Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
It's not the Russians that the Europeans (and the UK) are terrified of. Recently, the Belgian defence attache in DC described the Trump administration as "chaotic" in an interview. Hegseth told the Belgian government to fire him and they did. When the EU+UK abandon Ukraine, as they surely will, it's because they're worried about the American reaction not the Russian.
Just because Belgium have cold feet doesn't mean the rest of Europe has - indeed they are in direct conflict over seizing Russian assets.
And just because they're worried about Trump's US (rightly so, given the new US policy breaking the old Soviet empire away from Western Europe) hardly means they can be insouciant about Putin's Russia.
You seem to be keen on that outcome; I'm not.
Belgium being a country of complete oafs has been a big feature of the biggest bad things.
I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.
Partition and then fuck off is the traditional denouement of a failed imperialist venture, so there are precedents.
You're a much more astute Russia observer than most of us - will they run out of steam? (They must do so at some point, but is that tomorrow or ten years away?)
I don't know. Anybody who tells you they do is lying.
Obviously, they can sustain mass casualties on a scale that would be politically unacceptable for any NATO country. Ditto poverty. Putin looks fairly solid atop the "vertical of power" but, in my opinion, he's the weakest link. If it all goes "Death of Stalin" then anything could happen.
Military question. Assuming no America is it feasible that Ukraine's forces with European financial support could drive out Russia? Or would it entail other European countries doing some actual fighting?
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?
For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.
If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).
I don't have a driveway.
Thanks.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
It's not the Russians that the Europeans (and the UK) are terrified of. Recently, the Belgian defence attache in DC described the Trump administration as "chaotic" in an interview. Hegseth told the Belgian government to fire him and they did. When the EU+UK abandon Ukraine, as they surely will, it's because they're worried about the American reaction not the Russian.
Just because Belgium have cold feet doesn't mean the rest of Europe has - indeed they are in direct conflict over seizing Russian assets.
And just because they're worried about Trump's US (rightly so, given the new US policy breaking the old Soviet empire away from Western Europe) hardly means they can be insouciant about Putin's Russia.
You seem to be keen on that outcome; I'm not.
It's not really about Belgium imo'; it's about susceptibility to divide, bully and conquer tactics, as used by Trump to derail the agreement on Shipping Emissions earlier his year, at the last minute after years of conversations. He sent his officials around to make individual threats to smaller countries to peel off from the (75-80%?) consensus because his head is stuck down the fossil fuel rabbit hole. And they caved.
The organisation has just put it off for a year, I assume in the hope that Trump will be politically dead or crippled by then.
Reportedly, he's using similar tactics to try and peel off countries from the European consensus on Ukraine, targetting Belgium amongst other - he wants those frozen Russian assets for the USA and his cronies, and Europe can FOAD. The potential EU arrangement to do it via a QMV procedure may be an important fix, as it is robust and requires significant opposition to derail it. It would need Italy, Spain, Hungary, Slovakia, Belgium plus about another 5% of EU population to form a blocking minority.
I'd say the crucial question is whether we in Europe ultimately choose to control our own future, or not, then back ourselves to do it.
Of course until Burnham gets approved by the NEC to stand as a Labour candidate at a by election then denied or not denied all talk of a Burnham leadership bid is irrelevant
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
It's not the Russians that the Europeans (and the UK) are terrified of. Recently, the Belgian defence attache in DC described the Trump administration as "chaotic" in an interview. Hegseth told the Belgian government to fire him and they did. When the EU+UK abandon Ukraine, as they surely will, it's because they're worried about the American reaction not the Russian.
Just because Belgium have cold feet doesn't mean the rest of Europe has - indeed they are in direct conflict over seizing Russian assets.
And just because they're worried about Trump's US (rightly so, given the new US policy breaking the old Soviet empire away from Western Europe) hardly means they can be insouciant about Putin's Russia.
You seem to be keen on that outcome; I'm not.
Belgium being a country of complete oafs has been a big feature of the biggest bad things.
Having had a good part of my career working with and adjacent to Belgian banks and financiers and authorities I find they made the Swiss seem very decent and clear when it comes to banking and money. I can’t go into details for doxxing reasons but they have a horribly Gollum-like, possessive and acquisitive attitude to finance, a very hypocritical one at that considering how seriously they hunt down Belgian money that is not paying them taxes.
Would love to be going into detail with major examples but them being tricksy about the Russian funds under their jurisdiction has not surprised me in the slightest. I would have been more surprised if they were all for it.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
Of course until Burnham gets approved by the NEC to stand as a Labour candidate at a by election then denied or not denied all talk of a Burnham leadership bid is irrelevant
Burnham is just a novelty firework rolled out by the press. He'll probably fail to ignite.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
The banning of foreign money into mosques is just so obvious. As with so much else, look at what Lee Kuan Yew did decades ago and just copy it.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.
Do you expect that to change?
I can't call it.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
Military question. Assuming no America is it feasible that Ukraine's forces with European financial support could drive out Russia? Or would it entail other European countries doing some actual fighting?
Probably not. As Gen Miley presciently observed at the start of the SMO, "A small Soviet army can't beat a large Soviet army." Z needs to get his 18 year olds in the fight but would never be able to get the necessary legislation through the Rada. A change of political leadership in Kiev would probably help more than anything else.
Other views, fuelled by psyops on X, are available from Ultras who mysteriously can't find the Azov recruitment website.
I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.
First problem with that is that Russia will not accept it. They would have to be forced to accept it - and if you can do that why not force them out of Ukraine altogether?
It's a wedge. The arrangement would satisfy Russia's long-emphasised security concerns, but not the imperial ambitions of some Russian nationalists.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.
Do you expect that to change?
I can't call it.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
The problem there is that Tesla is the one who bothered to do a good job.
Trying to say that somehow they should hand over their work to the other providers - who range from poor to useless….
The sensible end state is probable what happened in the US - where Tesla won the charging standard war. Because they showed up and the connector was non- insane. Now the other manufacturers are standardising on their system and their cars will (gradually) be able to use Tesla stalls.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.
