current polls they could still get in UK wide with the LDs, the swing against them in Scotland though is less than UK wide as the SNP are already in power there and are not the main beneficiaries of Labour unpopularity. Reform and LDs are
For a sense of mood: I was told today by one person - albeit second hand - that Trump admin threatened Canada with revisions to the border & expulsion from Five Eyes. Canada said to have threatened retal on energy front. (Despite that, Gabbard seems to have impressed in Munich).
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
How for you use AI to do your exams for you in an examination hall?
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
He’s also forgotten science and engineering, which don’t involve essays or dissertations in the same way.
Yes, famously, science and engineering will be largely unaffected by AI
You can’t become a physicist or engineer without a University or labs. Your whole thesis falls down for subjects with practical work and where you are in the building 9-5 every day.
OMFG how can you be so stupid?
What are these people going to be doing??
There will be machines that are 1000 times brighter than any student. 1000 times brighter than all the students in the world combined
If there is a scientific problem some person will feed it into the machine and then that one person will press a button marked SOLVE THIS and then AI will solve it. We can already see this happening, and AI is only speeding up
Think of chess. During any chess match between humans you could step in and press a button on the AI marked CHOOSE THE BEST MOVE and the AI will choose a move that is better than any move that can be imagined by humans. This process will now apply to all human cognitive tasks
The fact an apparently non-moronic person like you has not yet grasped this is quite stupefying
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
SNP also forecast to lose 9 MSPs, main gainers Reform
A pro-Indy majority continuing is more of a concern to me than the precise make up, but given the 50/50 ish nature of opinion on that subject I guess would not be shocking.
- Boris makes a comeback as leader and adopts a strategy of attacking Starmer from the left - Boris expels the malcontents, getting rid of those who should be in Reform - Boris vs Farage becomes the dominant narrative with Starmer caught uncomfortably in the middle
How much of the Tory Party would you have left, given that Mr Johnson famously purged the wet wing?
The wet wing would be welcomed back.
The 'wet wing' has already more than been welcomed back, CCHQ selection processes ensured a bunch of centrist sociopaths who were no less wet than the set of MPs that was so mercifully dispatched.
There will need to be another 'Clause 4' moment of bringing them into line or getting rid. I suspect that moment will be over a policy of leaving the ECHR, and I suspect that it will be a good deal less bloody than anticipated as most of these MPs are simple careerists and will stay put. If some leave for the Lib Dems, it can do very little harm to anyone, except of course the Lib Dems.
Cameron destroyed the tory party with his a list nonsense.
He destroyed it so effectively is was in power for 14 years, increasing its majority at two of those elections. He damaged it so extensively it could well be back in Government in 2029.
What a ####.
Cameron failed to win an election that was his to lose, wasting a term with Lib Dem hangers on. He then failed to do anything with the election he did win outright - practically by accident. He didn't overturn any of Blair's consitutional meddling - the Supreme Court, the 'independent' quangocracy, which is almost the entire reason the country is in such a weakened and sclerotic state - instead boasting that he was the heir to Blair. He failed to reverse the left wing capture of our institutions and our civil service. He then failed to win any concessions during his disastrous EU negotiations, because he didn't really want the UK to be a semi-detached member, he thought he could win a mandate for EU-max by scaring the public into voting to remain. He then failed to stick around and deal with the political fallout, which he had committed to do. Apart from that he was great.
Cameron also attempted gerrymandering, broke the NHS because in spite of "preparing for government" for five years, he had not thought to ask Lansley just what he had in mind, and was a sucker for any Eton and Oxford posho who sent in a cv – the chumocracy.
I still think, with regard to 2028, that the Dems need to change the game and spend the next 6 months having a form of primary where they select a leader of the party - the person who is going to stand as Presidential candidate in 2028. Get the infighting over early, give that person the backing for the full three years, allow them to appoint shadows to each department whose sole focus is tearing apart their GOP opposite number. Become a shadow government, let the voters get to know them, trust them, get as close to “experience” as possible.
Will be a big change in how US politics is done but might be their best chance of getting back in the game.
And drop the “woke” crap and focus on economy, health, defence and what the average Joe or Jo actually cares about.
I don't know where this idea that the Dems were pushing woke during the last election/administration comes from.
They weren't, but it is an easier message than that they pushed too much earlier, or didn't repudiate it enough or something.
For a sense of mood: I was told today by one person - albeit second hand - that Trump admin threatened Canada with revisions to the border & expulsion from Five Eyes. Canada said to have threatened retal on energy front. (Despite that, Gabbard seems to have impressed in Munich).
The art of the deal, indeed. Could the US expel another member of Five Eyes anyway? US refineries are set up to process heavy oil that Canada produces and the US largely doesn’t. Trump would have had to go cap in hand to Venezuela if Canada had turned off the taps (obviously a drastic option).
