So populism is bad, yet democracy is good. Perhaps it's the wrong sort of populism?
Or is democracy that's bad now? It's all so confusing for us thickos. Yes, I know the way we should all vote, so perhaps we are at fault for not obeying orders.
Yes, that's it. But if that's the case, why do we bother to vote and risk getting it wrong?
Could one of the superior people please explain to we of little brain, please?
They have missed out the PVV's actual 35% and shifted down to the next figure.
Does this mean Wilders will be the next PM, or will there be a coalition of the losers?
I would have thought coalition of losers more likely?
How can they be a coalition of losers if together they are more than 50% ? Nothing stops the racists getting their 50%, if they can.
So they are the losers.
I was just using RobD's terminology, ask him. Besides most normal people would say the party that got by far the most votes was the "winner" in the same way the people "with Her" moan that Hillary was the winner based on the popular vote...
The Dutch system, though, encourages an incredibly fragmented landscape with many similar parties. Does any other country - for example - have two different Green Parties, both represented in parliament (The Party for the Animals, and The GreenLeft). Likewise, there are two broadly similar Centre Right groups (the CDA and the VVD). Likewise, there are two different parties that are members of the ALDE.
I'd also note that Peil has consistently shown slightly strange results: it has more PVV voters agreeing with the statement "The Euro is good for the Netherlands" than disagreeing with it (which would presumably annoy Geert no end); and it has consistently has a much higher PVV share than - for example - Ipsos.
All that being said, the PVV is the red hot favourite to "win" the Dutch General elections. But with less than a quarter of the vote (and possibly less than 20%), it's hard to see what coalition they could put together.
Most polls put PVV on 30-35%, unless you think they are wrong?
30-35 seats: i.e. 20-23%.
OK, quarter of seats rather than quarter of the vote.
So populism is bad, yet democracy is good. Perhaps it's the wrong sort of populism?
Or is democracy that's bad now? It's all so confusing for us thickos. Yes, I know the way we should all vote, so perhaps we are at fault for not obeying orders.
Yes, that's it. But if that's the case, why do we bother to vote and risk getting it wrong?
Could one of the superior people please explain to we of little brain, please?
populism == voting for things I disagree with democracy == voting for things I agree with
hope that clears it up
*I is intended to portray a generic I rather than I as in me in particular
Percentages and seats combined on one graph? Disgusting!
In other words, they are quite safe.
I am not sure you can make that claim based on this one graph alone. What you want to see is the distribution of Lab-Lib Dem vote in leave and remain seats, and see which has more seats with smaller margins.
Too often though it is used as a device because the speaker knows they won't listen, and the reason they won't listen is because while it is something the speaker has a bee in their bonnet over the actual figures will make most go meh. The health campaigners are particularly prone to this with their scares, they know people will quite sensibly not be to bothered about an increase in risk from 0.01 to 0.02 percent so instead go with the doubles your risk line.
Not sure what we do about it as it is far too embedded now
On the other hand, relative percentages are sometimes more truthful than absolute ones. If interest rates fall from 2% to 1% that is "only" a drop of 1%, but to someone looking to live off the interest on a nest-egg it is a drop in their income of 50%. What I can't work out is what the general rule is which determines whether the relative or absolute percentage is more informative.
If you are given the absolute figures you can always work out the relative figures.
But not vice versa.
That is a good point, if you are capable of doing the math.
Mr. Pagan, surely the difference is of Greek or Latin derivation?
[Assuming I got that right. My knowledge of both is scantier than a banned Tube advert].
well not sure about populism but this is what a wiki has to say about the origins of democrcacy
Origins of Democracy
Democracy began in Ancient Athens during the 5th century BC. Athens was a slave society, so most Athenians had plenty of spare time on their hands. At that time, 80% of Athens' population was made up of philosophers, inventors and people that tell ridiculous stories about animals to try and convey complex life messages in one short sentence. To give themselves something to do, all citizens could discuss and vote on issues affecting the polis, or city state. From this word we draw our English words politics, the affairs of state, politicians, those who practice the affairs of state, and police, those who punish those who practice the affairs of state when it becomes known what those who practice the affairs of state have been doing.
The Ancient Athenian system worked until it was overthrown by the Athenians' main rival, the Spartans. The Spartans were fierce warriors, whose terrible battle practices including shouting "THIS IS NOUN!" at their enemies, long after it ceased to be funny. The Athenians were unable to respond to a crisis quickly due to the fact that their system of government was largely based around blaming one another for their problems.
The fall of the Athenian democracy at the hands of the Spartans In 13th century England, the nobles decided that King John wasn't really the right sort of chap and set about removing him. They forced the king to create a forum where they could meet to discuss issues, play poker and oggle wenches. They agreed that the people should choose who their representatives would be by election. The nobles promptly returned to their lands where they threatened to chop the feet off of anyone who voted against them. This would become a recurring feature of democracies around the world
Quite possibly significant here, as I recall that parties in Brussels only get funding if they are part of a multinational group sized above a threshold.
If 5* leave the group UKIP may suffer considerably financially.
Interesting. Looks like the 'it's ok we can all support Turkish entry to the EU as Cyprus will veto' politico brigade might have to change their tune...
Quite possibly significant here, as I recall that parties in Brussels only get funding if they are part of a multinational group sized above a threshold.
If 5* leave the group UKIP may suffer considerably financially.
Is this correct?
only for a couple of years till we no longer have mep's
Quite possibly significant here, as I recall that parties in Brussels only get funding if they are part of a multinational group sized above a threshold.
If 5* leave the group UKIP may suffer considerably financially.
Is this correct?
There will be no UKIP MEPs at all in a couple of years anyway.
Not enough being made of the fact the Ft Lauderdale gunman was a crap soldier named Santiago... maybe people just cant handle the truth!
The disappointment for many is that he is not an Arab or from North Africa or a Muslim from anywhere. Puerto Rican makes the story almost boring. These kind of fatalities happen in any large US city almost daily, thanks to the 2nd amendment.
Grillo is anti Euro not anti EU so not that surprising now the UK will be leaving the EU and not standing candidates in the next European Parliamentary elections in 2019
Not enough being made of the fact the Ft Lauderdale gunman was a crap soldier named Santiago... maybe people just cant handle the truth!