Do you expect that to change?
I can't call it.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
The problem there is that Tesla is the one who bothered to do a good job.
Trying to say that somehow they should hand over their work to the other providers - who range from poor to useless….
The sensible end state is probable what happened in the US - where Tesla won the charging standard war. Because they showed up and the connector was non- insane. Now the other manufacturers are standardising on their system and their cars will (gradually) be able to use Tesla stalls.
Tesla are of course also selling their chargers to third party charging providers in the uk such as Lightsource.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
Of course until Burnham gets approved by the NEC to stand as a Labour candidate at a by election then denied or not denied all talk of a Burnham leadership bid is irrelevant
Burnham is just a novelty firework rolled out by the press. He'll probably fail to ignite.
Maybe but as long as polls show he is the only Labour potential leader who will put Labour back ahead of Reform he will remain a contender
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
On the contrary, you should get offline and go and speak to a broader cross section of people in this country than it sounds like you do. Max is spelling out in a typically eloquent style what a plurality in this country now privately want.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
Ah yes, it was alt-right media that killed 12 Jews on a beach celebrating Hanukkah. You're another one with suicidal empathy, so desperate as to not be seen as racist you'll happily allow a millions of people hostile to our way of life into the country and then just knuckle under as our culture changes beyond recognition to accommodate the stone age beliefs too many Muslims bring with them.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.
Do you expect that to change?
I can't call it.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
The problem there is that Tesla is the one who bothered to do a good job.
Trying to say that somehow they should hand over their work to the other providers - who range from poor to useless….
The sensible end state is probable what happened in the US - where Tesla won the charging standard war. Because they showed up and the connector was non- insane. Now the other manufacturers are standardising on their system and their cars will (gradually) be able to use Tesla stalls.
I think that it is perhaps reasonable to argue that after a period of time - say when ICE vehicles are no longer available - they have had a good period of benefit from their first mover advantage and that should not become a permanent advantage.
Monopoly or pseudo-monopoly positions need suitable regulation; that was a mistake made by Mrs Thatcher's successors.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
Ah yes, it was alt-right media that killed 12 Jews on a beach celebrating Hanukkah. You're another one with suicidal empathy, so desperate as to not be seen as racist you'll happily allow a millions of people hostile to our way of life into the country and then just knuckle under as our culture changes beyond recognition to accommodate the stone age beliefs too many Muslims bring with them.
I hope that you (and I suppose I) do not get a ban for your comments this evening. While the consequences of what you are saying are certainly in many ways unpalatable, I think when looked at through a multi decade lens, we are only left with unpalatable choices when it comes to migration policy. It’s about time every side of the debate is subjected to sunlight rather than this being a conversation that people are afraid to have.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.
Do you expect that to change?
I can't call it.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
It's what normally happens with new technology.
At the moment, the charging network is set up on convenience store economics- to get it everywhere, it has to charge more to cover its costs. (Looking at the charger map near me, there are charge points that haven't been used at all this weekend.)
As the use goes up and the number of chargers goes up, it's unlikely that the operators will be able to keep that going. Conversely, the petrol station business will be a less attractive one to be in.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
At a smaller scale quite extensive testing has been done on ultra fast charging phones vs traditional slower charging and there is no appreciable increase in battery degradation for ultra fast charging and there's also no increase in degradation for fully discharging batteries.
The best Lithium batteries have around 1000-1200 recharge cycles before they begin to degrade beyond 90% of the original capacity, that implies a modern vehicle could easily to 150k miles before there is noticeable range reduction and that is with ultrafast charging, running the range to zero and generally not being very careful. The best Chinese EVs can charge from 0% to 80% in less than 10 mins, iirc Tesla have been talking a big game on under 5 mins to 50% which is probably about the same amount of time it takes to fill petrol in a standard car.
Charging will absolutely not be what holds back EV uptake.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
At a smaller scale quite extensive testing has been done on ultra fast charging phones vs traditional slower charging and there is no appreciable increase in battery degradation for ultra fast charging and there's also no increase in degradation for fully discharging batteries.
The best Lithium batteries have around 1000-1200 recharge cycles before they begin to degrade beyond 90% of the original capacity, that implies a modern vehicle could easily to 150k miles before there is noticeable range reduction and that is with ultrafast charging, running the range to zero and generally not being very careful. The best Chinese EVs can charge from 0% to 80% in less than 10 mins, iirc Tesla have been talking a big game on under 5 mins to 50% which is probably about the same amount of time it takes to fill petrol in a standard car.
Charging will absolutely not be what holds back EV uptake.
Much of the cost of commercial charging comes from the power spikes - the station has to pay to have power availability for the peaks. When this is smoothed out with on site battery storage, the cost comes down and it can actually become an income stream by providing grid stability. The free market has this guys, don’t worry about it.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.
Do you expect that to change?
I can't call it.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
It's what normally happens with new technology.
At the moment, the charging network is set up on convenience store economics- to get it everywhere, it has to charge more to cover its costs. (Looking at the charger map near me, there are charge points that haven't been used at all this weekend.)
As the use goes up and the number of chargers goes up, it's unlikely that the operators will be able to keep that going. Conversely, the petrol station business will be a less attractive one to be in.
The property angle is interesting.
E-charging requires more dwell time. It's about added value services in a 15-30 minute window.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
I’m pretty certain I’m right
If you draw straight lines from the centre of the circle to where it touches the line and the corners of the triangle, you get three pairs of triangles
Two of the triangles are isosceles, and always form a square by the right angle. The square has side r
This means that the other triangle side has length a-r or b-r
As the pairs of triangles are identical after reflecting in the line to the circle centre, this means that the hypotenuse of the outside triangle has length a+b-2r
So a+b-2r=h
And r=(a+b-h)/2
So if a+b-h is even, r is a whole number
a and b can be both even, both odd, or one of each
If both odd or both even, Pythagoras tells us h is even, and so is a+b-h
If one even, one odd, then h is odd, and a+b-h is still even
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
‘Hunting down’
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits or legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
Apologies. My problem is I don't read down the whole thread.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
‘Hunting down’
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
It is true, and mathematically proven.
