The most long term effects often come from things not predicted and which seemed minor at the time.
For example did anyone foresee in the summer of 1990 that Iraq was about to invade Kuwait and that we would be dealing with the consequences a generation later ?
Yes, Iraq was deeply in debt to Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq war, the price of oil was too low to sustain payments, and Saddam had asked for permission to invade from the Americans.
And the Clash of Civilizations was written in 1996.
Yes the IMF have consistently been over optomistic!
So if you do not expect the IMF report to be accurate, what is your preferred source for predicting the economic consequences of Leave winning? Do you anticipate any effect at all?
You can't predict the future with certainty either way. That has to be clear.
We don't know the economic effects of staying in.
We do know that our non EU trade is growing much faster than our EU trade and we also know that the EU is stuck in a mire of it's own making to which it does not appear to have answers. (If it did then then it would have tried a working one before now).
We know we can't negotiate trade deals with non EU countries whilst in the EU.
So because you cannot predict with certainty then do not bother?
Do you expect any economic consequences at all of a Leave vote on stock and currency markets, GDP growth or other economic indicators? I am particularly thinking of the 1-5 year period.
The National Institute predicted economic growth of 1.9% in 2017, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 2.7% in the event of Remain.
The Treasury predicted growth of 30% by 2030, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 36% in the event of Remain.
Both in the short term, and long term, that's an acceptable level of risk, for me.
It should also be noted that they played fast and loose with population numbers in 2030 though.... dividing the 2030 GDP by 2015 number of households. If you assume there would be less after Brexit, you would be better off.
Two tips for the race (well, three, sort of). Been an awful season to date and these are pin the tail on the donkey bets. I shall be sacrificing a goat to Zeus to try and gain divine favour.
Yes the IMF have consistently been over optomistic!
So if you do not expect the IMF report to be accurate, what is your preferred source for predicting the economic consequences of Leave winning? Do you anticipate any effect at all?
You can't predict the future with certainty either way. That has to be clear.
We don't know the economic effects of staying in.
We do know that our non EU trade is growing much faster than our EU trade and we also know that the EU is stuck in a mire of it's own making to which it does not appear to have answers. (If it did then then it would have tried a working one before now).
We know we can't negotiate trade deals with non EU countries whilst in the EU.
So because you cannot predict with certainty then do not bother?
Do you expect any economic consequences at all of a Leave vote on stock and currency markets, GDP growth or other economic indicators? I am particularly thinking of the 1-5 year period.
The National Institute predicted economic growth of 1.9% in 2017, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 2.7% in the event of Remain.
The Treasury predicted growth of 30% by 2030, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 36% in the event of Remain.
Both in the short term, and long term, that's an acceptable level of risk, for me.
Is that growth in GDP or growth in GDP per capita ?
Its highly likely that immigration would be lower after Brexit (not to mention endless numbers of luvvies etc fleeing the post vote wasteland) so GDP per capita would be higher than basic GDP.
There would also be the effects on different socioeconomic demographics - higher GDP for C2s and Ds but lower for the rentier class.
Some of your 'debatable' category are more debatable than others.
2. Most would say Bernie has given Hillary a serious run for her money. Even if a win never seemed probable, at least it was possible. = GOP
4. So long as Hillary is the Dem candidate, I don't see Bloomberg entering the race and there is not other significant 3rd party/candidacy on the horizon. = GOP
8. What social unrest as has occurred has been in Dem strongholds, which are unlikely to shift to GOP, so mark as Dem.
10/11. The answer to these will be determined by your existing political affiliation, but overall I don't think the country thinks of Obama as having been a successful foreign policy president, and polling shows that the US standing in the world, while perhaps better than under Bush, is hardly back up to historical levels.
13. Trump clearly is charismatic. The question is will it help or hurt on balance.
This would put the GOP on 6, with 3 others that could fall in their favour. All in all, it indicates what my gut tells me - a close race currently that could, it everything goes right for Trump from here on out, turn into a very comfortable win for him at the electoral college.
2. Some might say that Sanders never had a real chance, but I would give you that.
4. So far there seems to be a steady 8-10% in the polls that would even choose fictional Deez Nuts for President, so I can't give that to the Dem's yet (according to the analysis 3rd party candidates usually hit incumbent parties).
8. No idea of how to quantify it, there have been sporadic riots over the years but does that count as social unrest ?
10/11. Obama doesn't seem to have a major foreign policy success or failure, small ones sure.
