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.
It's his only defence, anything he personally disagrees with is a far right agenda, racist, homophobic, transphobic or islamophobic. It's all they have left, buzzwords and it's why Labour are going to get royally destroyed at the next election. People just don't respond to that kind of hectoring any more. Voters are tired of being told they're some kind of nazi, far right racist for wanting to control immigration and deport foreign criminals.
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.
That's just the execution of the policy though. I don't think there are many quibbles outside of the very liberal witg tge concept that we ought to deport those who are here illegally.
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.
I KNOW. I CORRECTED IT AS SOON AS I REALISED MY MISTAKE. I AM A BAD PERSON
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
So you might be interested in QBism or quantum Bayesianism.
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
Driving in India is not for the faint-hearted!
You don't have to go that far, southern Italy is fairly chaotic
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!
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 ?
I’m tempted to simultaneously nuke Moscow and Washington. At least when we are all obliterated 2 minutes later, I’ll die with a smug smile on my face.
I'm a little discombobulated that you have two spare nukes available...
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.
i just depair at nincompoops who want to impose their version of 'british values' on the rest of us.
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.
Don't be such a snowflake! You're doing far more than 'querying' things. Honestly, you far right converts. Talk about short fuses.
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!
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove 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.
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.
i just depair at nincompoops who want to impose their version of 'british values' on the rest of us.
Indeed but I think people who express this view forget it works against, as well as for, them.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove 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 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.
First, thank you for the cogent and coherent response.
I live in a strongly (by British standards) Muslim area but not all the Muslims come from Muslim countries - the Pakistanis obviously do but we have Muslims from the Balkans such as Albanians and Kosovans and Muslims from some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa so I think we need to define what we mean by "Islamic countries" as distinct from Muslims who come from countries which are either secular or in which Islam is a minority religion.
I see the children going to the madrassas after school and some Muslim parents argue they get taught maths and English better there than at UK state schools but if there are valid concerns such institutions are being used for radicalisation, that does need to be addressed.
As a broad brush, in my part of the world, the hijab is generally worn by the younger Muslim women before they marry at which point the husband (presumably) insists on the niqab - the burka is rare in these parts. If a younger woman is from a more conservative family, they might wear the niqab but it's unusual whereas the hijab is widely favoured.
The "compatibility of values" question is the nub of it. The problem lies, I suspect, in attitudes to non-believers and how they should be treated. A tolerant, democratic, plural and open society would expect, as a quid pro quo for freedom of worship, the respect of all faiths and any religion which cannot respect the rights of others to worship differently is causing a problem.
Those who wish to follow the Islamic faith, however, (or any faith) should have every right to do so as long as they act within and follow UK law.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove 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.
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.
Your posts on this subject most certainly do echo some of the core sentiments of the far right, yes. I'm not saying it in high temper without thought.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Countable is infinity
Uncountable is infinity to the power of infinity
I think..
There are certainly countable sets that are not infinite. 'One'
Uncountable might be quite small. I don't think anyone knows what the minimal uncountable set is.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove 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. "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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Countable is infinity
Uncountable is infinity to the power of infinity
I think..
There are certainly countable sets that are not infinite. 'One'
Uncountable might be quite small. I don't think anyone knows what the minimal uncountable set is.
I was talking about infinite sets, as the post I replied to was
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Before you prove it, why does "number" get a plural verb ("are") in your first sentence and a singular verb ("is") in your second sentence?
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Countable is infinity
Uncountable is infinity to the power of infinity
I think..
There are certainly countable sets that are not infinite. 'One'
Uncountable might be quite small. I don't think anyone knows what the minimal uncountable set is.
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.
That really is quite a serious engineering failure.
I assume one of the piers was scoured - it looks like there is high sediment transport and therefore they should be inspected frequently.
What are the odds on that ever being repaired? Not high, I would guess.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Countable is infinity
Uncountable is infinity to the power of infinity
I think..
There are certainly countable sets that are not infinite. 'One'
Uncountable might be quite small. I don't think anyone knows what the minimal uncountable set is.
I was talking about infinite sets, as the post I replied to was
I should have made it clearer
I'd not have intended my comment to be the slightest criticism.
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
I am a great fan of Bayes's theorem and have used it tio solve all sorts of problems. However I do find it hard to apply to lost things, and wonder if any of you can advise on this. As I get older and more forgetful, and my wife buys more and more clutter, i spend an increasing proportion of my time looking for things that I have lost. I am using it by listing all the places I could have lost it, estimating the probability of each. Then once I have looked in them all withiut success, I estimate the chance of not finding it each place I have looked if it had been there, and multiplying it by the probability of it having been there. Then I look in each place in the order of the resulting relative probability. The problem comes when I lose the piece of paper with the calculations on it and then have to use Bayes's theorem to find 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. "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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
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.