For a right-angled triangle with hypotenuse of c, the radius of the circle contained = (a + b - c) / 2
For a Pythagorean triple, a, b and c must be integers. If a + b is even, then c is even, while if a + b is odd, then c is odd. Therefore a + b - c is even. Therefore (a + b - c) / 2 is an integer.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
It's one of the policies that has close to universal support. Deporting illegal immigrants and foreign criminals is an easy win for Labour, especially criminals. As I've said, Shabana Mahmood seems to be the only Labour minister who has realised that this issue is existential for Labour. If they go into the next election without having resolved the issues around illegal immigration, boat arrivals, fake asylum seeking, foreign criminals etc... then they're out of power for a very long time.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
‘Hunting down’
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
Hello Taz, no wrestling on?
Hiya Kinabalu.
Darts tonight. Greatest show on earth.
As for wrestling it was SNME last night. John Cena retirement match. Tapped out to The Ring General, Gunther. Put over the new generation on the way out. Did the job, class.
AEW tour of the UK this week. Samoa Joe is now the champ. Great wrestler. I’m a bit of a mark for Samoa Joe and AEW.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
On the contrary, you should get offline and go and speak to a broader cross section of people in this country than it sounds like you do. Max is spelling out in a typically eloquent style what a plurality in this country now privately want.
I walked past a mosque today, I didn't see any mobs.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?
For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.
If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).
I don't have a driveway.
Thanks.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?
For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.
If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).
I don't have a driveway.
Thanks.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
About 180 miles.
So that would have been quite comparable then, the maths I'd seen was more expensive. But now the Government has added on a 3p per mile tax, so that would be an extra £5.40 in taxation blowing the numbers out of the water as your 180 miles now costs £23.40 after tax (my 400 miles for £40 includes the taxes).
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.
Do you expect that to change?
I can't call it.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
The problem there is that Tesla is the one who bothered to do a good job.
Trying to say that somehow they should hand over their work to the other providers - who range from poor to useless….
The sensible end state is probable what happened in the US - where Tesla won the charging standard war. Because they showed up and the connector was non- insane. Now the other manufacturers are standardising on their system and their cars will (gradually) be able to use Tesla stalls.
I think that it is perhaps reasonable to argue that after a period of time - say when ICE vehicles are no longer available - they have had a good period of benefit from their first mover advantage and that should not become a permanent advantage.
Monopoly or pseudo-monopoly positions need suitable regulation; that was a mistake made by Mrs Thatcher's successors.
The problem with that view is that there is little in the way of barriers to doing what Tesla did. And does.
If you got to a motorway service station in this country, you see lots of parking spaces. A number have had Tesla charging stalls added. A much smaller group have non-Tesla charging stations added. No barrier to increase - apart from the power connections. Which Tesla has often paid to supplement. But another vendor could do the same.
Then there are the car parks at the business parks on the edge of towns - another Tesla favourite. Again, you will drive round in circles trying to find the non-Tesla chargers.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?
For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.
If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).
I don't have a driveway.
Thanks.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
About 180 miles.
Obviously this assumes 4 miles per kWh, which you get in optimum conditions.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?
For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.
If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).
I don't have a driveway.
Thanks.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
About 180 miles.
So that would have been quite comparable then, the maths I'd seen was more expensive. But now the Government has added on a 3p per mile tax, so that would be an extra £5.40 in taxation blowing the numbers out of the water as your 180 miles now costs £23.40 after tax (my 400 miles for £40 includes the taxes).
Stupid, stupid, stupid policy.
I admit it is only comparable because I use Tesla chargers as a member and they are cheaper. I was paying 40p per kWh at Tesla chargers and previously I paid 65 p for dragon chargers.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
It is true, and mathematically proven.
For a right-angled triangle with hypotenuse of c, the radius of the circle contained = (a + b - c) / 2
For a Pythagorean triple, a, b and c must be integers. If a + b is even, then c is even, while if a + b is odd, then c is odd. Therefore a + b - c is even. Therefore (a + b - c) / 2 is an integer.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
The best Lithium batteries have around 1000-1200 recharge cycles before they begin to degrade beyond 90% of the original capacity, that implies a modern vehicle could easily to 150k miles before there is noticeable range reduction and that is with ultrafast charging, running the range to zero and generally not being very careful.
I've got the Bimmerflow app and am a wizard in its use so I can see that the battery pack in our xDrive50 iX is at 97.9% health after 31,000 miles and nearly three years. The lease is up in a few months and we're getting an i5 M60 next just because the lease is currently anomalously cheap. (It's all relative.)
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?
For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.
If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).
I don't have a driveway.
Thanks.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
About 180 miles.
Obviously this assumes 4 miles per kWh, which you get in optimum conditions.
Oh, I meant in real-world conditions, not optimum? Do you know how many you get, approximately?
Out of habit I always reset my trip meter when I refuel. I get 400-420 miles (real world) per tank and it costs me ~£40 give or take a pound depending upon how empty the tank is when I refill.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
‘Hunting down’
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
Hello Taz, no wrestling on?
Hiya Kinabalu.
Darts tonight. Greatest show on earth.
As for wrestling it was SNME last night. John Cena retirement match. Tapped out to The Ring General, Gunther. Put over the new generation on the way out. Did the job, class.
AEW tour of the UK this week. Samoa Joe is now the champ. Great wrestler. I’m a bit of a mark for Samoa Joe and AEW.
I've laid Luke at 1.9. Probably regret it.
Anyway thanks for "posho" (that would be social mobility on steroids) and no I don't advocate open borders. I cling to the terrain that lies between that and Fortress Britain purged of Muslims.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?
For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.
If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).
I don't have a driveway.
Thanks.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
About 180 miles.
Obviously this assumes 4 miles per kWh, which you get in optimum conditions.
Oh, I meant in real-world conditions, not optimum? Do you know how many you get, approximately?
Out of habit I always reset my trip meter when I refuel. I get 400-420 miles (real world) per tank and it costs me ~£40 give or take a pound depending upon how empty the tank is when I refill.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.