13. Trump is really the wild card.
So it could be a very close race with Trump's charisma playing as the decisive factor.
Trump's charisma though is almost a negative, aggressive charisma, it is not the likeable charisma of an Obama, a Dubya, Bill Clinton, Reagan or JFK
W didn't have charisma, so it's debatable. However that's why this election is going to be determined on Trump's stand-up comic act.
People are both entertained and offended by his act, which one will win ?
Yes the IMF have consistently been over optomistic!
So if you do not expect the IMF report to be accurate, what is your preferred source for predicting the economic consequences of Leave winning? Do you anticipate any effect at all?
You can't predict the future with certainty either way. That has to be clear.
We don't know the economic effects of staying in.
We do know that our non EU trade is growing much faster than our EU trade and we also know that the EU is stuck in a mire of it's own making to which it does not appear to have answers. (If it did then then it would have tried a working one before now).
We know we can't negotiate trade deals with non EU countries whilst in the EU.
So because you cannot predict with certainty then do not bother?
Do you expect any economic consequences at all of a Leave vote on stock and currency markets, GDP growth or other economic indicators? I am particularly thinking of the 1-5 year period.
The National Institute predicted economic growth of 1.9% in 2017, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 2.7% in the event of Remain.
The Treasury predicted growth of 30% by 2030, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 36% in the event of Remain.
Both in the short term, and long term, that's an acceptable level of risk, for me.
Is that growth in GDP or growth in GDP per capita ?
Its highly likely that immigration would be lower after Brexit (not to mention endless numbers of luvvies etc fleeing the post vote wasteland) so GDP per capita would be higher than basic GDP.
There would also be the effects on different socioeconomic demographics - higher GDP for C2s and Ds but lower for the rentier class.
They're the reason the "net deposits" figure on my betfair account is negative.
Point predictions are not informative. Every prediction should be qualified by the range of its uncertainty. The Bank of England does this beautifully with its famous fan charts. But strangely the fan charts in their latest quarterly Inflation Report show no widening compared to previously despite their assertion that the referendum is causing uncertainty.
Who can forget that after so many hopes were stored up last time, coming back home with a very measly return. I thought it was quite good actually but then what do I know?
Are you talking about David Cameron's EU deal or Eurovision?
Some of your 'debatable' category are more debatable than others.
2. Most would say Bernie has given Hillary a serious run for her money. Even if a win never seemed probable, at least it was possible. = GOP
4. So long as Hillary is the Dem candidate, I don't see Bloomberg entering the race and there is not other significant 3rd party/candidacy on the horizon. = GOP
8. What social unrest as has occurred has been in Dem strongholds, which are unlikely to shift to GOP, so mark as Dem.
10/11. The answer to these will be determined by your existing political affiliation, but overall I don't think the country thinks of Obama as having been a successful foreign policy president, and polling shows that the US standing in the world, while perhaps better than under Bush, is hardly back up to historical levels.
13. Trump clearly is charismatic. The question is will it help or hurt on balance.
This would put the GOP on 6, with 3 others that could fall in their favour. All in all, it indicates what my gut tells me - a close race currently that could, it everything goes right for Trump from here on out, turn into a very comfortable win for him at the electoral college.
2. Some might say that Sanders never had a real chance, but I would give you that.
4. So far there seems to be a steady 8-10% in the polls that would even choose fictional Deez Nuts for President, so I can't give that to the Dem's yet (according to the analysis 3rd party candidates usually hit incumbent parties).
8. No idea of how to quantify it, there have been sporadic riots over the years but does that count as social unrest ?
10/11. Obama doesn't seem to have a major foreign policy success or failure, small ones sure.
13. Trump is really the wild card.
So it could be a very close race with Trump's charisma playing as the decisive factor.
Trump's charisma though is almost a negative, aggressive charisma, it is not the likeable charisma of an Obama, a Dubya, Bill Clinton, Reagan or JFK
W didn't have charisma, so it's debatable. However that's why this election is going to be determined on Trump's stand-up comic act.
People are both entertained and offended by his act, which one will win ?
W certainly did have charisma, which was why Rove chose to work for him and certainly far more than Gore and Kerry. Trump is a divider not a uniter as you suggest, unlike most U.S. election winners but then so is Hillary which is why it will be a brutally negative campaign
Yes the IMF have consistently been over optomistic!
So if you do not expect the IMF report to be accurate, what is your preferred source for predicting the economic consequences of Leave winning? Do you anticipate any effect at all?
You can't predict the future with certainty either way. That has to be clear.