That really is quite a serious engineering failure.
I assume one of the piers was scoured - it looks like there is high sediment transport and therefore they should be inspected frequently.
What are the odds on that ever being repaired? Not high, I would guess.
Sad to see such a loss. Yes - very expensive to repair.
I will bet that concerns were raised. And ignored.
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.
First, thank you for the cogent and coherent response.
I live in a strongly (by British standards) Muslim area but not all the Muslims come from Muslim countries - the Pakistanis obviously do but we have Muslims from the Balkans such as Albanians and Kosovans and Muslims from some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa so I think we need to define what we mean by "Islamic countries" as distinct from Muslims who come from countries which are either secular or in which Islam is a minority religion.
I see the children going to the madrassas after school and some Muslim parents argue they get taught maths and English better there than at UK state schools but if there are valid concerns such institutions are being used for radicalisation, that does need to be addressed.
As a broad brush, in my part of the world, the hijab is generally worn by the younger Muslim women before they marry at which point the husband (presumably) insists on the niqab - the burka is rare in these parts. If a younger woman is from a more conservative family, they might wear the niqab but it's unusual whereas the hijab is widely favoured.
The "compatibility of values" question is the nub of it. The problem lies, I suspect, in attitudes to non-believers and how they should be treated. A tolerant, democratic, plural and open society would expect, as a quid pro quo for freedom of worship, the respect of all faiths and any religion which cannot respect the rights of others to worship differently is causing a problem.
Those who wish to follow the Islamic faith, however, (or any faith) should have every right to do so as long as they act within and follow UK law.
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 ?
I’m tempted to simultaneously nuke Moscow and Washington. At least when we are all obliterated 2 minutes later, I’ll die with a smug smile on my face.
I'm a little discombobulated that you have two spare nukes available...
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Before you prove it, why does "number" get a plural verb ("are") in your first sentence and a singular verb ("is") in your second sentence?
Surely the 'are' applies to 'rationals' plural in the first sentence?
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 ?
I’m tempted to simultaneously nuke Moscow and Washington. At least when we are all obliterated 2 minutes later, I’ll die with a smug smile on my face.
I'm a little discombobulated that you have two spare nukes available...
{Checks in the shed}
Well, they aren't my nukes.
It'll be cold comfort if there's something nasty in the woodshed.
"Donald Macintyre's documentary was broadcast on 25 April 1999 as part of a series marking the second anniversary of the Labour government, but may have been greenlit before Mandelson's sudden resignation in December."
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Before you prove it, why does "number" get a plural verb ("are") in your first sentence and a singular verb ("is") in your second sentence?
It's "number is" when referring to a specific quantity (e.g., "The number of cars is ten") and "number are" when "a number of" means "several" or "many," taking a plural verb (e.g., "A number of people are here"). The key is whether the subject is the singular concept of "the number" or the implied plural "several things".
So there are an infinite number of rationals, and, at the same time the number of rationals is infinite.
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 ?
I’m tempted to simultaneously nuke Moscow and Washington. At least when we are all obliterated 2 minutes later, I’ll die with a smug smile on my face.
I'm a little discombobulated that you have two spare nukes available...
{Checks in the shed}
Well, they aren't my nukes.
It'll be cold comfort if there's something nasty in the woodshed.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Before you prove it, why does "number" get a plural verb ("are") in your first sentence and a singular verb ("is") in your second sentence?
Surely the 'are' applies to 'rationals' plural in the first sentence?
'Fraid not, the complex noun it relates to is "number of rationals".
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Before you prove it, why does "number" get a plural verb ("are") in your first sentence and a singular verb ("is") in your second sentence?
It's "number is" when referring to a specific quantity (e.g., "The number of cars is ten") and "number are" when "a number of" means "several" or "many," taking a plural verb (e.g., "A number of people are here"). The key is whether the subject is the singular concept of "the number" or the implied plural "several things".
So there are an infinite number of rationals, and, at the same time the number of rationals is infinite.
Quirky!
Okay, two against one, you win by majority verdict. Glad to have you step off your Aleph trip
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.
First, thank you for the cogent and coherent response.
I live in a strongly (by British standards) Muslim area but not all the Muslims come from Muslim countries - the Pakistanis obviously do but we have Muslims from the Balkans such as Albanians and Kosovans and Muslims from some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa so I think we need to define what we mean by "Islamic countries" as distinct from Muslims who come from countries which are either secular or in which Islam is a minority religion.
I see the children going to the madrassas after school and some Muslim parents argue they get taught maths and English better there than at UK state schools but if there are valid concerns such institutions are being used for radicalisation, that does need to be addressed.
As a broad brush, in my part of the world, the hijab is generally worn by the younger Muslim women before they marry at which point the husband (presumably) insists on the niqab - the burka is rare in these parts. If a younger woman is from a more conservative family, they might wear the niqab but it's unusual whereas the hijab is widely favoured.