Partition and then fuck off is the traditional denouement of a failed imperialist venture, so there are precedents.
You're a much more astute Russia observer than most of us - will they run out of steam? (They must do so at some point, but is that tomorrow or ten years away?)
I don't know. Anybody who tells you they do is lying.
Obviously, they can sustain mass casualties on a scale that would be politically unacceptable for any NATO country. Ditto poverty. Putin looks fairly solid atop the "vertical of power" but, in my opinion, he's the weakest link. If it all goes "Death of Stalin" then anything could happen.
Agreed, but the trends in the killing zone and in the Russian economy are increasingly bleak for Putinism. Just keeping the Ukrainians in the fight is quite probably enough. The truth is that we war has been an utter catastrophe for Russia and continuing this fiasco will bit improve things.
Without Putin, ironically, Russia could do a deal with the EU that would checkmate Trump.
A couple of weeks ago, saw a Julia Bradbury walking episode where she walked across. Also actually been on the Strathspey Railway a few years back, 2019, though it only goes as far east as Broomhill.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
‘Hunting down’
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
Hello Taz, no wrestling on?
Hiya Kinabalu.
Darts tonight. Greatest show on earth.
As for wrestling it was SNME last night. John Cena retirement match. Tapped out to The Ring General, Gunther. Put over the new generation on the way out. Did the job, class.
AEW tour of the UK this week. Samoa Joe is now the champ. Great wrestler. I’m a bit of a mark for Samoa Joe and AEW.
I've laid Luke at 1.9. Probably regret it.
Anyway thanks for "posho" (that would be social mobility on steroids) and no I don't advocate open borders. I cling to the terrain that lies between that and Fortress Britain purged of Muslims.
Run over that a few times on the Moray Coast Trail, part of NCN1 too. A really awkward detour via Fochabers and the A96.
Council have really messed up. It's a very busy connection and they are extremely lucky no one went down with it. FB rumour is they missed a COVID-era inspection.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
The best Lithium batteries have around 1000-1200 recharge cycles before they begin to degrade beyond 90% of the original capacity, that implies a modern vehicle could easily to 150k miles before there is noticeable range reduction and that is with ultrafast charging, running the range to zero and generally not being very careful.
I've got the Bimmerflow app and am a wizard in its use so I can see that the battery pack in our xDrive50 iX is at 97.9% health after 31,000 miles and nearly three years. The lease is up in a few months and we're getting an i5 M60 next just because the lease is currently anomalously cheap. (It's all relative.)
Which is about a 150k miles before it gets below 90%, compared to all the fear mongering we heard about battery tech 10 years ago the reality is completely different.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
On the contrary, you should get offline and go and speak to a broader cross section of people in this country than it sounds like you do. Max is spelling out in a typically eloquent style what a plurality in this country now privately want.
I walked past a mosque today, I didn't see any mobs.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I didn't know about the radius of circles that you pointed out. Almost all of maths is stuff we don't know though. A Sunday evening doesn't find me at my mathematical best.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
On the contrary, you should get offline and go and speak to a broader cross section of people in this country than it sounds like you do. Max is spelling out in a typically eloquent style what a plurality in this country now privately want.
I walked past a mosque today, I didn't see any mobs.
Did you see any Rockers?
no, only other thing of note today was some v poor indian drivers on the m23. i'll go full max and demand the instant deportation of all middle lane hoggers
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
And the people enjoying cheap food and haircuts. It does seem an obvious thing to do but, as ever, would require a significant spending increase in policing and the courts to generate a sufficient deterrent.
And you'd end up with tent cities of homeless rather than people working in the black economy. Of the two options, you can see why the government don't do it.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
When I first moved to Singapore, it was politely explained to me that anything even slightly on the verge of unworthy behaviour might well see me deported. I considered that fair enough, I was a guest.
I always remember the French chap who aggressively shouted at some construction workers for making noise early on a weekend morning after it woke his baby. The pretty unsavoury scene was circulated widely on social media. And that guy was gone. We let people stay who rape kids. We’ve become a deeply unserious country.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
The best Lithium batteries have around 1000-1200 recharge cycles before they begin to degrade beyond 90% of the original capacity, that implies a modern vehicle could easily to 150k miles before there is noticeable range reduction and that is with ultrafast charging, running the range to zero and generally not being very careful.
I've got the Bimmerflow app and am a wizard in its use so I can see that the battery pack in our xDrive50 iX is at 97.9% health after 31,000 miles and nearly three years. The lease is up in a few months and we're getting an i5 M60 next just because the lease is currently anomalously cheap. (It's all relative.)
Which is about a 150k miles before it gets below 90%, compared to all the fear mongering we heard about battery tech 10 years ago the reality is completely different.
In Germany, BMW have a production iX that has 400,000km on it and is at 89% health on the pack. A 400,000km ICE engine would be way down on leakdown/compression, probably had at least one set of cam chains and the turbo would be clapped.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
As I keep pointing out
- raise the fine for illegal employment to 100k, per instance - include paying less than minimum wage, factory acts violations. - use the laws on proceeds of crime to prevent layering using Ltds - Give half (£50k) to those giving evidence. - Given indefinite leave to remain to an illegal - after conviction of the criminals - Encourage private prosecution by the ambulance chasers.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I didn't know about the radius of circles that you pointed out. Almost all of maths is stuff we don't know though. A Sunday evening doesn't find me at my mathematical best.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
I'm not sure that anything will ever beat when I first understood Bayes's theorem
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
‘Hunting down’
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
Hello Taz, no wrestling on?
Hiya Kinabalu.
Darts tonight. Greatest show on earth.
As for wrestling it was SNME last night. John Cena retirement match. Tapped out to The Ring General, Gunther. Put over the new generation on the way out. Did the job, class.
AEW tour of the UK this week. Samoa Joe is now the champ. Great wrestler. I’m a bit of a mark for Samoa Joe and AEW.
I've laid Luke at 1.9. Probably regret it.