The disappointment for many is that he is not an Arab or from North Africa or a Muslim from anywhere. Puerto Rican makes the story almost boring. These kind of fatalities happen in any large US city almost daily, thanks to the 2nd amendment.
I don't seem to remember anyone expressing disappointment at that fact here? Making things up or can you provide a quote?
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.
Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.
@Plato, @Pagan I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?
how about just saying eating albatrosses will raise your risk from 0.1 to 0,5. Then people can make up their own mind whether they feel the value of eating albatross is worth the risk. Saying merely it will make you 5 times more likely is pure fear mongering
I think that's the best solution.
But would 0.1% percent per year be fairly represented by 100% per thousand years? And then you raise your chance to 500% if you eat albatross. I know the answer to this, but I don't know how to portray it.
Not enough being made of the fact the Ft Lauderdale gunman was a crap soldier named Santiago... maybe people just cant handle the truth!
The disappointment for many is that he is not an Arab or from North Africa or a Muslim from anywhere. Puerto Rican makes the story almost boring. These kind of fatalities happen in any large US city almost daily, thanks to the 2nd amendment.
We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.
Not enough being made of the fact the Ft Lauderdale gunman was a crap soldier named Santiago... maybe people just cant handle the truth!
The disappointment for many is that he is not an Arab or from North Africa or a Muslim from anywhere. Puerto Rican makes the story almost boring. These kind of fatalities happen in any large US city almost daily, thanks to the 2nd amendment.
I think I see far more posts commenting on this supposed disappointment than posts where any sort of disappointment could be implied.
Not enough being made of the fact the Ft Lauderdale gunman was a crap soldier named Santiago... maybe people just cant handle the truth!
The disappointment for many is that he is not an Arab or from North Africa or a Muslim from anywhere. Puerto Rican makes the story almost boring. These kind of fatalities happen in any large US city almost daily, thanks to the 2nd amendment.
I don't seem to remember anyone expressing disappointment at that fact here? Making things up or can you provide a quote?
People are just making it up to make themselves feel good. Same people got a hard on when they found out Jo Cox's killer shouted " Put Britain First"
Quite possibly significant here, as I recall that parties in Brussels only get funding if they are part of a multinational group sized above a threshold.
If 5* leave the group UKIP may suffer considerably financially.
Is this correct?
There will be no UKIP MEPs at all in a couple of years anyway.
Does anyone have any idea what will happen to EU pension rights already accrued by UK EU staff & elected members, once we leave?
Was the principle involved addressed by Scotland's independence referendum?
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.
Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.
@Plato, @Pagan I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?
how about just saying eating albatrosses will raise your risk from 0.1 to 0,5. Then people can make up their own mind whether they feel the value of eating albatross is worth the risk. Saying merely it will make you 5 times more likely is pure fear mongering
I think that's the best solution.
But would 0.1% percent per year be fairly represented by 100% per thousand years? And then you raise your chance to 500% if you eat albatross. I know the answer to this, but I don't know how to portray it.
Guarantee me I will live a thousand years and will die definitely by the end of it if I eat albatross and I will accept the risk
Quite possibly significant here, as I recall that parties in Brussels only get funding if they are part of a multinational group sized above a threshold.
If 5* leave the group UKIP may suffer considerably financially.
Is this correct?
There will be no UKIP MEPs at all in a couple of years anyway.
Does anyone have any idea what will happen to EU pension rights already accrued by UK EU staff & elected members, once we leave?
Was the principle involved addressed by Scotland's independence referendum?
The pensions issue has been mentioned on here before, but I'm not sure we ever got to the bottom of it.
Those employed by the EU pay EU income tax to the EU directly, rather than to their member state, but it will certainly be part of the 'divorce' negotiations to determine how these pensions will be paid in the future. I'm guessing there's a few hundred Brits claiming EU pensions right now, does anyone have an accurate number?
'competition between different Western states....will inevitably reduce the collective effectiveness of all of the Western countries'
by similar reasoning to that used when you/they thought cooperation between countries based around the adoption of a single currency would inevitably enhance their collective effectiveness?
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.
Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.
@Plato, @Pagan I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?
how about just saying eating albatrosses will raise your risk from 0.1 to 0,5. Then people can make up their own mind whether they feel the value of eating albatross is worth the risk. Saying merely it will make you 5 times more likely is pure fear mongering
I think that's the best solution.
But would 0.1% percent per year be fairly represented by 100% per thousand years? And then you raise your chance to 500% if you eat albatross. I know the answer to this, but I don't know how to portray it.
Guarantee me I will live a thousand years and will die definitely by the end of it if I eat albatross and I will accept the risk
On a more serious note however when you say gives you x% of y happening, it also depends on whether x is cumulative or not
not for example is flipping a coin, 50% to come up heads. You flip tails, on the next flip the coin still only has a 50% chance of coming up heads. The past does not inform the present
however if you have a bag with 3 blue balls and 3 red balls the chance on you first draw of getting a blue ball is 50% if the ball you draw isnt returned then the chance of drawing a blue ball second time (assuming a red ball was drawn and not returned) has now gone up
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.
Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.
@Plato, @Pagan I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?
how about just saying eating albatrosses will raise your risk from 0.1 to 0,5. Then people can make up their own mind whether they feel the value of eating albatross is worth the risk. Saying merely it will make you 5 times more likely is pure fear mongering
I think that's the best solution.
But would 0.1% percent per year be fairly represented by 100% per thousand years? And then you raise your chance to 500% if you eat albatross. I know the answer to this, but I don't know how to portray it.
Guarantee me I will live a thousand years and will die definitely by the end of it if I eat albatross and I will accept the risk
Dr. Foxinsox, that is correct, although (if we leave) the EU money will vanish anyway for UKIP. May accelerate the timetable, though.
The significance is that UKIP will be damaged financially in the period between A50 and Brexit. In combination with a reduction in membership and loss of big donors, it may well impact significantly adversely.
(I think the money is supposed to be spent on office costs in Brussels, but even so...)