The "compatibility of values" question is the nub of it. The problem lies, I suspect, in attitudes to non-believers and how they should be treated. A tolerant, democratic, plural and open society would expect, as a quid pro quo for freedom of worship, the respect of all faiths and any religion which cannot respect the rights of others to worship differently is causing a problem.
Those who wish to follow the Islamic faith, however, (or any faith) should have every right to do so as long as they act within and follow UK law.
It's been an open secret for over a decade that Islamic schools in this country are radicalisation factories and Mosques that receive overseas funding from opaque sources that end up being linked to Iran or Qatar have been continuously associated to terrorists and terrorist plots. Those two moves of closing Madrassas and banning overseas funding of mosques would immediately have positive outcomes.
I agree that compatibility of values is the big question. What I think you fail to see, and this is a common failing among white liberals, is that as the proportion of Muslims in the population grows our laws and protections are watered down to appease the Islamic voting bloc. We already saw it with the government refusing to implement a ban on cousin marriage which has a causal link to kids being born with severe disabilities or the refusal to prosecute Muslim doctors who carry out FGM or parents who take their daughters back to their home countries to get that horrid procedure carried out on their daughters.
We water down our values to accommodate their barbarism and our society suffers as a whole. No the answer is not to appease Islamic values by accommodation and selective application of the law as we so often see, it's the opposite. Muslims in the UK must assimilate into our values system and if that is too big an ask then they need to be thinking about what it is they need to be doing and what compromises they should be making to fit into our values system.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Which is definitely consistent with what I claimed with “at least infinity squared”
Two to the power of infinity must be more than infinity squared
It depends which kind of infinity you are talking about. I think N0 squared just equals N0 i.e. still countable. You put the integers in a grid and count them diagonally staring in the top left corner. It's the diagonal method. The same method as proving that the rationals are also N0.
NB I previously wrongly wrote about N1 and N2. It should of course been about N0 and N1. You might have noticed.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Countable is infinity
Uncountable is infinity to the power of infinity
I think..
There are certainly countable sets that are not infinite. 'One'
Uncountable might be quite small. I don't think anyone knows what the minimal uncountable set is.
I think in mathematics it's the intersection set of Keir and Kemi's talents.
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 ?
I’m tempted to simultaneously nuke Moscow and Washington. At least when we are all obliterated 2 minutes later, I’ll die with a smug smile on my face.
I'm a little discombobulated that you have two spare nukes available...
{Checks in the shed}
Well, they aren't my nukes.
It'll be cold comfort if there's something nasty in the woodshed.
{Gently taps on the Violet Club replica}
Define "nasty"?
Something that requires 133,000 ball bearings to prevent accidental detonation?
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Before you prove it, why does "number" get a plural verb ("are") in your first sentence and a singular verb ("is") in your second sentence?
Surely the 'are' applies to 'rationals' plural in the first sentence?
'Fraid not, the complex noun it relates to is "number of rationals".
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Before you prove it, why does "number" get a plural verb ("are") in your first sentence and a singular verb ("is") in your second sentence?
Surely the 'are' applies to 'rationals' plural in the first sentence?
'Fraid not, the complex noun it relates to is "number of rationals".
So you'd say "A number of people is here"?
Well, the number of people here is ten, but touché
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Countable is infinity
Uncountable is infinity to the power of infinity
I think..
Or at least infinity squared
Not really. It's a bit more complex than that. https:/in /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
That says
2 to the the power of N0 = N1
Which is definitely consistent with what I claimed with “at least infinity squared”
Two to the power of infinity must be more than infinity squared
It depends which kind of infinity you are talking about. I think N0 squared just equals N0 i.e. still countable. You put the integers in a grid and count them diagonally staring in the top left corner. It's the diagonal method. The same method as proving that the rationals are also N0.
NB I previously wrongly wrote about N1 and N2. It should of course been about N0 and N1. You might have noticed.
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.
That's just the execution of the policy though. I don't think there are many quibbles outside of the very liberal witg tge concept that we ought to deport those who are here illegally.
We should deport many of those who are here illegally, but I would suggest we should show clemency for minor infractions (e.g., the person whose work visa is late arriving, so they overstay a visitor visa for a few weeks until they sort it out) and towards children who were born and have grown up here. We should also remember that people seeking asylum are not here illegally (despite the constant attempts of many to pretend they are).
Also, we have limited resources. Is this the biggest priority of how to spend tax receipts? I think we could do better at deporting people here illegally. Deportations have gone up under this Labour government, showing how improvements can be made on the prior administration's approach. But equally there are plenty of other causes that warrant attention, from Ukraine to the NHS.
We don't know the number of people here illegally. A million is probably the top end of the range of estimates.
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.
There are an infinite but countable Aleph1 ℵ1 number of rationals. The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove 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.