We don't know the economic effects of staying in.
We do know that our non EU trade is growing much faster than our EU trade and we also know that the EU is stuck in a mire of it's own making to which it does not appear to have answers. (If it did then then it would have tried a working one before now).
We know we can't negotiate trade deals with non EU countries whilst in the EU.
So because you cannot predict with certainty then do not bother?
Do you expect any economic consequences at all of a Leave vote on stock and currency markets, GDP growth or other economic indicators? I am particularly thinking of the 1-5 year period.
The National Institute predicted economic growth of 1.9% in 2017, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 2.7% in the event of Remain.
The Treasury predicted growth of 30% by 2030, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 36% in the event of Remain.
Both in the short term, and long term, that's an acceptable level of risk, for me.
It should also be noted that they played fast and loose with population numbers in 2030 though.... dividing the 2030 GDP by 2015 number of households. If you assume there would be less after Brexit, you would be better off.
I'm prepared to accept their figures at face value for the sake of argument. And if this really is the worst risk we run, I'd say "your point being?" in response.
Some of your 'debatable' category are more debatable than others.
2. Most would say Bernie has given Hillary a serious run for her money. Even if a win never seemed probable, at least it was possible. = GOP
4. So long as Hillary is the Dem candidate, I don't see Bloomberg entering the race and there is not other significant 3rd party/candidacy on the horizon. = GOP
8. What social unrest as has occurred has been in Dem strongholds, which are unlikely to shift to GOP, so mark as Dem.
10/11. The answer to these will be determined by your existing political affiliation, but overall I don't think the country thinks of Obama as having been a successful foreign policy president, and polling shows that the US standing in the world, while perhaps better than under Bush, is hardly back up to historical levels.
13. Trump clearly is charismatic. The question is will it help or hurt on balance.
This would put the GOP on 6, with 3 others that could fall in their favour. All in all, it indicates what my gut tells me - a close race currently that could, it everything goes right for Trump from here on out, turn into a very comfortable win for him at the electoral college.
2. Some might say that Sanders never had a real chance, but I would give you that.
4. So far there seems to be a steady 8-10% in the polls that would even choose fictional Deez Nuts for President, so I can't give that to the Dem's yet (according to the analysis 3rd party candidates usually hit incumbent parties).
8. No idea of how to quantify it, there have been sporadic riots over the years but does that count as social unrest ?
10/11. Obama doesn't seem to have a major foreign policy success or failure, small ones sure.
13. Trump is really the wild card.
So it could be a very close race with Trump's charisma playing as the decisive factor.
Trump's charisma though is almost a negative, aggressive charisma, it is not the likeable charisma of an Obama, a Dubya, Bill Clinton, Reagan or JFK
W didn't have charisma, so it's debatable.
I think it was usually described as "folksy charm".
Who can forget that after so many hopes were stored up last time, coming back home with a very measly return. I thought it was quite good actually but then what do I know?
Are you talking about David Cameron's EU deal or Eurovision?
A double ententre in Eurovision? Never!
My secretary asked for an example of a double entendre, so I gave her one.
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
he may have imported his contacts into facebook with your email
Mr. Llama, may just be an acquaintance that knows lots of people who have added you as a friend on Facebook.
Dr. Foxinsox, I sometimes take part in Twitter panels (did one with Jo Zebedee early April), and one was about comedy. I was quite pleased with my answer [as it was on the hoof] when someone asked me whether there was such a thing as a triple entendre.
I said there was, but I had never been fortunate to enjoy one myself.
Some of your 'debatable' category are more debatable than others.
2. Most would say Bernie has given Hillary a serious run for her money. Even if a win never seemed probable, at least it was possible. = GOP
4. So long as Hillary is the Dem candidate, I don't see Bloomberg entering the race and there is not other significant 3rd party/candidacy on the horizon. = GOP
8. What social unrest as has occurred has been in Dem strongholds, which are unlikely to shift to GOP, so mark as Dem.
10/11. The answer to these will be determined by your existing political affiliation, but overall I don't think the country thinks of Obama as having been a successful foreign policy president, and polling shows that the US standing in the world, while perhaps better than under Bush, is hardly back up to historical levels.
13. Trump clearly is charismatic. The question is will it help or hurt on balance.
This would put the GOP on 6, with 3 others that could fall in their favour. All in all, it indicates what my gut tells me - a close race currently that could, it everything goes right for Trump from here on out, turn into a very comfortable win for him at the electoral college.