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
He was half right. That was a necessary but not sufficient condition as we numerates would say.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
And arriving at No. 10 apparently shocked there was no plan waiting for him. Quite extraordinary.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
No, we got 50mph and "average speed cameras" creeping in everywhere. Which are like purgatory.
The M3 has had them all the way down to Farnborough for over 10 years now.
Driving in a 50 zone on a motorway is a calming, relaxing experience. Probably the safest stretches of road in the country.
No it isn't. Because you're constantly being monitored for your speed, so your eye is glued nervously to the speedometer, and you can't take advantage of the motorway to get to where you want to go quickly. So sit there frustratingly for a very long time.
Surprised we aren't talking more about this, yet another of Skyr Toolmakersson's amazing achievements:
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
People who talk about Boris destroying the Tories should pay more attention to Starmer destroying Labour with the quick fix of pretending all the country's problems could be solved by getting the Tories out.
Leon roams beneath the endless sky, From city lights to mountains high, His feet have kissed the dust of lands, And sailed the seas with steady hands.
He’s danced in Paris under moonlit beams, Tasted spices in faraway dreams, Walked the streets of Tokyo’s grace, Found fleeting solace in every place.
Yet home is never where he stands, It’s a longing carried in his hands. Through crowded markets, silent roads, He charts the world with endless codes.
In Cairo’s heat or Berlin’s rain, Each journey leaves a subtle stain, A memory in his wandering soul, But no place can ever make him whole.
For Leon is the wind, unbound, With horizons stretching all around, A nomad’s heart, a restless flame, No place to rest, no fixed domain.
He’s seen the dawn in Sydney’s bay, And kissed the stars in L.A.'s sway, Yet with each mile, a piece drifts free, As he’s never truly where he’s meant to be.
Still, he keeps chasing endless skies, Wherever the road meets his tired eyes, Home is a word he’s yet to find, For Leon’s world is a journey, undefined.
Had an acquaintance recently ticked off for writing something which they were told had the 'appearance' of AI generation. Doesn't seem like it was checked for it, but they were told to avoid AI-Generated hallmarks like being a bit vague and generic.
I worry for my own unique output as a result, vague and generic are strong brands for me.
am I allowed to talk about this?
TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
And then in time AI will learn to insert 'realistic' seeming human errors and idiosyncracies too, and we go full circle.
Yes, of course, indeed AI can do that now if you prompt for it
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
How for you use AI to do your exams for you in an examination hall?
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
He’s also forgotten science and engineering, which don’t involve essays or dissertations in the same way.
Yes, famously, science and engineering will be largely unaffected by AI
You can’t become a physicist or engineer without a University or labs. Your whole thesis falls down for subjects with practical work and where you are in the building 9-5 every day.
OMFG how can you be so stupid?
What are these people going to be doing??
There will be machines that are 1000 times brighter than any student. 1000 times brighter than all the students in the world combined
If there is a scientific problem some person will feed it into the machine and then that one person will press a button marked SOLVE THIS and then AI will solve it. We can already see this happening, and AI is only speeding up
Think of chess. During any chess match between humans you could step in and press a button on the AI marked CHOOSE THE BEST MOVE and the AI will choose a move that is better than any move that can be imagined by humans. This process will now apply to all human cognitive tasks
The fact an apparently non-moronic person like you has not yet grasped this is quite stupefying
You’re describing the singularity, not modern LLMs. As and when we get anywhere close, I will submit to my AI overlord like everyone else.
That's true, and why I couldn't (and didn't) vote for him.
You managed to be quite happy in a party with Osborne, Cameron, Gove, Cummings, and a whole host of other pond life, so its a bit much to try to pass off your poor judgement as some sort of moral stand.
I'd rather be in a pond with them than in a lake with you and Liz Truss.
That's because you wouldn't know a politician grasping the nettle of turning the country around as opposed to one engaging in a pathetic and ultimately futile attempt to be liked by all sides if one came and sat on your face.
You rail against woke and you know that the country desperately needs conservative policies, and that anyone espousing such policies is going to be labelled as a far right nutter, but you persist with these middle-ground no hopers who either never achieved anything or show little prospect of ever doing so.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
No, we got 50mph and "average speed cameras" creeping in everywhere. Which are like purgatory.
The M3 has had them all the way down to Farnborough for over 10 years now.
Driving in a 50 zone on a motorway is a calming, relaxing experience. Probably the safest stretches of road in the country.
No it isn't. Because you're constantly being monitored for your speed, so your eye is glued nervously to the speedometer, and you can't take advantage of the motorway to get to where you want to go quickly. So sit there frustratingly for a very long time.