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.
I think it is worth remembering that, in any more or less democratic transition towards a far right or far left agenda, by definition the far right or far left views will not seem extreme at the time. They can't, really, otherwise the democratic transition wouldn't happen. Instead, my reading of recent history is that societies seem to enter periods of collective hypnosis - when later societies look back on this they find it very hard to understand how this collective hypnosis was sustained.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
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.
That really is quite a serious engineering failure.
I assume one of the piers was scoured - it looks like there is high sediment transport and therefore they should be inspected frequently.
What are the odds on that ever being repaired? Not high, I would guess.
Yes - makes for a rather sketchy conclusion to a trip down the Spey by canoe/kayak. Lots of wood in the water and the course changes all the time.
Zero chance they'll repair that. Will be a very expensive replacement but it's important for three of the key trails in that part of the would, so I'll certainly support the inevitable Sustrans campaign and they'll be many like me.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
Christmas Day recommendation - beautiful, therapeutic, full of really interesting snippets of information. Perfect for after dinner, something for the whole family:
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.
That's just the execution of the policy though. I don't think there are many quibbles outside of the very liberal witg tge concept that we ought to deport those who are here illegally.
We should deport many of those who are here illegally, but I would suggest we should show clemency for minor infractions (e.g., the person whose work visa is late arriving, so they overstay a visitor visa for a few weeks until they sort it out) and towards children who were born and have grown up here. We should also remember that people seeking asylum are not here illegally (despite the constant attempts of many to pretend they are).
Also, we have limited resources. Is this the biggest priority of how to spend tax receipts? I think we could do better at deporting people here illegally. Deportations have gone up under this Labour government, showing how improvements can be made on the prior administration's approach. But equally there are plenty of other causes that warrant attention, from Ukraine to the NHS.
We don't know the number of people here illegally. A million is probably the top end of the range of estimates.
We do not have citizenship or status by birthright, jus soli was taken off the statute book in 1983, you're basically proposing to bring it back out of what? Not being mean? And then what, we give the kid citizenship and the illegal immigrant parents get to stay under article 8. Your agenda is so obvious it's laughable.
MTV is shutting down most of its global channels at the end of the year, but in the 80s and 90s, the whole world was clamoring for access to the first ever 24-hour network dedicated to music videos. I spoke with Tom Freston, MTV cofounder and author of the new book “Unplugged,” about his extraordinary story:
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
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.
The "security concerns" have always been the acceptable public face of the imperial ambitions that are the Russian motivation.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
But you have just echoed exactly what I said in my initial post. The US and Core Europe has been too worried about the consequences of a Russian defeat to pursue it, both in economic and security terms. Their strategy instead is as described by DavidL earlier. You are arguing over nothing for the sake of 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.
That's just the execution of the policy though. I don't think there are many quibbles outside of the very liberal witg tge concept that we ought to deport those who are here illegally.
We should deport many of those who are here illegally, but I would suggest we should show clemency for minor infractions (e.g., the person whose work visa is late arriving, so they overstay a visitor visa for a few weeks until they sort it out) and towards children who were born and have grown up here. We should also remember that people seeking asylum are not here illegally (despite the constant attempts of many to pretend they are).
Also, we have limited resources. Is this the biggest priority of how to spend tax receipts? I think we could do better at deporting people here illegally. Deportations have gone up under this Labour government, showing how improvements can be made on the prior administration's approach. But equally there are plenty of other causes that warrant attention, from Ukraine to the NHS.
We don't know the number of people here illegally. A million is probably the top end of the range of estimates.
We do not have citizenship or status by birthright, jus soli was taken off the statute book in 1983, you're basically proposing to bring it back out of what? Not being mean? And then what, we give the kid citizenship and the illegal immigrant parents get to stay under article 8. Your agenda is so obvious it's laughable.
I'm not suggesting we introduce birthright citizenship, but I do also know the meaning of mercy, a central tenet of British values. If someone does not have a legal right to stay, but was born here (so their illegal status was not by their choice) and has lived here for 20 years, then we should consider the possibility of providing them with a path to remain legally. I believe most British people would support that.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
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.
That's just the execution of the policy though. I don't think there are many quibbles outside of the very liberal witg tge concept that we ought to deport those who are here illegally.
We should deport many of those who are here illegally, but I would suggest we should show clemency for minor infractions (e.g., the person whose work visa is late arriving, so they overstay a visitor visa for a few weeks until they sort it out) and towards children who were born and have grown up here. We should also remember that people seeking asylum are not here illegally (despite the constant attempts of many to pretend they are).
Also, we have limited resources. Is this the biggest priority of how to spend tax receipts? I think we could do better at deporting people here illegally. Deportations have gone up under this Labour government, showing how improvements can be made on the prior administration's approach. But equally there are plenty of other causes that warrant attention, from Ukraine to the NHS.