Incidentally, this entire threader is the most egregious piffle, as it ignores the overwhelming impact of the new tech revolution, from driverless cars to AI to VR to robotisation to drones to voice-command computers to t'internet of tings.
All these are gonna arrive AT ONCE - in the same generation. This is what will transform lives, not the loosening of a European trading bloc.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
That's just one huge change out of dozens, coming to us all very quickly.
VR I think maybe a game changer, having tried the current tech I think we arent far away. Good enough translation in real time is already here and voice command...good enough again is already here
Incidentally, this entire threader is the most egregious piffle, as it ignores the overwhelming impact of the new tech revolution, from driverless cars to AI to VR to robotisation to drones to voice-command computers to t'internet of tings.
All these are gonna arrive AT ONCE - in the same generation. This is what will transform lives, not the loosening of a European trading bloc.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
That's just one huge change out of dozens, coming to us all very quickly.
Not enough being made of the fact the Ft Lauderdale gunman was a crap soldier named Santiago... maybe people just cant handle the truth!
The disappointment for many is that he is not an Arab or from North Africa or a Muslim from anywhere. Puerto Rican makes the story almost boring. These kind of fatalities happen in any large US city almost daily, thanks to the 2nd amendment.
I don't seem to remember anyone expressing disappointment at that fact here? Making things up or can you provide a quote?
Surbiton just can't help himself.
I was on here as events unfolded and I saw nothing like he describes.
The FBI has said the attack was pre -planned and there might be more to come on this - but lets wait and see.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
Quite possibly significant here, as I recall that parties in Brussels only get funding if they are part of a multinational group sized above a threshold.
If 5* leave the group UKIP may suffer considerably financially.
Is this correct?
There will be no UKIP MEPs at all in a couple of years anyway.
Does anyone have any idea what will happen to EU pension rights already accrued by UK EU staff & elected members, once we leave?
Was the principle involved addressed by Scotland's independence referendum?
The pensions issue has been mentioned on here before, but I'm not sure we ever got to the bottom of it.
Those employed by the EU pay EU income tax to the EU directly, rather than to their member state, but it will certainly be part of the 'divorce' negotiations to determine how these pensions will be paid in the future. I'm guessing there's a few hundred Brits claiming EU pensions right now, does anyone have an accurate number?
It's an interesting hypothetical question. Are we responsible for ongoing liabilities (i.e. pensions) for people employed by an organisation of which we were a member*?
Phrased like that, the answer would likely be no.
But if we were a corporate spinning off a subsidiary, to use an analogy, there is no doubt that we would retain obligations. Firms cannot dispose of unwanted obligations (particularly when then encroach on employment) by putting them in separate entities and spinning them off.
My guess is that this will be solved without any (upfront) monetary payment by simply transferring the pensions to HMG. This means we won't send any money to Brussels, and that - theoretically - pensions for MEPs could be moved to errr... more standard terms.
* My understanding is that being a member of the EU is like being the member of a partnership.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
what you have to remember is for most things absolute precision doesnt matter as long as the gist gets across, only really legal documents that do
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
That's what leads to incongruous English-based neologisms in foreign languages! You'll end up with people dropping 'butt-hurt' into casual debate in the Spanish parliament.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
I was recently telling a friend of mine about some of the machine learning training data sets that I've seen, what has surprised me is how broadly machine learning is being applied. It's not just the usual suspects of computer vision and machine translation that companies are working on, almost any job that is desk based that you can think of is being worked on right now.
That lead to another thing clicking for me, jobs that have a physical component are likely much safer than more intellectual jobs. We read a lot about self-driving cars, but those are exceptional, driving is in reality a very regulated and constrained activity. It is the typical office job, and many professional jobs, that will be picked off by the robots long before they are doing the plumbing.
Of course maybe this is all hot air, and AI will fail again, as it has done repeatedly since the 60s, and the tech industry will get bored of it. But if it doesn't fail some really profound changes to society are just over the horizon.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
We all got what it meant though. Something we do means that this string of characters produced by SeanT has meaning. Given that meaning is there, are we really saying that it's somehow beyond the natural world?
Incidentally, this entire threader is the most egregious piffle, as it ignores the overwhelming impact of the new tech revolution, from driverless cars to AI to VR to robotisation to drones to voice-command computers to t'internet of tings.
All these are gonna arrive AT ONCE - in the same generation. This is what will transform lives, not the loosening of a European trading bloc.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
That's just one huge change out of dozens, coming to us all very quickly.
It is amazing that we are living at the most pivotal moment in history since that hominid did the thing with the bone at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Cash money, and writing stuff on paper, vanishing in a generation after 5000 years of being the only game in town; Kitty Hawk to the moon in a lifetime. Banal but still deeply striking.
Not another "Brexit means the end of the world" article.
One of the fallacies about the Brexit vote seems to be the "52% v 48%", Outers vs Remainers. There were not two blocks but actually three:
1. Those who voted for Brexit - they might have had different reasons but it was a "positive" choice (in the sense that they wanted it). Nobody voted for Brexit thinking it was not a risk.
2. Ardent remainers - those who were positive about the EU, liked it and have been upset about the result. Living in Highgate, I meet a lot of people who are like this.
3. Reluctant Remainers - the category that gets talked about the least. Those who voted for Remain because they were scared about the economic consequences but whose heart was for Brexit. One friend who voted Remain summed it up very well by saying about his vote "I have never felt so dirty casting a vote". Funnily enough, there are a lot of these in the City.
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
I was recently telling a friend of mine about some of the machine learning training data sets that I've seen, what has surprised me is how broadly machine learning is being applied. It's not just the usual suspects of computer vision and machine translation that companies are working on, almost any job that is desk based that you can think of is being worked on right now.
That lead to another thing clicking for me, jobs that have a physical component are likely much safer than more intellectual jobs. We read a lot about self-driving cars, but those are exceptional, driving is in reality a very regulated and constrained activity. It is the typical office job, and many professional jobs, that will be picked off by the robots long before they are doing the plumbing.
Of course maybe this is all hot air, and AI will fail again, as it has done repeatedly since the 60s, and the tech industry will get bored of it. But if it doesn't fail some really profound changes to society are just over the horizon.