They are a curse.
But that's what you should doing anyway. You're just whining about a highly efficient and cost-effective way to enforce a law enacted by our elected representatives.
I agree that it's hard work though, and it's where cruise control can make the push up the A9 much more pleasant.
"Government proposes 80 miles per hour motorway speed limit Philip Hammond announces his intention to consult on raising the national speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80 miles per hour.
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Philip Hammond 3 October 2011"
No, we got 50mph and "average speed cameras" creeping in everywhere. Which are like purgatory.
The M3 has had them all the way down to Farnborough for over 10 years now.
Driving in a 50 zone on a motorway is a calming, relaxing experience. Probably the safest stretches of road in the country.
No it isn't. Because you're constantly being monitored for your speed, so your eye is glued nervously to the speedometer, and you can't take advantage of the motorway to get to where you want to go quickly. So sit there frustratingly for a very long time.
Almost 100% of my university mark came down to the results of exams sat in a hall with nothing more than a pen and the exam paper. You can't cheat that with AI.
Other subjects just need to follow course, or have other ways of assessing that can't be cheated.
Comments
The problem is misphrased, as it calls the test “100% accurate” in detecting positive cases. It should say 100% sensitive, as it’s not 100% accurate.
Three out of every 100 000 people have glioma. A patient comes into the clinic complaining of headaches and memory loss. A new blood test for diagnosis of glioma is available. She tests positive. From the literature you know that of the three people out of 100 000 with glioma, all three will likely have a positive blood test. Of the 99 997 people without glioma, 4000 will still have a positive blood test. Of the patients with a positive blood test, how many actually have glioma?
Now the answer is much more straightforward to calculate: it is 3/(3 +4000) =0.0007. Again, this is the PPV, the chance that a patient with a positive test result actually has glioma.
Here’s Trump’s speech after Tulsi Gabbard was sworn in.
Take a look at the Gerald Ford, the aircraft carrier, The Ford. It was supposed to cost 3 billion, it ended up costing uh 18 billion. And they make, of course, all electric catapults which don’t work and they have all magnetic elevators to lift up 25 planes at a time, 20 planes at a time and instead of using hydraulic like on tractors that can handle anything from hurricanes to lightning to anything they use magnets. Its a new theory, magnets they’re gonna lift the planes up and it doesn’t work and there’s billions and billions of dollars of cost overuns. I met the architect and i asked “have you designed a ship before”, this is one of the biggest ships in the world, it’s like landing at LaGuardia Airport but uuhhh you look at the kind if waste, fraud and abuse that this country is going through and we have got to straighten it out
So was the A list responsible for the MPs making those choices, or was it incidental?
He undoubtedly still has a constituency to whom he can do no wrong, but are smaller and less potent and normal than they were. It's really only proper fans now - more than some politicians have, true, but probably not enough to compensate for being viewed with contempt outside that (a bit like Corbyn).
The other point is that he's effectively thrown away his biggest universally respected achievement in backing for Ukraine by becoming a booster for Trump - he very much will not be able to do the Lidl Churchill routine again.
Which aren’t the same thing.
I suspect a few more would have answered it correctly had it been expressed in those terms.
"Argentine lawmakers are pushing to impeach President Javier Milei after a crypto scandal wiped out hundreds of millions of dollars in investor funds overnight, according to a report from Reuters."
@TheScreamingEagles is away, isn’t he? Maybe I am allowed to discuss AI for this one day
YES, this is becoming a real issue. I was reading an account yesterday from some poor kid at a US uni who got monstered for using AI whereas, in fact, he was simply using his usual style. Quite wordy, but always grammatical and with no spelling mistakes
The prof put it through some AI detection tool and it came up “90% AI”, so the kid - wrongly - got into trouble
The advice he was given was: make your work less grammatically correct and insert some typos. In other words, make it WORSE
We are heading into a topsy turvy universe and we haven’t got a clue what to do
As worded it’s nonsensical which is why I was puzzled.
The M3 has had them all the way down to Farnborough for over 10 years now.
The huge problem is not so much men (and the ladies of course - but my god I shudder to think what would happen to the female soldiers captured by Russians considering what they do to the men) and kit but Intelligence.
How does Europe replicate the Intelligence capabilities of the US satellite reconnaissance, planes, signals intelligence. We do have good capabilities but nothing like the US has.
He conflated probability and frequency.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00282l8
The consequences of a positive test come into play, too. With a Covid lateral flow test, you don’t go into work. No big deal if it’s a false positive.
With a cancer test, it might mean expensive, and potentially risky interventions, which you really want to avoid if you don’t actually have cancer.