We don't know the number of people here illegally. A million is probably the top end of the range of estimates.
We do not have citizenship or status by birthright, jus soli was taken off the statute book in 1983, you're basically proposing to bring it back out of what? Not being mean? And then what, we give the kid citizenship and the illegal immigrant parents get to stay under article 8. Your agenda is so obvious it's laughable.
I'm not suggesting we introduce birthright citizenship, but I do also know the meaning of mercy, a central tenet of British values. If someone does not have a legal right to stay, but was born here (so their illegal status was not by their choice) and has lived here for 20 years, then we should consider the possibility of providing them with a path to remain legally. I believe most British people would support that.
So why wouldn't illegal immigrants just have a bunch of kids to ensure they can never get deported? Drag out court cases and appeals for multiple years so the kids have "integrated" into British life and then are able to get status and then the human rights lawyer uses article 8 to ensure their client is able to evade deportation. Suicidal empathy.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
But you have just echoed exactly what I said in my initial post. The US and Core Europe has been too worried about the consequences of a Russian defeat to pursue it, both in economic and security terms. Their strategy instead is as described by DavidL earlier. You are arguing over nothing for the sake of it.
The US under Biden and Europe have provided a huge amount of support for Ukraine. They are pursuing a Ukrainian victory. They could do more. That they aren't is for a variety of reasons, principally other calls on their money. (Obviously, the US under Trump is a very different animal. Your refusal to see that difference is another of your many blindspots.)
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.
That's just the execution of the policy though. I don't think there are many quibbles outside of the very liberal witg tge concept that we ought to deport those who are here illegally.
We should deport many of those who are here illegally, but I would suggest we should show clemency for minor infractions (e.g., the person whose work visa is late arriving, so they overstay a visitor visa for a few weeks until they sort it out) and towards children who were born and have grown up here. We should also remember that people seeking asylum are not here illegally (despite the constant attempts of many to pretend they are).
Also, we have limited resources. Is this the biggest priority of how to spend tax receipts? I think we could do better at deporting people here illegally. Deportations have gone up under this Labour government, showing how improvements can be made on the prior administration's approach. But equally there are plenty of other causes that warrant attention, from Ukraine to the NHS.
We don't know the number of people here illegally. A million is probably the top end of the range of estimates.
We do not have citizenship or status by birthright, jus soli was taken off the statute book in 1983, you're basically proposing to bring it back out of what? Not being mean? And then what, we give the kid citizenship and the illegal immigrant parents get to stay under article 8. Your agenda is so obvious it's laughable.
I'm not suggesting we introduce birthright citizenship, but I do also know the meaning of mercy, a central tenet of British values. If someone does not have a legal right to stay, but was born here (so their illegal status was not by their choice) and has lived here for 20 years, then we should consider the possibility of providing them with a path to remain legally. I believe most British people would support that.
So why wouldn't illegal immigrants just have a bunch of kids to ensure they can never get deported? Drag out court cases and appeals for multiple years so the kids have "integrated" into British life and then are able to get status and then the human rights lawyer uses article 8 to ensure their client is able to evade deportation. Suicidal empathy.
In my example, I described a 20 year old. If someone is 20 years old, there's no reason there not to deport their parents!
Empathy, pace Elon Musk, is not a bad thing. Empathy and mercy are British values. We should find a balance between enforcement and empathy. We don't protect British values by abandoning them ourselves.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
This is something I've been banging the drum on for donkeys years.
We actively penalise with a draconianly high real tax rate anyone who works over 16 (or whatever it is now) hours a week.
55% tax is more than anyone else would ever normally face, and we levy that ON TOP OF 20% and 8%. It is insane.
And now people can face 9% on top, if they deign to work full time minimum wage.
Our tax system is a bad joke.
People who work the bare minimum and then stop are acting according to the incentives our politicians are laying out.
What a Laffer-able situation we find ourselves in.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There isn't really a "cut-off" in UC - that's what you had under legacy benefits so that concept is out of date. If you work less than 18 hours there is a higher chance of getting a UC sanction, but you can still get one above that threshold. DWP publish stats on how many people are above or below that threshold - working with or without requirements. And the figure changes depending on your household composition, wage rate and so on.
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.
Ignoring the wishes of the East Ukrainians of course.
Christmas Day recommendation - beautiful, therapeutic, full of really interesting snippets of information. Perfect for after dinner, something for the whole family:
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
It's based on earnings not hours worked. So there is no time based cutoff. Only earnings.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There isn't really a "cut-off" in UC - that's what you had under legacy benefits so that concept is out of date. If you work less than 18 hours there is a higher chance of getting a UC sanction, but you can still get one above that threshold. DWP publish stats on how many people are above or below that threshold - working with or without requirements. And the figure changes depending on your household composition, wage rate and so on.