On the BBC news the other day there was a Black bloke who spoke in an African accent, but was from Manchester, who had gone to the big inventions show or something in Las Vegas I think? His big invention was said Babelfish earpods
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
Incidentally, this entire threader is the most egregious piffle, as it ignores the overwhelming impact of the new tech revolution, from driverless cars to AI to VR to robotisation to drones to voice-command computers to t'internet of tings.
All these are gonna arrive AT ONCE - in the same generation. This is what will transform lives, not the loosening of a European trading bloc.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
That's just one huge change out of dozens, coming to us all very quickly.
It is amazing that we are living at the most pivotal moment in history since that hominid did the thing with the bone at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Cash money, and writing stuff on paper, vanishing in a generation after 5000 years of being the only game in town; Kitty Hawk to the moon in a lifetime. Banal but still deeply striking.
Yeah, the era of well paid CDE jobs is history, ad does also drive the current populism.
The Eloi wiil prosper, the Morlochs less so.
On the other hand we could invent new jobs, as we have done right since the dawn of the machine age.
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
So reluctant that the murder of a pretty, pro EU politician by a facist leaver didn't sway them?
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
ah you mean folk that weren't quite convinced by clegg telling us there were no plans for a eu army? They must be mightily reassured now and thinking of changing their vote
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
ah you mean folk that weren't quite convinced by clegg telling us there were no plans for a eu army? They must be mightily reassured now and thinking of changing their vote
You get all sorts. I've spoken to ardent Brexiteers who'd actually be quite happy with an elected Commission and full-on superstate. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is the way to go.
Not another "Brexit means the end of the world" article.
One of the fallacies about the Brexit vote seems to be the "52% v 48%", Outers vs Remainers. There were not two blocks but actually three:
1. Those who voted for Brexit - they might have had different reasons but it was a "positive" choice (in the sense that they wanted it). Nobody voted for Brexit thinking it was not a risk.
Really? Those "leave"-voting areas in receipt of EU subsidies e.g. the Welsh Valleys seemed shocked after the event that leaving the EU might actually risk the end of the subsidies.
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
ah you mean folk that weren't quite convinced by clegg telling us there were no plans for a eu army? They must be mightily reassured now and thinking of changing their vote
You get all sorts. I've spoken to ardent Brexiteers who'd actually be quite happy with an elected Commission and full-on superstate. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is the way to go.
If we had voted remain I would have been the first to say we should go all in. No point being half in , half out. We didn't so over and done with. People like you are free to argue for rejoining if you like and good luck with that. Brexit will be good in some areas and bad in others
The commission and the superstate itself were not the problems - the problem was the interests of the commission were not aligned with the wishes of most British people.
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
ah you mean folk that weren't quite convinced by clegg telling us there were no plans for a eu army? They must be mightily reassured now and thinking of changing their vote
You get all sorts. I've spoken to ardent Brexiteers who'd actually be quite happy with an elected Commission and full-on superstate. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is the way to go.
If we had voted remain I would have been the first to say we should go all in. No point being half in , half out. We didn't so over and done with. People like you are free to argue for rejoining if you like and good luck with that. Brexit will be good in some areas and bad in others
The eu is also good in some areas and bad in others
I voted for what I felt best for the country. However....
I suspect the definition of "best for the country" differs from poster to poster here
My definition of country is the people that inhabit it, if it is good for the majority then it is good for the country
Others look at things like increasing gdp and say thats good for the country even though it might mean its worse for a majority of the country
A country to mind is a human concept - therefore the only way to say "this is good for the country" is to show that the majority of the people have benefitted from it. I firmly believe the eu fails that test. People have benefitted from it sure, however they are not the majority of the country
Not another "Brexit means the end of the world" article.
One of the fallacies about the Brexit vote seems to be the "52% v 48%", Outers vs Remainers. There were not two blocks but actually three:
1. Those who voted for Brexit - they might have had different reasons but it was a "positive" choice (in the sense that they wanted it). Nobody voted for Brexit thinking it was not a risk.
Really? Those "leave"-voting areas in receipt of EU subsidies e.g. the Welsh Valleys seemed shocked after the event that leaving the EU might actually risk the end of the subsidies.
You seem to forget that the UK is a net contributor to EU coffers.
Seriously, though, huge congratulations to Nigel Farage on landing his dream job.
Even Beppe Grillo's given up on him. By the end of the year he'll be sitting in a pub somewhere telling everyone, "That Donald Trump, he met me once you know?"
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.
Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.
@Plato, @Pagan I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?
Not another "Brexit means the end of the world" article.
One of the fallacies about the Brexit vote seems to be the "52% v 48%", Outers vs Remainers. There were not two blocks but actually three:
1. Those who voted for Brexit - they might have had different reasons but it was a "positive" choice (in the sense that they wanted it). Nobody voted for Brexit thinking it was not a risk.
Really? Those "leave"-voting areas in receipt of EU subsidies e.g. the Welsh Valleys seemed shocked after the event that leaving the EU might actually risk the end of the subsidies.
I am not sure that is a correct reading of the situation in Wales.
What has happened is that the Bevan Foundation has published a report on why the EU funds made little difference.
"Despite 16 years of the EU’s maximum level of help, Blaenau Gwent – the most pro-leave local authority area in Wales – saw a decline in the number of jobs in the area. Neighbouring Merthyr Tydfil, Caerphilly and Torfaen, also leave-voting areas, saw barely perceptible growth (2 – 3,000 more jobs in each). If these towns were ‘showered with cash’ it appears to have gone straight down the drain." (The Bevan Foundation)
Politicians wasted the money and it went "straight down the drain."
Most non-Labour voters in Wales could see the money was being almost entirely wasted. The Bevan Foundation -- as suggested by its hat-tipping name, a Labour dominated think-tank -- has now come to the same conclusion.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.
Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.
@Plato, @Pagan I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?
It's called relative risk.a useful concept
Sorry charles that is bollocks
a doubled chance from 25% to 50% is a huge difference from a doubled chance from 0.00001% to 0.00002%
Incidentally, this entire threader is the most egregious piffle, as it ignores the overwhelming impact of the new tech revolution, from driverless cars to AI to VR to robotisation to drones to voice-command computers to t'internet of tings.