Anyway thanks for "posho" (that would be social mobility on steroids) and no I don't advocate open borders. I cling to the terrain that lies between that and Fortress Britain purged of Muslims.
Which Luke ?
Humphries or Littler ?
The Nuke. I didn't think he'd be odds on. Clear fav, yes, but not odds on.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I didn't know about the radius of circles that you pointed out. Almost all of maths is stuff we don't know though. A Sunday evening doesn't find me at my mathematical best.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
I'm not sure that anything will ever beat when I first understood Bayes's theorem
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
There are some really cool mathematical relationships. Euler's identity is my favourite, e^(i pi) + 1 = 0
There are an infinite number of triangles. Indeed Sine, Cosine and Tangent are all based around the unit circle with a radius of 1.
Although sine and cosine are from triangles contained within the unit circle, rather than containing it.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
And the people enjoying cheap food and haircuts. It does seem an obvious thing to do but, as ever, would require a significant spending increase in policing and the courts to generate a sufficient deterrent.
And you'd end up with tent cities of homeless rather than people working in the black economy. Of the two options, you can see why the government don't do it.
But they aren't cheap haircuts and food. You just end up with the same price and people unknowingly fund a gang or a dodgy business owner to make huge illegal profits from not having to pay staff a proper minimum wage.
You also wouldn't end up with tent cities because most of those here illegally would return of their own volition if it was impossible to make a living and then you only need to forcibly remove those who don't leave voluntarily. One of the biggest drivers of voluntary remigration in the US has been the $1000 offer to go back voluntarily and not have it effect any future immigration or visitor visa applications. I think we could easily do the same here - £1000 to go home of your own volition, we take fingerprints, iris scans and DNA samples which we store indefinitely in case someone tries to come back illegally they can be easily picked up and deported, those who take the deal are still applicable for visitor visas or even work visas if they meet the standard requirements.
I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?
2029?
Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.
Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
I think Daveyboy1961 got the wrong end of the stick - I think that kind of fast charging could quickly become widely available, and you'd hope given the massive scales of economy and free competition the price could come down quickly too.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
The best Lithium batteries have around 1000-1200 recharge cycles before they begin to degrade beyond 90% of the original capacity, that implies a modern vehicle could easily to 150k miles before there is noticeable range reduction and that is with ultrafast charging, running the range to zero and generally not being very careful.
I've got the Bimmerflow app and am a wizard in its use so I can see that the battery pack in our xDrive50 iX is at 97.9% health after 31,000 miles and nearly three years. The lease is up in a few months and we're getting an i5 M60 next just because the lease is currently anomalously cheap. (It's all relative.)
Which is about a 150k miles before it gets below 90%, compared to all the fear mongering we heard about battery tech 10 years ago the reality is completely different.
The reasons are interesting. And quite simple.
The main one is using water cooling/heating of the battery. Keeping the temperature stable during charging/discharging has a massive effect on battery life.
The batteries used are actually optimised for stability and hence life, rather than bleeding edge energy density.
The charging is controlled and monitored - not just ram some amps in.
Compared to what happens in mobile phones… it’s a different world.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
As I keep pointing out
- raise the fine for illegal employment to 100k, per instance - include paying less than minimum wage, factory acts violations. - use the laws on proceeds of crime to prevent layering using Ltds - Give half (£50k) to those giving evidence. - Given indefinite leave to remain to an illegal - after conviction of the criminals - Encourage private prosecution by the ambulance chasers.
Sell it as War On Modern Slavers.
The problem with this approach is that we'd end up with a million or so illegals getting ILR. That's not a viable solution. People want them deported, not given any kind of amnesty.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
When I first moved to Singapore, it was politely explained to me that anything even slightly on the verge of unworthy behaviour might well see me deported. I considered that fair enough, I was a guest.
I always remember the French chap who aggressively shouted at some construction workers for making noise early on a weekend morning after it woke his baby. The pretty unsavoury scene was circulated widely on social media. And that guy was gone. We let people stay who rape kids. We’ve become a deeply unserious country.
But their son doesn’t like the burgers back in Albania. Have a heart.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
And the people enjoying cheap food and haircuts. It does seem an obvious thing to do but, as ever, would require a significant spending increase in policing and the courts to generate a sufficient deterrent.
And you'd end up with tent cities of homeless rather than people working in the black economy. Of the two options, you can see why the government don't do it.
But they aren't cheap haircuts and food. You just end up with the same price and people unknowingly fund a gang or a dodgy business owner to make huge illegal profits from not having to pay staff a proper minimum wage.
You also wouldn't end up with tent cities because most of those here illegally would return of their own volition if it was impossible to make a living and then you only need to forcibly remove those who don't leave voluntarily. One of the biggest drivers of voluntary remigration in the US has been the $1000 offer to go back voluntarily and not have it effect any future immigration or visitor visa applications. I think we could easily do the same here - £1000 to go home of your own volition, we take fingerprints, iris scans and DNA samples which we store indefinitely in case someone tries to come back illegally they can be easily picked up and deported, those who take the deal are still applicable for visitor visas or even work visas if they meet the standard requirements.
It can result in cheap food/hair/whatever service, but then if it does then that just means that any business actually paying the minimum wage, and NI, and all that jazz, is unable to compete.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I didn't know about the radius of circles that you pointed out. Almost all of maths is stuff we don't know though. A Sunday evening doesn't find me at my mathematical best.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
I'm not sure that anything will ever beat when I first understood Bayes's theorem
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
Exactly. People bandying about "1m" and "kick em out". It's a load of thoughtless wank.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
‘Hunting down’
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
Hello Taz, no wrestling on?
Hiya Kinabalu.
Darts tonight. Greatest show on earth.
As for wrestling it was SNME last night. John Cena retirement match. Tapped out to The Ring General, Gunther. Put over the new generation on the way out. Did the job, class.
AEW tour of the UK this week. Samoa Joe is now the champ. Great wrestler. I’m a bit of a mark for Samoa Joe and AEW.
I've laid Luke at 1.9. Probably regret it.
Anyway thanks for "posho" (that would be social mobility on steroids) and no I don't advocate open borders. I cling to the terrain that lies between that and Fortress Britain purged of Muslims.