This is one reason universities as we know them are doomed. I just don’t see a way around this, for them
1. the whole essay, exam system is fucked by AIs being able to do everything better; and, soon, vastly better
2. The value of human intelligence including writing skills (and it pains me to type this) is about to be reduced to ~0. A few artisanal talents will survive, like handmade ceramics in the era of mass produced pottery and crockery
This is not something that will maybe happen in 20-40 years, it is happening right now and will impact over the next months and years of this decade
Zadok the Priest ?
Yakety Sax ?
Also Sprach Zarathustra.
Still a silly thing to get involved in, though.
So for a population screening test, or a test done as a legal requirement (for an individual without risk factors, and assuming most people don't have the disease) 95% will be way too high. But, if the test is used to confirm a clinical diagnosis (which might be the context the GPs were thinking of if we're being generous) 95% could be too low, depending on how certain the clinical diagnosis is.
But the correct answer is "it depends"
Lets say you screen everyone who you have good reason to think might have the disease but only 10% of them actually do. From a sample of 1000 then 100 would accurately test positive who do have the disease, of the other 900 then 45 would be expected to falsely test positive.
Of the 145 positive tests, 100 are accurate positive tests (69%) while 45 are false positive tests (31%).
The percentage of tests that are false positives are conditional upon the percentage who actually did have the disease.
I'm normally quite good at this sort of thing but I'm struggling to nail it here.
So, ok, Yakety Sax as a placeholder.
You've managed at least half of that equation, I await breathlessly..
Little Marco, for example, is just not going to happen.
7 most likely GOP successors to Trump in 2028
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5139201-potential-republican-successors-to-trump/
But all the European analysis seems to be this guy isn't from the US Establishment, he is a backwoodsman, Trump has picked him as VP, therefore he MUST be thick and not as bien pensant wise as our European lobby hacks. They didn't have a clue as to what he was saying as he didn't follow the Blairite "Sun shines out of your wonderful arses" script they took for granted they would get. Therefore he must be uncouth and ignorant, heaven forbid a mid-westerner could be more urbane, more educated that a lobby hack.
It might be that Trump underestimated him when he made his VP candidate, probably did. But Vance is the most thoughtful person I have seen for a very long time. If the lobby and the German leaders weren't bright enough to understand the subtlety of the new American VP then that says more about their qualities than his.
If and when we are asked to send our 27 remaining fully operational soldiers to Ukraine they'll probably be made to travel all the way there on some crappy old coach that's normally used for ferrying around school kids during the week.
If the US cannot be trusted to be consistent, which is what that statement ways, they cannot be in the chain of command?
Will be a big change in how US politics is done but might be their best chance of getting back in the game.
And drop the “woke” crap and focus on economy, health, defence and what the average Joe or Jo actually cares about.
As for dissertations. All the universities seem to reintroducing vivas to ensure the students actually know what they are talking about.
P (true positive) = x / (x + 0.05(1-x))
You've only yourself to blame, for acting like a scalded cat in reaction to my prior remarks, that only encourages me
NEW: Polling expert John Curtice has delivered his verdict on a new poll which predicts Scottish Labour are set for their worst election result since devolution 🥀
https://x.com/ScotNational/status/1891080227247317243
Opposition to Presidents comes from Congress, culminating in the midterms.
The next election will largely be decided on the impact of Trump's tariffs etc on the economy anyway whatever the Dems do
https://bsky.app/profile/shashj.bsky.social/post/3libxv2vqyc2s
For a sense of mood: I was told today by one person - albeit second hand - that Trump admin threatened Canada with revisions to the border & expulsion from Five Eyes. Canada said to have threatened retal on energy front. (Despite that, Gabbard seems to have impressed in Munich).
What are these people going to be doing??
There will be machines that are 1000 times brighter than any student. 1000 times brighter than all the students in the world combined
If there is a scientific problem some person will feed it into the machine and then that one person will press a button marked SOLVE THIS and then AI will solve it. We can already see this happening, and AI is only speeding up
Think of chess. During any chess match between humans you could step in and press a button on the AI marked CHOOSE THE BEST MOVE and the AI will choose a move that is better than any move that can be imagined by humans. This process will now apply to all human cognitive tasks
The fact an apparently non-moronic person like you has not yet grasped this is quite stupefying
US refineries are set up to process heavy oil that Canada produces and the US largely doesn’t. Trump would have had to go cap in hand to Venezuela if Canada had turned off the taps (obviously a drastic option).
They are a curse.
You rail against woke and you know that the country desperately needs conservative policies, and that anyone espousing such policies is going to be labelled as a far right nutter, but you persist with these middle-ground no hopers who either never achieved anything or show little prospect of ever doing so.
I agree that it's hard work though, and it's where cruise control can make the push up the A9 much more pleasant.
Other subjects just need to follow course, or have other ways of assessing that can't be cheated.