All these are gonna arrive AT ONCE - in the same generation. This is what will transform lives, not the loosening of a European trading bloc.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
That's just one huge change out of dozens, coming to us all very quickly.
It is amazing that we are living at the most pivotal moment in history since that hominid did the thing with the bone at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Cash money, and writing stuff on paper, vanishing in a generation after 5000 years of being the only game in town; Kitty Hawk to the moon in a lifetime. Banal but still deeply striking.
Yeah, the era of well paid CDE jobs is history, ad does also drive the current populism.
The Eloi wiil prosper, the Morlochs less so.
On the other hand we could invent new jobs, as we have done right since the dawn of the machine age.
Perhaps, once the automation business is well-established, it will become a mark of status/chic to have work carried out for you by humans.
Although whether anyone will bother to educate/train people by then is open to question. Why bother to learn to read?
Not another "Brexit means the end of the world" article.
One of the fallacies about the Brexit vote seems to be the "52% v 48%", Outers vs Remainers. There were not two blocks but actually three:
1. Those who voted for Brexit - they might have had different reasons but it was a "positive" choice (in the sense that they wanted it). Nobody voted for Brexit thinking it was not a risk.
Really? Those "leave"-voting areas in receipt of EU subsidies e.g. the Welsh Valleys seemed shocked after the event that leaving the EU might actually risk the end of the subsidies.
You seem to forget that the UK is a net contributor to EU coffers.
If we keep the regional subsidies and the agricultural subsidies then the £350 million per week for the NHS is going to be hard to find. We might need to call on the Red Cross for their ambulances... Oh Wait...
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
" los Meeks " , one is plenty.
Why doesn't Alastair get the same level of protection from the PB Mods as other thread writers? He gets more abuse than anyone else
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
ah you mean folk that weren't quite convinced by clegg telling us there were no plans for a eu army? They must be mightily reassured now and thinking of changing their vote
You get all sorts. I've spoken to ardent Brexiteers who'd actually be quite happy with an elected Commission and full-on superstate. Sometimes calling a spade a spade is the way to go.
Get with the programme. We voted Brexit to cure the egregiously unfair society we have somehow found ourselves living in.
Just dropping by. I'm unsurprised to find out that Leavers are firmly of the belief that it'll be ok because reasons. I was hoping that a few Leavers could give some explanations why increased dissension and division among western states was good news. Few have even attempted to do so.
To answer a few of the points made:
1) The words "This is not a new trend" should have been a clue to others that I didn't think that this was a new trend.
2) An article about the Titanic that concentrated on the fresh supply of ice cubes for the first class lounge would not, even though optimistic, have been conducive to sanity. Sometimes grim inevitability needs to be stared in the face.
3) Anyone interested in considering counterfactuals is encouraged to write their own article on the subject.
4) An article about the consequences of Brexit and Donald Trump is sadly unlikely to cover technological changes in any depth, however interesting @SeanT might find them, sober, drunk or hungover.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
" los Meeks " , one is plenty.
Why doesn't Alastair get the same level of protection from the PB Mods as other thread writers? He gets more abuse than anyone else
simple answer, click bait. They know columns from him will stir people and that drives clicks which pays advertising revenue
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
" los Meeks " , one is plenty.
Why doesn't Alastair get the same level of protection from the PB Mods as other thread writers? He gets more abuse than anyone else
I really don't give a toss what people care to write about me personally. Most of it is laughably inaccurate and to the extent it isn't, hey ho. My arguments are my arguments and if the small minds want to discuss people rather than events or ideas, that's their choice.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
I was recently telling a friend of mine about some of the machine learning training data sets that I've seen, what has surprised me is how broadly machine learning is being applied. It's not just the usual suspects of computer vision and machine translation that companies are working on, almost any job that is desk based that you can think of is being worked on right now.
That lead to another thing clicking for me, jobs that have a physical component are likely much safer than more intellectual jobs. We read a lot about self-driving cars, but those are exceptional, driving is in reality a very regulated and constrained activity. It is the typical office job, and many professional jobs, that will be picked off by the robots long before they are doing the plumbing.
Of course maybe this is all hot air, and AI will fail again, as it has done repeatedly since the 60s, and the tech industry will get bored of it. But if it doesn't fail some really profound changes to society are just over the horizon.
Bluecollar jobs have already been hit by automation with the decline of mass manufacturing etc, professional jobs too are also now at risk beyond the most creative. A universal basic income is inevitable eventually to cover the fact that the jobs which are available for most people will be more part time and require more flexible working and retraining
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
There are of course also reluctant Brexiteers. People who would have liked to vote Remain but either weren't quite comfortable with the direction the EU was going, or 'events' like the migration or sovereign debt crises, or simply that they believed the 'it'll be alright on the night' arguments of Johnson and Gove. These people's opinion could still prove volatile, especially if they come to believe that they were lied to by the campaign.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
" los Meeks " , one is plenty.
Why doesn't Alastair get the same level of protection from the PB Mods as other thread writers? He gets more abuse than anyone else
I really don't give a toss what people care to write about me personally. Most of it is laughably inaccurate and to the extent it isn't, hey ho. My arguments are my arguments and if the small minds want to discuss people rather than events or ideas, that's their choice.
Just dropping by. I'm unsurprised to find out that Leavers are firmly of the belief that it'll be ok because reasons. I was hoping that a few Leavers could give some explanations why increased dissension and division among western states was good news. Few have even attempted to do so.
To answer a few of the points made:
1) The words "This is not a new trend" should have been a clue to others that I didn't think that this was a new trend.
2) An article about the Titanic that concentrated on the fresh supply of ice cubes for the first class lounge would not, even though optimistic, have been conducive to sanity. Sometimes grim inevitability needs to be stared in the face.
3) Anyone interested in considering counterfactuals is encouraged to write their own article on the subject.
4) An article about the consequences of Brexit and Donald Trump is sadly unlikely to cover technological changes in any depth, however interesting @SeanT might find them, sober, drunk or hungover.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not on the Titanic that people kept dancing for some time after the collision because the ship was supposed to be unsinkable?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not on the Titanic that people kept dancing for some time after the collision because the ship was supposed to be unsinkable?