Which Luke ?
Humphries or Littler ?
The Nuke. I didn't think he'd be odds on. Clear fav, yes, but not odds on.
I agree. Based on his odds he’s a clear lay. My stepdad was telling me yesterday he was 10/11. Crazy this far out.
He’s brilliant but there are other terrific players out there and people, like Van Veen, who are up and coming.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I didn't know about the radius of circles that you pointed out. Almost all of maths is stuff we don't know though. A Sunday evening doesn't find me at my mathematical best.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
I'm not sure that anything will ever beat when I first understood Bayes's theorem
Here's a problem for you. I don't know the solution, but I understand part of it. What function is such that f(f(x))=ln(x)?
I promise you that this a rather fun mathematical adventure ahead.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I didn't know about the radius of circles that you pointed out. Almost all of maths is stuff we don't know though. A Sunday evening doesn't find me at my mathematical best.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
I'm not sure that anything will ever beat when I first understood Bayes's theorem
To translate it into English: any given mathematical system can create an equation that is unsolvable within that system. For example arithmetic and the rational numbers nonrecurring decimals. "1" and "3" are nonrecurring decimals, "/" is an arithmetic operation, but "1/3" is a recurring decimal. So now you have to invent recurring decimals.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
Asking people who we've invited to the country to be model citizens is a far right agenda? Pull the other one. You realise how ridiculous that sounds, don't you? We have enough of criminals and delinquents among our own citizenry, I don't see any justification for importing more from other countries.
While I’ve been driving around delivering parcels today, I’ve been thinking about Pythagorean triples and circles
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
I imagine it'd be something more widely known if it was true. Heavy geometry really went entirely out of fashion, but as you've seen it's sort of cool.
And actually for integer sides you're right I guess because you can just write down the solution. Are there non-Integer sides for which this is true? Seems likely.
I presume that there are infinite numbers of right angle triangles that will fit perfectly around a circle with a radius of 1
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
I didn't know about the radius of circles that you pointed out. Almost all of maths is stuff we don't know though. A Sunday evening doesn't find me at my mathematical best.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
I'm not sure that anything will ever beat when I first understood Bayes's theorem
To translate it into English: any given mathematical system can create an equation that is unsolvable within that system. For example arithmetic and the rational numbers. "1" and "3" are rational numbers, "/" is an arithmetic operation, but "1/3" is an irrational number. So now you have to invent irrational numbers.
1/3 is rational.
Rational is defined as a / b where a and b are integers. Since 1 is an integer and 3 is an integer, then 1 / 3 is rational.
1 / 3 is not an integer though, but it is rational. There are an infinite number of irrational numbers, but the most famous are e, pi and the roots of non-square numbers.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
It isn't a mainstream view that people here illegally should be deported? I'd be surprised if you were right about that.
I think it's one of those things that in principle has overwhelming support (including me), but the actual practicalities of such a policy would be deeply unpalatable.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
You don't necessarily need to go and find them you make it impossible for them to exist in the UK illegally and go after the business owners, gangs and companies that keep the economy going that allows them to stay undetected. That's landlords to rent to them illegally, restaurants/nail bars/barber shops etc... that pay them cash in hand, big companies like deliveroo and just eat who allow them to work without sufficient checks on their status. The solutions exist but the government is just too weak to do it because too many of their own voters would be hurt by a crackdown on these people, especially the landlords and restaurant owners.
As I keep pointing out
- raise the fine for illegal employment to 100k, per instance - include paying less than minimum wage, factory acts violations. - use the laws on proceeds of crime to prevent layering using Ltds - Give half (£50k) to those giving evidence. - Given indefinite leave to remain to an illegal - after conviction of the criminals - Encourage private prosecution by the ambulance chasers.
Sell it as War On Modern Slavers.
The problem with this approach is that we'd end up with a million or so illegals getting ILR. That's not a viable solution. People want them deported, not given any kind of amnesty.
Ha!
The hidden clue is that we don't do retroactive laws in this country.
So, under the Malmesbury UnDicatorship, it is announced that the measures above will come in on Midsummers Day. In the following year.
Only those breaking the law *after that* will be liable.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
I cannot see anything that resembles a "far right agenda" in what was written there.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would do what you infer yes. The “Net zero” debate isn’t about climate change any more but migration. If we are still to accept migrants from friendly western democracies, it doesn’t leave room for many others, even with a mass deportation programme.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
A mass deportation of Muslims isn't a mainstream view in this country.
I did not say that. I want a mass deportation of the ~1m illegal migrants before we do anything else.
Well that's something. But I don't think hunting down and deporting 1m people is a mainstream view either.
In the nicest way, it does not surprise me that you think that. The ~1m illegal migrants are by definition criminals. And there is high support for deporting foreign criminals.
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits of legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
The phrase 'foreign criminals' is commonly understood to mean people from overseas living here without permission who then commit a serious offence. I think you're gilding the lily in pursuit of your rather fruity political agenda.
Foreign criminals can also be people who are here on some kind of visa or with some kind of status. I'd probably set the deportation bar very low, even something as basic as fare dodging would be deportation worthy to me. We just don't need someone with that attitude in the country. We have enough of them already among our own citizenry without having to invite more of them. People who are here based on our kindness must be model citizens, anything less should result in deportation with no right of appeal.
So long as you realise this is a far right agenda. I personally don't see any rational justification for it.
Asking people who we've invited to the country to be model citizens is a far right agenda? Pull the other one. You realise how ridiculous that sounds, don't you? We have enough of criminals and delinquents among our own citizenry, I don't see any justification for importing more from other countries.
Kinabalu does not realise what it is like to be a migrant in much of the rest of the world. I have been one in multiple types of society and economy. We are absolute f***** mugs in this country. We take the worst of every system. Make it damn near impossible for the brightest and richest to come, welcome the most lawless and economically unproductive. And have the whole thing in such chaos that no one can even be sure of the numbers. Any time you query this, morons are lining up to call you “far right”, as you despair at the decay rotting the uk body politik from the inside out.
Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.
It's a bad situation.
Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.
Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.
This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.
Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
Is it ? If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.
We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.
As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
It's far from ridiculous.
Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years. But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?
And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
Can I understand what you are advocating?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
I would halt all immigration from Islamic countries, that includes for work, family reunions, asylum and introduce third country deportation for illegal immigrants. I would also halt all foreign funding of mosques, close all of the madrassas and all Islamic religious schools until such time that the security services are satisfied that they aren't being used to brainwash young British muslims to take up arms against our country and our people. I'd probably also ban the burka and niqab as well, though maybe not the hijab. Islam isn't compatible with British values, anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is simply too scared to say so for feat of being called racist or islamophobic, it's time to face up this reality rather than hope the problem just goes away by itself and watch as gets worse.
your reality sounds like it has been specifically curated by alt right social media
On the contrary, you should get offline and go and speak to a broader cross section of people in this country than it sounds like you do. Max is spelling out in a typically eloquent style what a plurality in this country now privately want.
I walked past a mosque today, I didn't see any mobs.
Did you see any Rockers?
no, only other thing of note today was some v poor indian drivers on the m23. i'll go full max and demand the instant deportation of all middle lane hoggers
Comments
Obviously, they can sustain mass casualties on a scale that would be politically unacceptable for any NATO country. Ditto poverty. Putin looks fairly solid atop the "vertical of power" but, in my opinion, he's the weakest link. If it all goes "Death of Stalin" then anything could happen.
And approximately how many miles do you get per £18?
I fill my tank of petrol for £40 and get 400 miles - and no BEV per mileage tax. How does the maths compare for you, if you don't mind me asking?
IF you are advocating we should halt all immigration from countries which are deemed to be under the control of radical Islamic elements, I get that and I have plenty of sympathy for that line though I baulk where those facing genuine persecution are concerned such as Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
IF, however, you are of the view we should halt all Islamic immigration (including from countries which are not considered to be under radical Islamic control), then that needs some clarification. For example, would we stop all immigration from Egypt or Indonesia?
If the aim, however, is to mitigate radical Islam, it's worth noting the instances of British-born Muslims being radicalised and that would require action, including legislation, around how the Islamic faith operates in this country along with measures to prevent radicalisation from, for example, both non-UK and UK websites.
The organisation has just put it off for a year, I assume in the hope that Trump will be politically dead or crippled by then.
Reportedly, he's using similar tactics to try and peel off countries from the European consensus on Ukraine, targetting Belgium amongst other - he wants those frozen Russian assets for the USA and his cronies, and Europe can FOAD. The potential EU arrangement to do it via a QMV procedure may be an important fix, as it is robust and requires significant opposition to derail it. It would need Italy, Spain, Hungary, Slovakia, Belgium plus about another 5% of EU population to form a blocking minority.
I'd say the crucial question is whether we in Europe ultimately choose to control our own future, or not, then back ourselves to do it.
Would love to be going into detail with major examples but them being tricksy about the Russian funds under their jurisdiction has not surprised me in the slightest. I would have been more surprised if they were all for it.
Doubtless this makes me sound like an extremist to many ears here but it’s the increasingly mainstream view in this country now.
I think the interoperablity could be forced by regulation as well as market operation over time. Tesla in particular will be relying on a somewhat-dominant market position, and I see no reason why that should be permitted to persist for too long - since we have constraints on eg the number of sites in a densely occupied country.
Has @RochdalePioneers done a public-charge vs petrol station cost comparison? I seem to recall he has done it on his North of Scotland to South of England run.
For a transition there needs to be something of a cost advantage for moves to electric, but the Govt needs to limit it for tax reasons.
I believe that every right angle triangle with all whole number length sides perfectly contains a circle with a whole number radius
I love geometry even more today
Other views, fuelled by psyops on X, are available from Ultras who mysteriously can't find the Azov recruitment website.
Trying to say that somehow they should hand over their work to the other providers - who range from poor to useless….
The sensible end state is probable what happened in the US - where Tesla won the charging standard war. Because they showed up and the connector was non- insane. Now the other manufacturers are standardising on their system and their cars will (gradually) be able to use Tesla stalls.
There might be some electrical engineering limitation in there somewhere though.
Monopoly or pseudo-monopoly positions need suitable regulation; that was a mistake made by Mrs Thatcher's successors.
At the moment, the charging network is set up on convenience store economics- to get it everywhere, it has to charge more to cover its costs. (Looking at the charger map near me, there are charge points that haven't been used at all this weekend.)
As the use goes up and the number of chargers goes up, it's unlikely that the operators will be able to keep that going. Conversely, the petrol station business will be a less attractive one to be in.
The best Lithium batteries have around 1000-1200 recharge cycles before they begin to degrade beyond 90% of the original capacity, that implies a modern vehicle could easily to 150k miles before there is noticeable range reduction and that is with ultrafast charging, running the range to zero and generally not being very careful. The best Chinese EVs can charge from 0% to 80% in less than 10 mins, iirc Tesla have been talking a big game on under 5 mins to 50% which is probably about the same amount of time it takes to fill petrol in a standard car.
Charging will absolutely not be what holds back EV uptake.
The named offender in the Bondi Beach case is called: Naveed Akram.
The member of the public who disarmed an attacker is called: Ahmed al Ahmed.
How will the two stories be treated, by which outlets, with which implications?
E-charging requires more dwell time. It's about added value services in a 15-30 minute window.
If you draw straight lines from the centre of the circle to where it touches the line and the corners of the triangle, you get three pairs of triangles
Two of the triangles are isosceles, and always form a square by the right angle. The square has side r
This means that the other triangle side has length a-r or b-r
As the pairs of triangles are identical after reflecting in the line to the circle centre, this means that the hypotenuse of the outside triangle has length a+b-2r
So a+b-2r=h
And r=(a+b-h)/2
So if a+b-h is even, r is a whole number
a and b can be both even, both odd, or one of each
If both odd or both even, Pythagoras tells us h is even, and so is a+b-h
If one even, one odd, then h is odd, and a+b-h is still even
I still can't believe that I never knew this
Absurd, emotive, language from some posho who humbebrags about the homes that would pay the mansion tax on his street.
