Couldn't see this thread anywhere so have made it.
Can anyone point me to a site where I could make a chart showing, over time, the Betfair % of no second referendum and Trump as 2020 nominee. They've been close for a while and I thought it might be interesting.
0
Comments
Mikey Smith
Verified account
@mikeysmith
Follow Follow @mikeysmith
More
Boris Johnson just said money spent investigating historic child sexual abuse is being, and I quote, “spaffed up a wall”.
9:35 AM - 13 Mar 2019
412 Retweets 358 Likes Dilly JohalAuldGrampaGrumpsborn slippyMark KeenanHannah GrahamJon Deysman #FBPE #FPHD #citizenofeuropeSteve Hallmark〰️cheryl hill
116 replies 412 retweets 358 likes
Reply 116 Retweet 412 Like 358 Direct message
john flintTweet text
Mikey Smith
Verified account
@mikeysmith
2h2 hours ago
More
Full story and video here:
18 replies 59 retweets 27 likes
Reply 18 Retweet 59 Like 27 Direct message
Carolyn Wood
@CannieW54
1h1 hour ago
More
Replying to @mikeysmith
In Australia the government held a 5 year Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse of Children. Over 2500 referrals for criminal charges resulted. Survivors were invited to speak of their horrors. No-one thinks it was a waste of money.
0 replies 7 retweets 52 likes
Reply Retweet 7 Like 52 Direct message
New conversation
illuminatus
@illuminatus
2h2 hours ago
More
Replying to @mikeysmith
I can't help but think that spaffing up a wall is something he may well have a great deal of expertise in,
Morally FIRST as I spotted this thread first early this morning.
82% of goods from EU would be zero rated (down from 100% obvs)
ROW would go to 92% zero rated (up from 56%)
That would have the overall effect of going from the current 80% of imports zero rated, to 87%.
Archives of odds are not easy to get hold of. Academics hold their own privately compiled datasets, but they may be for constituency odds instead of national odds, and for exchange betting instead of sportsbook betting. If anybody reading this finds a usable dataset please let me know. I would be happy to pay for this should you require it.
Very smart politics from Pelosi and the likes of Corbyn could learn a lot. Imagine if a centrist Labour leader had decided to back May's WDA and the bloc of Labour MPs had walked into the AYE lobby to allow it to pass.
Labour would look united, respectful of democracy and would be respected in both the UK and Europe (useful for future negotiations) while the Conservatives would look weak and divided.
Labour though has Corbyn - May's most useful ally.
So we could rely on the Government to provide a summary - except I neither trust nor believe this Government not to misrepresent key details. I don't trust JRM and the LEAVE community either - could we get a group of Russian or Chinese lawyers to fillet it and produce a 20-page summary in plain English to be sent to every elector or available to download at a website?
IF the other option in a second referendum is REMAIN that also has to be explained. Are we basically cancelling the last three years and going back to the terms of 23/6/16 or are the terms different now?
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/03/13/world/u-s-pilots-reported-switching-boeing-737-max-8-autopilot-initiated-random-nosedives/
It's no coincidence many who support May and the Conservative Government think the WA is wonderful and those who don't support it think it's awful (this is a point Richard N made earlier). As the saying goes, the Devil can quote the scriptures to make a point.
What is needed is a wholly objective (hence my comment earlier) report of what the WA is and what's in it - not what it means because that's the basis for campaigning argument but simply what it is and what it says.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1105783129132986368?s=19
What's the difference?
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/326404/tui-vows-to-maintain-flying-programme-as-uk-grounds-737-max
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane/ethiopia-crash-pilot-had-control-problems-black-boxes-bound-for-europe-idUSKBN1QU15W?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)&utm_term=RSS
B. They are implicitly alleging that the FAA is not capable of operating independently. That’s pretty inflammatory.
C. If EASA accepted authority, it would destroy the basis of accident investigation. They would be unwise to do that for Airbus/ATR-related reasons.
Will they ever be able to assemble a significant coalition in the centre ? Who knows.
But I'm pretty sure that is a gamble they thought worth taking, even if they fail.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1105824138739023872?s=19
The basis of accident investigation has already been destroyed by the regulators contradicting the FAA though. While yes that could store up trouble for the future they probably felt forced to act, I doubt they want to be responsible for another crash if it turns out the fleet should have been grounded sooner to await the changes the MCAS.
Has for 40 years.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1105797205712093184
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1105809429830750208
Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.
We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?
I doubt no deal would make it onto a second vote anyway, a straight deal vs remain seems more likely.
Brexit is now a failed project with support plummeting. To oppose it now isn't remoaning but simple common sense.
Her end is nigh??
The thing is, Boeing won't get killed over this, as it's in no-ones interest. The airlines need at least two manufacturers to create price and technological competition (many would prefer one or two more). A Boeing- or Airbus- only commercial aviation sector would quickly become moribiund. Why bother investing $10 billion in a new plane design if the airlines have to buy your old one?
But 'unlucky' isn't an explanation for the crashes. There could be separate, non airframe related reasons for them, and it would be very unlucky indeed for both to occur so early in the model's lifetime.
Lots of gusty winds and noisy soughing today.
I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).
Would The House support that or not?
Having seen how the Brexit ultras handled things last night it would not be that surprising if Salvini did push for a veto.
Would have thought Spain would be the biggest obstacle to an extension because they may try and bring Gibraltar into it somehow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929
If successful it would of course make the deal passing at MV3 much more likely.
Airbus planes are pretty much fully fly-by-wire. And what's amazing is how little code is required to code the control laws they operate under. The reason is simple: the more complicated the code, the harder it is to test and debug what it does, especially wrt edge and corner cases.
As an example, the 787 has about 7 millions lines of code for avionics and critical systems (yes, I know, a terrible metric). The F22 has about 2 million. A luxury car? 100 million.
The plane manufacturers need to be able to reproduce the way the systems work 100% reliably. And AI and machine learning is exactly the opposite: the way the system reacts to inputs is *not* predictable. In fact, this is a big issue with automated cars that use ML: if there's a crash, how do you work out why the computer did what it did?
I'd be amazed if either Boeing or Airbus let machine learning or AI within a thousand miles of the cockpits of their civilian planes.
(Gets ready to be proved wrong.)