When advised to head for the lifeboats they apparently replied "We have had quite enough of experts'...
Oh! This is new! Meeks says the world ended because of Brexit and sliced bread won't taste the same! Alastair you are 'too negative all in one go'.
Even if it's only for your own sanity find some positives about where we find ourselves. Many may not like it but endless gloom seems no recipe for the future.
@Plato, @Pagan I agree that the doubling of a low rate seems dramatic but is meaningless, and almost certainly the margin of error actually means you can't conclude any such thing at all. However if your cancer risk is say 0.1% per year and it rises to 0.5% per year because you eat albatrosses then that's big - and how do you convey a quintupling without just saying it?
It's called relative risk.a useful concept
Sorry charles that is bollocks
a doubled chance from 25% to 50% is a huge difference from a doubled chance from 0.00001% to 0.00002%
Number Needed to Treat is the way to go.
Big pharma is always keen to push relative risk, it helps sales.
My example is more thought provoking. Would you take warfarin (with monthly blood tests, and side effects) for 10 years for a 95% chance over a decade that it was a wasted effort?
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
Which of course is bollocks. Do you think it could ever possibly give an adequate instantaneous translation of a sentence like, "The Butt-Hurt of the Meeks is strong, this evening?" Your translators will still be earning their fees for a long time to come.
El Butt-Hurt de los Meeks es fuerte, esta noche
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
" los Meeks " , one is plenty.
Why doesn't Alastair get the same level of protection from the PB Mods as other thread writers? He gets more abuse than anyone else
I really don't give a toss what people care to write about me personally. Most of it is laughably inaccurate and to the extent it isn't, hey ho. My arguments are my arguments and if the small minds want to discuss people rather than events or ideas, that's their choice.
"My argument is my argument" would be more accurate. As Disraeli said about someone or other "He had only one idea, and that was wrong."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not on the Titanic that people kept dancing for some time after the collision because the ship was supposed to be unsinkable?
When advised to head for the lifeboats they apparently replied "We have had quite enough of experts'...
The Titanic was comprehensively designed by experts to stay afloat long enough in the event of a collision/accident to "act as it's own lifeboat"
Agreed with this post until paragraph 4 - "this will inevitably reduce the collective effectiveness of all Western Governments. So Western governments will be weaken relative to other countries."
This is speculation at best, and there are good historical/economic reasons to believe the West could collectively end up relatively stronger. The West has been collectively weakening against the Rest for the last 50 years, including (and perhaps especially) the period of globalisation and British membership of the EU. Economic and political cooperation has not stemmed the decline of the West, and the biggest beneficiaries of Western cooperation to promote globalisation have been non-western countries - think China, Brazil, etc.
Historically, a large factor in the rise of Europe was the competition between rival states and the benefits this delivered vis-a-vis the rest of the world at the time. Political competition rather than cooperation can deliver the same benefits as market competition - fitter actors more effective at winning trade/business/favours.
Separately, I also disagree with the point re large corporations - there will be more political pressure to avoid being seen to give them a good deal, and recover more tax from multinational profits. This was an ongoing trend even under Obama/Cameron (eg Osborne's Google tax) but will surely accelerate now.
And very doubtful that intelligence and police services will stop cooperating in the same way as present. The public mood has swung to the right and a common theme has been improving security.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not on the Titanic that people kept dancing for some time after the collision because the ship was supposed to be unsinkable?
When advised to head for the lifeboats they apparently replied "We have had quite enough of experts'...
The thing is, not all experts are the same. Expertise is some areas is easily demonstrated (engineering for example). However in economics (which is what most of the arguments in the media around Brexit were over) it is much harder to demonstrate expertise, and the state of the profession has changed a lot over the years. Many things which were widely accepted previously are now thought to be incorrect.
Agreed with this post until paragraph 4 - "this will inevitably reduce the collective effectiveness of all Western Governments. So Western governments will be weaken relative to other countries."
This is speculation at best, and there are good historical/economic reasons to believe the West could collectively end up relatively stronger. The West has been collectively weakening against the Rest for the last 50 years, including (and perhaps especially) the period of globalisation and British membership of the EU. Economic and political cooperation has not stemmed the decline of the West, and the biggest beneficiaries of Western cooperation to promote globalisation have been non-western countries - think China, Brazil, etc.
Historically, a large factor in the rise of Europe was the competition between rival states and the benefits this delivered vis-a-vis the rest of the world at the time. Political competition rather than cooperation can deliver the same benefits as market competition - fitter actors more effective at winning trade/business/favours.
Separately, I also disagree with the point re large corporations - there will be more political pressure to avoid being seen to give them a good deal, and recover more tax from multinational profits. This was an ongoing trend even under Obama/Cameron (eg Osborne's Google tax) but will surely accelerate now.
And very doubtful that intelligence and police services will stop cooperating in the same way as present. The public mood has swung to the right and a common theme has been improving security.
So I'm afraid I think you're wrong Alastair.
While I am unpersuaded, welcome to the site and thank you for being one of a handful of posters to take the trouble to address the thinking behind my post rather than complain that they don't like its conclusions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not on the Titanic that people kept dancing for some time after the collision because the ship was supposed to be unsinkable?
When advised to head for the lifeboats they apparently replied "We have had quite enough of experts'...
The ship had been designed by (expert) naval architects to be unsinkable, and was staffed by a master and crew who were experts in navigation and seamanship. But you don't see that if the story is a fable, it is a fable about the limitations of expertise.
Incidentally, this entire threader is the most egregious piffle, as it ignores the overwhelming impact of the new tech revolution, from driverless cars to AI to VR to robotisation to drones to voice-command computers to t'internet of tings.
All these are gonna arrive AT ONCE - in the same generation. This is what will transform lives, not the loosening of a European trading bloc.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
That's just one huge change out of dozens, coming to us all very quickly.
It is amazing that we are living at the most pivotal moment in history since that hominid did the thing with the bone at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Cash money, and writing stuff on paper, vanishing in a generation after 5000 years of being the only game in town; Kitty Hawk to the moon in a lifetime. Banal but still deeply striking.
Yeah, the era of well paid CDE jobs is history, ad does also drive the current populism.
The Eloi wiil prosper, the Morlochs less so.
On the other hand we could invent new jobs, as we have done right since the dawn of the machine age.
Incidentally, this entire threader is the most egregious piffle, as it ignores the overwhelming impact of the new tech revolution, from driverless cars to AI to VR to robotisation to drones to voice-command computers to t'internet of tings.
All these are gonna arrive AT ONCE - in the same generation. This is what will transform lives, not the loosening of a European trading bloc.
I read an article today, for instance (sorry I forget where, bit hungover, probably something like the FT) which said that nearly-flawless real-time computer translation - Babelfish in a set of ear-pods - is now just years away. This is, by the by, something I predicted on PB about five years back, and was roundly pooh-poohed at the time. Turns out I was right.
As the article says, this will be revolutionary. It will make the learning of languages pointless, and it will also transform the way we travel, educate, and interact with foreigners.
That's just one huge change out of dozens, coming to us all very quickly.
It is amazing that we are living at the most pivotal moment in history since that hominid did the thing with the bone at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Cash money, and writing stuff on paper, vanishing in a generation after 5000 years of being the only game in town; Kitty Hawk to the moon in a lifetime. Banal but still deeply striking.
My great-grandfather lived from the 1870s to the 1960s. In that time he probably saw the greatest period of compressed change in history: electricity to the home, cars, flight, wireless/radio, space travel, the nuclear age, TV and so much more. The difference in lifestyle from his childhood to his old age dwarfs what we are experiencing today.
As another example: my dad, born in 1936, learnt to plough a field with a team of horses. a grand-uncle was one of the last captains routinely qualified to skipper sail, steam and diesel ships.
The questions are how long this trend can continue, and whether it will shift onto other areas. Moore's law is dying and tech is becoming increasingly expensive to develop. The low-hanging fruit has been plucked, whether in autonomous driving or in translation. Further developments become increasingly difficult. It's easy to prototype; the real work is in making deployable systems.
I still think people are being far too optimistic over these things, and are being wowed by smoke and mirrors.
There is also the problem of ever-decreasing benefits; how many more functions do we need in our mobile phones? But we can expect more convergence, and there will always be the unexpected world-changing new technology. Cold fusion anyone?
Comments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/01/06/czech-government-tells-its-citizens-how-to-fight-terrorists-shoot-them-yourselves/?utm_term=.67acebc6d4c7
Or is democracy that's bad now? It's all so confusing for us thickos. Yes, I know the way we should all vote, so perhaps we are at fault for not obeying orders.
Yes, that's it. But if that's the case, why do we bother to vote and risk getting it wrong?
Could one of the superior people please explain to we of little brain, please?
democracy == voting for things I agree with
hope that clears it up
*I is intended to portray a generic I rather than I as in me in particular
[Assuming I got that right. My knowledge of both is scantier than a banned Tube advert].
Origins of Democracy
Democracy began in Ancient Athens during the 5th century BC. Athens was a slave society, so most Athenians had plenty of spare time on their hands. At that time, 80% of Athens' population was made up of philosophers, inventors and people that tell ridiculous stories about animals to try and convey complex life messages in one short sentence. To give themselves something to do, all citizens could discuss and vote on issues affecting the polis, or city state. From this word we draw our English words politics, the affairs of state, politicians, those who practice the affairs of state, and police, those who punish those who practice the affairs of state when it becomes known what those who practice the affairs of state have been doing.
The Ancient Athenian system worked until it was overthrown by the Athenians' main rival, the Spartans. The Spartans were fierce warriors, whose terrible battle practices including shouting "THIS IS NOUN!" at their enemies, long after it ceased to be funny. The Athenians were unable to respond to a crisis quickly due to the fact that their system of government was largely based around blaming one another for their problems.
The fall of the Athenian democracy at the hands of the Spartans
In 13th century England, the nobles decided that King John wasn't really the right sort of chap and set about removing him. They forced the king to create a forum where they could meet to discuss issues, play poker and oggle wenches. They agreed that the people should choose who their representatives would be by election. The nobles promptly returned to their lands where they threatened to chop the feet off of anyone who voted against them. This would become a recurring feature of democracies around the world
Thanks. Yes, that makes sense now.
If 5* leave the group UKIP may suffer considerably financially.
Is this correct?
But would 0.1% percent per year be fairly represented by 100% per thousand years? And then you raise your chance to 500% if you eat albatross. I know the answer to this, but I don't know how to portray it.
Was the principle involved addressed by Scotland's independence referendum?
Those employed by the EU pay EU income tax to the EU directly, rather than to their member state, but it will certainly be part of the 'divorce' negotiations to determine how these pensions will be paid in the future. I'm guessing there's a few hundred Brits claiming EU pensions right now, does anyone have an accurate number?
by similar reasoning to that used when you/they thought cooperation between countries based around the adoption of a single currency would inevitably enhance their collective effectiveness?
not for example is flipping a coin, 50% to come up heads. You flip tails, on the next flip the coin still only has a 50% chance of coming up heads. The past does not inform the present
however if you have a bag with 3 blue balls and 3 red balls the chance on you first draw of getting a blue ball is 50% if the ball you draw isnt returned then the chance of drawing a blue ball second time (assuming a red ball was drawn and not returned) has now gone up
(I think the money is supposed to be spent on office costs in Brussels, but even so...)
I was on here as events unfolded and I saw nothing like he describes.
The FBI has said the attack was pre -planned and there might be more to come on this - but lets wait and see.
Google translate to spanish, pretty instantaneous and I suspect will get the gist across, android phones have an app to do it from voice. It works
Phrased like that, the answer would likely be no.
But if we were a corporate spinning off a subsidiary, to use an analogy, there is no doubt that we would retain obligations. Firms cannot dispose of unwanted obligations (particularly when then encroach on employment) by putting them in separate entities and spinning them off.
My guess is that this will be solved without any (upfront) monetary payment by simply transferring the pensions to HMG. This means we won't send any money to Brussels, and that - theoretically - pensions for MEPs could be moved to errr... more standard terms.