18 hours a week is not remotely full-time, but if you can maximise your rewards for minimal effort and risk at 18, and then the state will take ~80% of whatever you earn over 18 hours a week, then don't be shocked when many people mini-max their way to working exactly 18 hours and satisfying themselves with that.
Especially if that means eg only needing transport cost/bus ticket/whatever for 2 or 3 days rather than 5 days. Why put in 2 days extra work, and pay 2 days extra costs, to take no significant extra money home at the end of the month?
Happy applies to every other day of the year, on birthdays
Merry applies for one day
Merry means a bit drunk
Be merry!
Unfortunately the last few times I have had an alcoholic drink I have found that it's interacted with one of my prescriptions to make me maudlin and morose for ~48 hours. Not very merry at all.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
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.
I KNOW. I CORRECTED IT AS SOON AS I REALISED MY MISTAKE. I AM A BAD PERSON
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Happy applies to every other day of the year, on birthdays
Merry applies for one day
Merry means a bit drunk
Be merry!
Unfortunately the last few times I have had an alcoholic drink I have found that it's interacted with one of my prescriptions to make me maudlin and morose for ~48 hours. Not very merry at all.
But I do wish you a very merry Christmas.
I have a problem with any fun drinking day, I have a great time and then (even if I don't have an obvious hangover) I am flat and lifeless the next day and even longer. It obviously acts as a depressant, worse in the dark days of the winter.
But I am off to South East Asia next week for 6 weeks which I hope will drive the winter blues away.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
It's interesting because when you look at the point at which UC workers stop looking at work, it's at a METR of betwen 70% and 80%. For lone parents it maxes out at about 70%.
That might seem like madness, but when it's the difference between paying your energy bill and putting food on the table, people will work even when confronted at extraordinarily high tax rates (and a really rubbish job). For those lone parents, they are balancing that against looking after their children, so they'll stop working at a lower rate.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Didn't Joe Biden explicitly forbid Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries as part of his price for support? Even the supposed hawks have been oddly lukewarm.
Not quite, but close. The US under Biden is reported to have strongly discouraged Ukraine from attacking Russian refineries, but I don’t believe there was an explicit ban, nor quid pro quo. I think that was a mistake by Biden, and clearly now most European countries are supportive of Ukraine striking targets within Russia.
I’m not defending every decision taken by a Western country. They made many mistakes, and were too timid. But I reject this simplistic narrative that they don’t want Ukraine to win.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
You are always better off earning more with UC. Although there is a 55p taper (but this is obviously OK for higher rate taxpayers) and if you have additional costs such as transport or lunch* it might wipe them out.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
It's interesting because when you look at the point at which UC workers stop looking at work, it's at a METR of betwen 70% and 80%. For lone parents it maxes out at about 70%.
That might seem like madness, but when it's the difference between paying your energy bill and putting food on the table, people will work even when confronted at extraordinarily high tax rates (and a really rubbish job).
Except if they're not working full-time, they're not working. They're stopping working, when they really could work more, likely because of that real tax rate.
When people say that the vast majority of people on Universal Credit are working, has anyone provided the figures for those who are working more than eighteen hours per week, or whatever the cutoff is these days?
There is no cutoff. (Under the old benefits it was 15h59m)
There's no cutoff, but there are minimum work requirements on some people aren't there? In which case people work the minimum, then stop, as the real tax rates if you work any more are punitive.
There are some levels of earnings (not hours) where people technically don't *have* to do more hours but they do have to attend Jobcentre interviews to persuade them to do so.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Why bother working a few more hours if you won't take any more home at the end of the month?
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
It's not rocket science, but it is fiscally problematic.
To reduce the UC taper rate you need to do one of two things (or a combination of them). You need to find a lot of money to pay more UC, or you need to cut the rate of UC paid before deductions (taking money away from the poorest).
The easiest way I can think of to square the circle is to reduce housing costs.
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.
This is bollocks. Europe very much wants Ukraine to win, but they don't want to engage Russia directly and it's difficult for Ukraine to win. If you can't see clear blue water between the position of nearly every European country (barring Hungary etc.) and Trump's administration, then you fooling yourself.
How are those Taurus missiles going? How many barrels of Urals have been run in European refineries since Feb 2022?
That doesn't prove your overly simplistic claim. European governments have had to juggle the costs of weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels and the opposition of much of their electorates to paying more in tax, and the risks of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, with a desire for Ukrainian victory and Putin's fall. Life is much more complicated than you usually perceive.
Which sounds like they “they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss”
It's perfectly rational to be concerned about what might follow a decisive Russian loss, but, no, I don't think most European countries are "too frightened" of that. Europe is giving a huge amount of support to Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that if they were "too frightened".