2. Some might say that Sanders never had a real chance, but I would give you that.
4. So far there seems to be a steady 8-10% in the polls that would even choose fictional Deez Nuts for President, so I can't give that to the Dem's yet (according to the analysis 3rd party candidates usually hit incumbent parties).
8. No idea of how to quantify it, there have been sporadic riots over the years but does that count as social unrest ?
10/11. Obama doesn't seem to have a major foreign policy success or failure, small ones sure.
13. Trump is really the wild card.
So it could be a very close race with Trump's charisma playing as the decisive factor.
Trump's charisma though is almost a negative, aggressive charisma, it is not the likeable charisma of an Obama, a Dubya, Bill Clinton, Reagan or JFK
W didn't have charisma, so it's debatable.
I think it was usually described as "folksy charm".
It was said W would be a good man to invite to a BBQ.
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
Who can forget that after so many hopes were stored up last time, coming back home with a very measly return. I thought it was quite good actually but then what do I know?
Are you talking about David Cameron's EU deal or Eurovision?
A double ententre in Eurovision? Never!
The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for double entendre...
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
You probably know someone on his friends list
Thanks, Mr. Hyfud, and I might very well know people that X knows, in fact in the real world we almost certainly do given that we served together for a number of years, but how does FaceBook know of our second order connection? I have never used my FaceBook account it was created and that is as far as it has ever gone.
Mr. Llama, may just be an acquaintance that knows lots of people who have added you as a friend on Facebook.
Dr. Foxinsox, I sometimes take part in Twitter panels (did one with Jo Zebedee early April), and one was about comedy. I was quite pleased with my answer [as it was on the hoof] when someone asked me whether there was such a thing as a triple entendre.
I said there was, but I had never been fortunate to enjoy one myself.
O/T I'm reading a new series called the Sarantine Mosaic, by Guy Gavriel Kay, which I think you'd love. Very low magic fantasy, in the Byzantine Empire in the time of Justinian . Very enthralling.
Yes the IMF have consistently been over optomistic!
So if you do not expect the IMF report to be accurate, what is your preferred source for predicting the economic consequences of Leave winning? Do you anticipate any effect at all?
You can't predict the future with certainty either way. That has to be clear.
We don't know the economic effects of staying in.
We do know that our non EU trade is growing much faster than our EU trade and we also know that the EU is stuck in a mire of it's own making to which it does not appear to have answers. (If it did then then it would have tried a working one before now).
We know we can't negotiate trade deals with non EU countries whilst in the EU.
So because you cannot predict with certainty then do not bother?
Do you expect any economic consequences at all of a Leave vote on stock and currency markets, GDP growth or other economic indicators? I am particularly thinking of the 1-5 year period.
The National Institute predicted economic growth of 1.9% in 2017, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 2.7% in the event of Remain.
The Treasury predicted growth of 30% by 2030, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 36% in the event of Remain.
Both in the short term, and long term, that's an acceptable level of risk, for me.
It should also be noted that they played fast and loose with population numbers in 2030 though.... dividing the 2030 GDP by 2015 number of households. If you assume there would be less after Brexit, you would be better off.
I'm prepared to accept their figures at face value for the sake of argument. And if this really is the worst risk we run, I'd say "your point being?" in response.
My point being, that if we left the EU each household would be better of by £3980 per year. (Using the same rubbish as the treasury but correcting for the Conservative govt keeping migration targets in the event of Brexit).
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
You probably know someone on his friends list
Thanks, Mr. Hyfud, and I might very well know people that X knows, in fact in the real world we almost certainly do given that we served together for a number of years, but how does FaceBook know of our second order connection? I have never used my FaceBook account it was created and that is as far as it has ever gone.
Maybe he searched for you but because he couldn't identify that your profile was you, he didn't send a friend request.
Yes the IMF have consistently been over optomistic!
So if you do not expect the IMF report to be accurate, what is your preferred source for predicting the economic consequences of Leave winning? Do you anticipate any effect at all?
You can't predict the future with certainty either way. That has to be clear.
We don't know the economic effects of staying in.
We do know that our non EU trade is growing much faster than our EU trade and we also know that the EU is stuck in a mire of it's own making to which it does not appear to have answers. (If it did then then it would have tried a working one before now).
We know we can't negotiate trade deals with non EU countries whilst in the EU.
So because you cannot predict with certainty then do not bother?
Do you expect any economic consequences at all of a Leave vote on stock and currency markets, GDP growth or other economic indicators? I am particularly thinking of the 1-5 year period.