* My understanding is that being a member of the EU is like being the member of a partnership.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html
I was recently telling a friend of mine about some of the machine learning training data sets that I've seen, what has surprised me is how broadly machine learning is being applied. It's not just the usual suspects of computer vision and machine translation that companies are working on, almost any job that is desk based that you can think of is being worked on right now.
That lead to another thing clicking for me, jobs that have a physical component are likely much safer than more intellectual jobs. We read a lot about self-driving cars, but those are exceptional, driving is in reality a very regulated and constrained activity. It is the typical office job, and many professional jobs, that will be picked off by the robots long before they are doing the plumbing.
Of course maybe this is all hot air, and AI will fail again, as it has done repeatedly since the 60s, and the tech industry will get bored of it. But if it doesn't fail some really profound changes to society are just over the horizon.
One of the fallacies about the Brexit vote seems to be the "52% v 48%", Outers vs Remainers. There were not two blocks but actually three:
1. Those who voted for Brexit - they might have had different reasons but it was a "positive" choice (in the sense that they wanted it). Nobody voted for Brexit thinking it was not a risk.
2. Ardent remainers - those who were positive about the EU, liked it and have been upset about the result. Living in Highgate, I meet a lot of people who are like this.
3. Reluctant Remainers - the category that gets talked about the least. Those who voted for Remain because they were scared about the economic consequences but whose heart was for Brexit. One friend who voted Remain summed it up very well by saying about his vote "I have never felt so dirty casting a vote". Funnily enough, there are a lot of these in the City.
If we held another referendum today, it is hard to imagine 1. and 2. changing their votes but a number in 3. might
'Invisible idiot.'
The Eloi wiil prosper, the Morlochs less so.
On the other hand we could invent new jobs, as we have done right since the dawn of the machine age.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/818175268309401600
I voted for what I felt best for the country. However....
I suspect the definition of "best for the country" differs from poster to poster here
My definition of country is the people that inhabit it, if it is good for the majority then it is good for the country
Others look at things like increasing gdp and say thats good for the country even though it might mean its worse for a majority of the country
A country to mind is a human concept - therefore the only way to say "this is good for the country" is to show that the majority of the people have benefitted from it. I firmly believe the eu fails that test. People have benefitted from it sure, however they are not the majority of the country
What has happened is that the Bevan Foundation has published a report on why the EU funds made little difference.
"Despite 16 years of the EU’s maximum level of help, Blaenau Gwent – the most pro-leave local authority area in Wales – saw a decline in the number of jobs in the area. Neighbouring Merthyr Tydfil, Caerphilly and Torfaen, also leave-voting areas, saw barely perceptible growth (2 – 3,000 more jobs in each). If these towns were ‘showered with cash’ it appears to have gone straight down the drain." (The Bevan Foundation)
Politicians wasted the money and it went "straight down the drain."
Most non-Labour voters in Wales could see the money was being almost entirely wasted. The Bevan Foundation -- as suggested by its hat-tipping name, a Labour dominated think-tank -- has now come to the same conclusion.
Oh dear. A philosopher's worth is based more on their skin color than their actual ideas then?
Sorry charles that is bollocks
a doubled chance from 25% to 50% is a huge difference from a doubled chance from 0.00001% to 0.00002%
Although whether anyone will bother to educate/train people by then is open to question. Why bother to learn to read?
To answer a few of the points made:
1) The words "This is not a new trend" should have been a clue to others that I didn't think that this was a new trend.
2) An article about the Titanic that concentrated on the fresh supply of ice cubes for the first class lounge would not, even though optimistic, have been conducive to sanity. Sometimes grim inevitability needs to be stared in the face.
3) Anyone interested in considering counterfactuals is encouraged to write their own article on the subject.
4) An article about the consequences of Brexit and Donald Trump is sadly unlikely to cover technological changes in any depth, however interesting @SeanT might find them, sober, drunk or hungover.
Big pharma is always keen to push relative risk, it helps sales.
My example is more thought provoking. Would you take warfarin (with monthly blood tests, and side effects) for 10 years for a 95% chance over a decade that it was a wasted effort?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Republic_(1903) is an example of where this worked. The Titantic was supposed to be perfect version of this plan.
The "lifeboats" were supposed to be used to transfer the passengers to the rescuing ship - over a period of many hours.
This is speculation at best, and there are good historical/economic reasons to believe the West could collectively end up relatively stronger. The West has been collectively weakening against the Rest for the last 50 years, including (and perhaps especially) the period of globalisation and British membership of the EU. Economic and political cooperation has not stemmed the decline of the West, and the biggest beneficiaries of Western cooperation to promote globalisation have been non-western countries - think China, Brazil, etc.
Historically, a large factor in the rise of Europe was the competition between rival states and the benefits this delivered vis-a-vis the rest of the world at the time. Political competition rather than cooperation can deliver the same benefits as market competition - fitter actors more effective at winning trade/business/favours.
Separately, I also disagree with the point re large corporations - there will be more political pressure to avoid being seen to give them a good deal, and recover more tax from multinational profits. This was an ongoing trend even under Obama/Cameron (eg Osborne's Google tax) but will surely accelerate now.
And very doubtful that intelligence and police services will stop cooperating in the same way as present. The public mood has swung to the right and a common theme has been improving security.
So I'm afraid I think you're wrong Alastair.
Of course you don't.
As another example: my dad, born in 1936, learnt to plough a field with a team of horses. a grand-uncle was one of the last captains routinely qualified to skipper sail, steam and diesel ships.
The questions are how long this trend can continue, and whether it will shift onto other areas. Moore's law is dying and tech is becoming increasingly expensive to develop. The low-hanging fruit has been plucked, whether in autonomous driving or in translation. Further developments become increasingly difficult. It's easy to prototype; the real work is in making deployable systems.
I still think people are being far too optimistic over these things, and are being wowed by smoke and mirrors.
There is also the problem of ever-decreasing benefits; how many more functions do we need in our mobile phones? But we can expect more convergence, and there will always be the unexpected world-changing new technology. Cold fusion anyone?