Ukraine was pushed into a calamitous counter offensive in 2023, trying to cross deep mine fields that had a density of 5/m2 but without air support or long range missiles. It was no wonder that the engineers got picked off by Russian helicopters, meaning it quickly became a disaster.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
You’re the one living in a fantasy land. If the UK didn’t want to support Ukraine, the government would stop supporting Ukraine and spend that money elsewhere. But governments are swayed by domestic concerns. The result is a compromise. That’s not some careful calibration to “slowly boil the frog”. It’s just a messy compromise.
Comments
Two irrational numbers and an imaginary number make a whole number
And it just works..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBism#:~:text=In physics and the philosophy,quantum state for a qubit.
Mu nu mu nu
The number of irrationals is uncountably Aleph2 ℵ2 infinite, and I can prove it.
Uncountable is infinity to the power of infinity
I think..
I live in a strongly (by British standards) Muslim area but not all the Muslims come from Muslim countries - the Pakistanis obviously do but we have Muslims from the Balkans such as Albanians and Kosovans and Muslims from some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa so I think we need to define what we mean by "Islamic countries" as distinct from Muslims who come from countries which are either secular or in which Islam is a minority religion.
I see the children going to the madrassas after school and some Muslim parents argue they get taught maths and English better there than at UK state schools but if there are valid concerns such institutions are being used for radicalisation, that does need to be addressed.
As a broad brush, in my part of the world, the hijab is generally worn by the younger Muslim women before they marry at which point the husband (presumably) insists on the niqab - the burka is rare in these parts. If a younger woman is from a more conservative family, they might wear the niqab but it's unusual whereas the hijab is widely favoured.
The "compatibility of values" question is the nub of it. The problem lies, I suspect, in attitudes to non-believers and how they should be treated. A tolerant, democratic, plural and open society would expect, as a quid pro quo for freedom of worship, the respect of all faiths and any religion which cannot respect the rights of others to worship differently is causing a problem.
Those who wish to follow the Islamic faith, however, (or any faith) should have every right to do so as long as they act within and follow UK law.
Uncountable might be quite small. I don't think anyone knows what the minimal uncountable set is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
I should have made it clearer
I assume one of the piers was scoured - it looks like there is high sediment transport and therefore they should be inspected frequently.
What are the odds on that ever being repaired? Not high, I would guess.
Father and hIs son were the perpetrators of yesterday's outrage at Bondi Beach
16 confirmed as deceased
·
1m
BREAKING: Australian police say the two gunmen involved in the Bondi shooting were a father and son.
- A 50 year-old who had a licence for 6 firearms and is now dead.
- His 24 year-old son remains in hospital in a critical but stable condition.
I am using it by listing all the places I could have lost it, estimating the probability of each. Then once I have looked in them all withiut success, I estimate the chance of not finding it each place I have looked if it had been there, and multiplying it by the probability of it having been there.
Then I look in each place in the order of the resulting relative probability. The problem comes when I lose the piece of paper with the calculations on it and then have to use Bayes's theorem to find it.
2 to the the power of N0 = N1
Which is definitely consistent with what I claimed with “at least infinity squared”
Two to the power of infinity must be more than infinity squared
I will bet that concerns were raised. And ignored.
He wanted the best for the most
Pratinav Anil" (£)
https://unherd.com/2025/12/kenneth-clark-unlikely-socialist/
Which of course, acts in all directions.
Well, they aren't my nukes.
It's the only thing that makes complete sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxaQFpkBoNo
The Real Peter Mandelson
"Donald Macintyre's documentary was broadcast on 25 April 1999 as part of a series marking the second anniversary of the Labour government, but may have been greenlit before Mandelson's sudden resignation in December."
So there are an infinite number of rationals, and, at the same time the number of rationals is infinite.
Quirky!
Define "nasty"?
I agree that compatibility of values is the big question. What I think you fail to see, and this is a common failing among white liberals, is that as the proportion of Muslims in the population grows our laws and protections are watered down to appease the Islamic voting bloc. We already saw it with the government refusing to implement a ban on cousin marriage which has a causal link to kids being born with severe disabilities or the refusal to prosecute Muslim doctors who carry out FGM or parents who take their daughters back to their home countries to get that horrid procedure carried out on their daughters.
We water down our values to accommodate their barbarism and our society suffers as a whole. No the answer is not to appease Islamic values by accommodation and selective application of the law as we so often see, it's the opposite. Muslims in the UK must assimilate into our values system and if that is too big an ask then they need to be thinking about what it is they need to be doing and what compromises they should be making to fit into our values system.
Have a very merry Christmas
Especially in reply to those who say
Happy Christmas
Happy applies to every other day of the year, on birthdays
Merry applies for one day
Merry means a bit drunk
Be merry!
I think N0 squared just equals N0 i.e. still countable.
You put the integers in a grid and count them diagonally staring in the top left corner.
It's the diagonal method.
The same method as proving that the rationals are also N0.