The National Institute predicted economic growth of 1.9% in 2017, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 2.7% in the event of Remain.
The Treasury predicted growth of 30% by 2030, in the event of Brexit, as opposed to 36% in the event of Remain.
Both in the short term, and long term, that's an acceptable level of risk, for me.
It should also be noted that they played fast and loose with population numbers in 2030 though.... dividing the 2030 GDP by 2015 number of households. If you assume there would be less after Brexit, you would be better off.
I'm prepared to accept their figures at face value for the sake of argument. And if this really is the worst risk we run, I'd say "your point being?" in response.
My point being, that if we left the EU each household would be better of by £3980 per year. (Using the same rubbish as the treasury but correcting for the Conservative govt keeping migration targets in the event of Brexit).
Mr. F, I've read Tigana, by Guy Gavriel Kay, and that's fantastic (fictional world). I did start a Byzantinesque fantasy of his, but it was so similar (Excubitors and so forth) it set me a bit on edge. Can't quite explain why, and may give it another go at some point.
Incidentally, hope you've had a look at Bane of Souls/Journey to Altmortis (more serious fantasy, by me).
On a less self-promoting note, I've recently enjoyed the two Sleeping Gods novels (more coming) by Ralph Kern, and the Stormlight Archives (again, two for now) by Brandon Sanderson.
Mr. Llama, may just be an acquaintance that knows lots of people who have added you as a friend on Facebook.
Dr. Foxinsox, I sometimes take part in Twitter panels (did one with Jo Zebedee early April), and one was about comedy. I was quite pleased with my answer [as it was on the hoof] when someone asked me whether there was such a thing as a triple entendre.
I said there was, but I had never been fortunate to enjoy one myself.
O/T I'm reading a new series called the Sarantine Mosaic, by Guy Gavriel Kay, which I think you'd love. Very low magic fantasy, in the Byzantine Empire in the time of Justinian . Very enthralling.
Thanks for the recommendation, Mr. F, and it does sound right up my street. Alas it is not available in Kindle format and thus, thanks to Herself's one in one out edict, I am not allowed to buy it.
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
You probably know someone on his friends list
Thanks, Mr. Hyfud, and I might very well know people that X knows, in fact in the real world we almost certainly do given that we served together for a number of years, but how does FaceBook know of our second order connection? I have never used my FaceBook account it was created and that is as far as it has ever gone.
If you are Facebook friends with anyone on his friends list, have interacted with them or have listed you have worked or studied at the same place Facebook will make a potential connection
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
Lots of different ways. Probably including but not limited to:
You share one or more mutual friends You told Facebook that you visited the same place, worked for the same employer etc at the same they did. You uploaded geocoded photographs with the same time/place that they did You liked the same things they did (photos, items etc) You subscribed to the same pages they did You appeared in their "recommended friends" but they didn't recognise you. People you searched for People that searched for you Giving Facebook access to your email account (it looks at your contacts list) Using the Facebook mobile client (it looks at your contact list unless you repeatedly say not to)
You have heard the bit of research about how every actor in hollywood is no more than 6 connections from Kevin Bacon ? Facebook do that same with you, they calculate a "friend distance", smaller number, more likely to know each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon
Edited extra bit: and Under Heaven does seem to be available in Kindle format.
Mr. D., "Sailing to Sarantium: Book One of the Sarantine Mosaic" on Amazon is available in hardback or paperback but not Kindle. I have no idea what an Mp3 audiobook is, but if it is like a talking book, then it is no use to me now that I have stopped driving - can wear headphones in bed.
Did I really read on the last thread a suggestion that Romanian migrants don't integrate? Perhaps they heard Farage say that they wouldn't be welcome if they tried.
OK completely off-topic but a question for the PB Brains Trust.
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
Lots of different ways. Probably including but not limited to:
You share one or more mutual friends You told Facebook that you visited the same place, worked for the same employer etc at the same they did. You uploaded geocoded photographs with the same time/place that they did You liked the same things they did (photos, items etc) You subscribed to the same pages they did You appeared in their "recommended friends" but they didn't recognise you. People you searched for People that searched for you Giving Facebook access to your email account (it looks at your contacts list) Using the Facebook mobile client (it looks at your contact list unless you repeatedly say not to)
You have heard the bit of research about how every actor in hollywood is no more than 6 connections from Kevin Bacon ? Facebook do that same with you, they calculate a "friend distance", smaller number, more likely to know each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon
Mssrs Hyfud and Indigo,
Thanks for your suggestions, all of which make perfect sense except for one small detail: FaceBook knows nothing about me but my name and my email address. I created the account with the minimum of information needed and have never even logged on to it since.