The nearest to me is seven miles away.
What’s the solution. Open door but they don’t live near you ?
Ask yourself what Starmer’s plan is with ID cards. Take him at face value, that he says they are necessary to crack down on illegal migration. What happens when he identifies these people? A mass amnesty? A bizarre half life where they have informal leave to remain but cannot claim benefits or legally work, meaning they must resort to crime to survive? Or… deportation after some human rights lawyer friendly process.
Even this wish washy sham of a government is in favour of mass deportation. They just haven’t dared admit it yet.
For a right-angled triangle with hypotenuse of c, the radius of the circle contained = (a + b - c) / 2
For a Pythagorean triple, a, b and c must be integers. If a + b is even, then c is even, while if a + b is odd, then c is odd. Therefore a + b - c is even. Therefore (a + b - c) / 2 is an integer.
QED.
Darts tonight. Greatest show on earth.
As for wrestling it was SNME last night. John Cena retirement match. Tapped out to The Ring General, Gunther. Put over the new generation on the way out. Did the job, class.
AEW tour of the UK this week. Samoa Joe is now the champ. Great wrestler. I’m a bit of a mark for Samoa Joe and AEW.
Stupid, stupid, stupid policy.
I just love the fact that the most famous triangle with given side lengths is the 3,4,5; and that triangle perfectly contains a circle with the most famous area related number as its area - pi!
If you got to a motorway service station in this country, you see lots of parking spaces. A number have had Tesla charging stalls added. A much smaller group have non-Tesla charging stations added. No barrier to increase - apart from the power connections. Which Tesla has often paid to supplement. But another vendor could do the same.
Then there are the car parks at the business parks on the edge of towns - another Tesla favourite. Again, you will drive round in circles trying to find the non-Tesla chargers.
If there really are 1,000,000 people here, you'd need to deport 3,000 people a day for a year, requiring a massive and highly aggressive border force, staffed largely by psychos, making hundreds of "mistakes" (British citizens detained and deported). It would be chaos and there would be widespread civil disobedience in the face of it.
It's why I think Badenoch got it wrong referencing ICE. That kind of inquisition is toxic in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1m87jlv97ro
Out of habit I always reset my trip meter when I refuel. I get 400-420 miles (real world) per tank and it costs me ~£40 give or take a pound depending upon how empty the tank is when I refill.
Anyway thanks for "posho" (that would be social mobility on steroids) and no I don't advocate open borders. I cling to the terrain that lies between that and Fortress Britain purged of Muslims.
Without Putin, ironically, Russia could do a deal with the EU that would checkmate Trump.
Humphries or Littler ?
Council have really messed up. It's a very busy connection and they are extremely lucky no one went down with it. FB rumour is they missed a COVID-era inspection.
I'll try to report back tomorrow. Alcohol not featuring.
Discovering all sorts of cool and unexpected stuff in maths is what it's all about. Do look!
And you'd end up with tent cities of homeless rather than people working in the black economy. Of the two options, you can see why the government don't do it.
I always remember the French chap who aggressively shouted at some construction workers for making noise early on a weekend morning after it woke his baby. The pretty unsavoury scene was circulated widely on social media. And that guy was gone. We let people stay who rape kids. We’ve become a deeply unserious country.
- raise the fine for illegal employment to 100k, per instance
- include paying less than minimum wage, factory acts violations.
- use the laws on proceeds of crime to prevent layering using Ltds
- Give half (£50k) to those giving evidence.
- Given indefinite leave to remain to an illegal - after conviction of the criminals
- Encourage private prosecution by the ambulance chasers.
Sell it as War On Modern Slavers.
wait i just realized the person third in line for the US presidency is 92 years old
https://x.com/GraceSpelman/status/2000083164283437142
The notable thing is that he'd almost be preferable to just about every other psycho on the list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Current_order_of_succession
The series details a world war in the 2030s. This episode demonstrates the vulnerability of carrier groups to hypersonic missiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems
There are an infinite number of triangles. Indeed Sine, Cosine and Tangent are all based around the unit circle with a radius of 1.
Although sine and cosine are from triangles contained within the unit circle, rather than containing it.
You also wouldn't end up with tent cities because most of those here illegally would return of their own volition if it was impossible to make a living and then you only need to forcibly remove those who don't leave voluntarily. One of the biggest drivers of voluntary remigration in the US has been the $1000 offer to go back voluntarily and not have it effect any future immigration or visitor visa applications. I think we could easily do the same here - £1000 to go home of your own volition, we take fingerprints, iris scans and DNA samples which we store indefinitely in case someone tries to come back illegally they can be easily picked up and deported, those who take the deal are still applicable for visitor visas or even work visas if they meet the standard requirements.
The main one is using water cooling/heating of the battery. Keeping the temperature stable during charging/discharging has a massive effect on battery life.
The batteries used are actually optimised for stability and hence life, rather than bleeding edge energy density.
The charging is controlled and monitored - not just ram some amps in.
Compared to what happens in mobile phones… it’s a different world.
The black economy is not victimless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel's_incompleteness_theorems
He’s brilliant but there are other terrific players out there and people, like Van Veen, who are up and coming.
I’m just hoping Beau Greaves gets through,
I promise you that this a rather fun mathematical adventure ahead.
the rational numbersnonrecurring decimals. "1" and "3" are nonrecurring decimals, "/" is an arithmetic operation, but "1/3" is a recurring decimal. So now you have to invent recurring decimals.Rational is defined as a / b where a and b are integers. Since 1 is an integer and 3 is an integer, then 1 / 3 is rational.
1 / 3 is not an integer though, but it is rational. There are an infinite number of irrational numbers, but the most famous are e, pi and the roots of non-square numbers.
The hidden clue is that we don't do retroactive laws in this country.
So, under the Malmesbury UnDicatorship, it is announced that the measures above will come in on Midsummers Day. In the following year.
Only those breaking the law *after that* will be liable.