NB I previously wrongly wrote about N1 and N2. It should of course been about N0 and N1.
You might have noticed.
EDIT Sorry. I see you have already conceded
And maybe infinity to the power of infinity
Which I think covers most possibilities?
Also, we have limited resources. Is this the biggest priority of how to spend tax receipts? I think we could do better at deporting people here illegally. Deportations have gone up under this Labour government, showing how improvements can be made on the prior administration's approach. But equally there are plenty of other causes that warrant attention, from Ukraine to the NHS.
We don't know the number of people here illegally. A million is probably the top end of the range of estimates.
2 to the the power of N0 = N1
Rather, whether that is or is not true is unprovable, and so you have to axiomatically choose it to be so or not.
Further to this, the election of a far right or far left government necessarily follows a period where significant societal problems seem thoroughly intractable, and thus extreme responses seem to be the only viable response to solve the problem (however rarely they are actually successful).
The trick, in my view, is to work hard to try not to allow your personal Overton window (if that is even a thing) to be shifted too far by the views of the society you are in without you realising it cf Republicans in the USA who have collectively, in my view, fallen down a rather deep and twisting rabbit hole.
Is a very hardline approach to immigration far right? Probably, on any reasonable definition. Is it way out of whack with the majority of UK citizens' views? I hope so, but don't profess to know a wide enough group of people with whom I can have honest political conversations to really know.
Zero chance they'll repair that. Will be a very expensive replacement but it's important for three of the key trails in that part of the would, so I'll certainly support the inevitable Sustrans campaign and they'll be many like me.
https://youtu.be/aLcZp3FhxP4?si=dC1IOhnla3rixqUR
@FareedZakaria
MTV is shutting down most of its global channels at the end of the year, but in the 80s and 90s, the whole world was clamoring for access to the first ever 24-hour network dedicated to music videos. I spoke with Tom Freston, MTV cofounder and author of the new book “Unplugged,” about his extraordinary story:
https://x.com/FareedZakaria/status/2000287307958468717
Empathy, pace Elon Musk, is not a bad thing. Empathy and mercy are British values. We should find a balance between enforcement and empathy. We don't protect British values by abandoning them ourselves.
Throughout, the timing and volume of support has been carefully calibrated to slowly boil the frog, without risking the sudden collapse of Russia’s army. Tanks, aviation, missiles…
The instructive moment was autumn 2022, when tens of thousands of stranded Russian soldiers were permitted to flee the right bank of the Dnieper. We found out some time afterwards (chapeau Bob Woodward) that the likelihood of “imminent nuclear exchange” at this time was assessed at 50% by US intelligence, based upon “exquisite intelligence”.
It is total fantasy to think there is any residual appetite by those that matter, for Russia to be chased out of Crimea, or every inch of the Donbas for that matter. Even the bastion of support the uk, prioritised first of all national insurance cuts and more recently public sector pay rises, over increased military spending to support Ukraine.
We actively penalise with a draconianly high real tax rate anyone who works over 16 (or whatever it is now) hours a week.
55% tax is more than anyone else would ever normally face, and we levy that ON TOP OF 20% and 8%. It is insane.
And now people can face 9% on top, if they deign to work full time minimum wage.
Our tax system is a bad joke.
People who work the bare minimum and then stop are acting according to the incentives our politicians are laying out.
What a Laffer-able situation we find ourselves in.
So there is no time based cutoff. Only earnings.
8 countries voted against the resolution on the Chornobyl:
Belarus
China
Cuba
North Korea
Nicaragua
Niger
Russia
United States
Especially if that means eg only needing transport cost/bus ticket/whatever for 2 or 3 days rather than 5 days. Why put in 2 days extra work, and pay 2 days extra costs, to take no significant extra money home at the end of the month?
But I do wish you a very merry Christmas.
It was instructive that when energy prices shot up we had an influx of people looking for a few more hours so they could pay them... not
Its an easy slip to make.
People aren't idiots.
Lower the real tax rate, and ensure anyone who works full time is better off than someone who is not.
Its not rocket science.
But I am off to South East Asia next week for 6 weeks which I hope will drive the winter blues away.
That might seem like madness, but when it's the difference between paying your energy bill and putting food on the table, people will work even when confronted at extraordinarily high tax rates (and a really rubbish job). For those lone parents, they are balancing that against looking after their children, so they'll stop working at a lower rate.
I’m not defending every decision taken by a Western country. They made many mistakes, and were too timid. But I reject this simplistic narrative that they don’t want Ukraine to win.
* why people can't make a packed lunch I don't know, I always did
To reduce the UC taper rate you need to do one of two things (or a combination of them). You need to find a lot of money to pay more UC, or you need to cut the rate of UC paid before deductions (taking money away from the poorest).
The easiest way I can think of to square the circle is to reduce housing costs.