I regularly get emails from FaceBook appearing in my inbox saying, "You have 1 friend request" and usually I just delete them without reading but this one popped up saying "Do you know X" and it excited my interest as to how that connection could have been made.
Well done, Mr. D.! Quite why I had one page on Amazon saying Hardback or paperback and you had another saying Kindle or paperback is something to be explored. However, thanks to you I have purchased the book and looking forward to beddy-byes time so I can read it.
For now, however, Thomas is hungry and so I must away. Thanks all for some interesting conversation
Comments
And the Clash of Civilizations was written in 1996.
Betting PostExcessive wallet weight causing spinal twisting and lopsided gait? Follow Morris Dancer's F1 tips to lighten the load and ease your suffering:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/spain-pre-race-2016.html
Two tips for the race (well, three, sort of). Been an awful season to date and these are pin the tail on the donkey bets. I shall be sacrificing a goat to Zeus to try and gain divine favour.
They're the reason the "net deposits" figure on my betfair account is negative.
Its highly likely that immigration would be lower after Brexit (not to mention endless numbers of luvvies etc fleeing the post vote wasteland) so GDP per capita would be higher than basic GDP.
There would also be the effects on different socioeconomic demographics - higher GDP for C2s and Ds but lower for the rentier class.
However that's why this election is going to be determined on Trump's stand-up comic act.
People are both entertained and offended by his act, which one will win ?
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2016/04/osbornes-accountancy-is-very-creative.html
A double
ententreentendre in Eurovision? Never!nul points
Also for me (after correction).
I have a FaceBook account, created because I mistakenly understood I needed one for something that I was trying to do. I have never used it. This afternoon I have an email from FaceBook asking me if I know X. I do know a person by that name, we used to work together the best part of 20 years ago. I have checked that I do not have a current email address for X, though I do have a mobile phone number still on my contacts list on my Vodaphone mobile telephone.
Can someone please explain how companies like FaceBook make these connections?
Dr. Foxinsox, I sometimes take part in Twitter panels (did one with Jo Zebedee early April), and one was about comedy. I was quite pleased with my answer [as it was on the hoof] when someone asked me whether there was such a thing as a triple entendre.
I said there was, but I had never been fortunate to enjoy one myself.
"There would also be the effects on different socioeconomic demographics - higher GDP for C2s and Ds but lower for the rentier class."
Gosh. A vote to leave might mean the already wealthy might be, relatively or even absolutely, less well off? Never would have guessed.
Didn't you read my blog post here?
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2016/04/osbornes-accountancy-is-very-creative.html
Clinton 41 .. Trump 37
Clinton 56 .. Sanders 41
http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=15580
Incidentally, hope you've had a look at Bane of Souls/Journey to Altmortis (more serious fantasy, by me).
On a less self-promoting note, I've recently enjoyed the two Sleeping Gods novels (more coming) by Ralph Kern, and the Stormlight Archives (again, two for now) by Brandon Sanderson.
Edited extra bit: and Under Heaven does seem to be available in Kindle format.
You share one or more mutual friends
You told Facebook that you visited the same place, worked for the same employer etc at the same they did.
You uploaded geocoded photographs with the same time/place that they did
You liked the same things they did (photos, items etc)
You subscribed to the same pages they did
You appeared in their "recommended friends" but they didn't recognise you.
People you searched for
People that searched for you
Giving Facebook access to your email account (it looks at your contacts list)
Using the Facebook mobile client (it looks at your contact list unless you repeatedly say not to)
You have heard the bit of research about how every actor in hollywood is no more than 6 connections from Kevin Bacon ? Facebook do that same with you, they calculate a "friend distance", smaller number, more likely to know each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sailing-Sarantium-Guy-Gavriel-Kay-ebook/dp/B004L9MEY6/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1463243671&sr=1-1&keywords=sailing+sarantium
Thanks for your suggestions, all of which make perfect sense except for one small detail: FaceBook knows nothing about me but my name and my email address. I created the account with the minimum of information needed and have never even logged on to it since.
I regularly get emails from FaceBook appearing in my inbox saying, "You have 1 friend request" and usually I just delete them without reading but this one popped up saying "Do you know X" and it excited my interest as to how that connection could have been made.
For now, however, Thomas is hungry and so I must away. Thanks all for some interesting conversation
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD