The oddest part about the once a day rule is seriously, how many go went out for exercise more than once a day ?!
Not me, but presumably it's to back up that there needs to be a reasonable excuse for being out and about, so if you're look you're lollygagging you probably don't have a good excuse.
Dare it be said that Keir looks a little...gammony in that picture?
Yep. Compared to the lithe athlete, that is Boris. A bit on the portly side!
Blimey, people are a bit salty about an innocuous comment today (though gammony was not a refernce to his size). It wasn't a criticism, he just looks a little flushed. Maybe he's under the weather, maybe he's excited, maybe he's just naturally a little red, it wasn't a suggestion Boris was a human adonis.
You would be a little flushed after learning of a meeting pencilled in for next week with someone not recovering too well from Covid-19. I recommend Starmer wears mask, visor and thick rigger's gloves!
From the looks of it, the vast majority in their 20s/30s. The wrong message took hold, that the old die from it, when it should have been that all except those under ten will suffer from it.
Not necessarily. 20-30 year old cramming into pubs might indicate that. People sitting in parks on their own or in family groups is more people interpreting the guidance in their own way and concluding they are following the spirit, if not the letter, of the Govt advice. They’re not doing it in expectation of getting it and being fine.
The instruction was to stay at home. This is why guidance is not enough, there needs to be something clearer.
I thought it was clear. You can go out for excercise including going for a walk or walking a dog. Once a day, up to an hour. Sun bathing is not excercise or going for walk.
I've never known about that hour rule.
There is no one hour rule in the regulations or the published guidance, nor is there a once a day rule.
Published guidance -
one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household.
Guidance.
Ergo, it's a good idea to follow it given the purpoe of the legislation, but it is not a rule.
"These measures must be followed by everyone. "
That's a rule, folks, not guidance. Once a day (could be two hours or whatever, but once a day it is).
No, if the law does not back up the guidance it remains guidance, which is why you quoted it as guidance. If the law says you can only go out once, it is a rule.
I'm following that guidance, I've been going out once a day for less than hour close to my home. But if the law does not say that is the rule then I won't accept it is a rule, it doesn't matter how much the guidance says it must be followed or even if the government says 'this is what the law means' - government guidance is not law, ministerial statements are not law.
Governments have found before that the way a law is drafted means it does not mean what they wanted it to mean.
Quite. And if you can leave your house with zero human interaction within a distance of several meters, twice, and this is more convenient, you should do it. This is about not infecting people and getting infected, not covering yourself in sackcloth and ashes.
The oddest part about the once a day rule is seriously, how many go went out for exercise more than once a day ?!
Not me, but presumably it's to back up that there needs to be a reasonable excuse for being out and about, so if you're look you're lollygagging you probably don't have a good excuse.
I'm starting to ponder just what people did all day outside the house pre lockdown
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
The version of 'proves' used in that saying is an old version which means 'tests' as opposed to 'verifies'. So the way people use the saying today indeed makes no sense.
It derives from Scandinavian. In Norwegian the verb 'to try' is 'prove'. Pronounced 'prer-ver'.
From the looks of it, the vast majority in their 20s/30s. The wrong message took hold, that the old die from it, when it should have been that all except those under ten will suffer from it.
Not necessarily. 20-30 year old cramming into pubs might indicate that. People sitting in parks on their own or in family groups is more people interpreting the guidance in their own way and concluding they are following the spirit, if not the letter, of the Govt advice. They’re not doing it in expectation of getting it and being fine.
The instruction was to stay at home. This is why guidance is not enough, there needs to be something clearer.
I thought it was clear. You can go out for excercise including going for a walk or walking a dog. Once a day, up to an hour. Sun bathing is not excercise or going for walk.
I've never known about that hour rule.
There is no one hour rule in the regulations or the published guidance, nor is there a once a day rule.
Published guidance -
one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household.
Guidance.
Ergo, it's a good idea to follow it given the purpoe of the legislation, but it is not a rule.
"These measures must be followed by everyone. "
That's a rule, folks, not guidance. Once a day (could be two hours or whatever, but once a day it is).
No, if the law does not back up the guidance it remains guidance, which is why you quoted it as guidance. If the law says you can only go out once, it is a rule.
I'm following that guidance, I've been going out once a day for less than hour close to my home. But if the law does not say that is the rule then I won't accept it is a rule, it doesn't matter how much the guidance says it must be followed or even if the government says 'this is what the law means' - government guidance is not law, ministerial statements are not law.
Governments have found before that the way a law is drafted means it does not mean what they wanted it to mean.
Government guidance is that smoking is harmful for your health and, presumably, that you shouldn’t do it.
ROME — There is a growing sense in Italy that the worst may have passed. The weeks of locking down the country, center of the world’s deadliest coronavirus outbreak, may be starting to pay off, as officials announced this week that the numbers of new infections had plateaued.
That glimmer of hope has turned the conversation to the daunting challenge of when and how to reopen without setting off another cataclysmic wave of contagion. To do so, Italian health officials and some politicians have focused on an idea that might once have been relegated to the realm of dystopian novels and science fiction films.
Having the right antibodies to the virus in one’s blood — a potential marker of immunity — may soon determine who gets to work and who does not, who is locked down and who is free.
Today’s main event has been the frankly epic amount of weeding I’ve done. I trust no one with a badge is going to complain that I have enjoyed my time outdoors too much.
Today’s main event has been the frankly epic amount of weeding I’ve done. I trust no one with a badge is going to complain that I have enjoyed my time outdoors too much.
Starmer is no Corbynite but he is no Blairite either, this is more a victory for Brownites ideologically (Brown endorsed Starmer after all). The fact Nandy only got 16% as the candidate most willing to reach out to Leavers suggests Labour also clearly wants to put clear blue water between themselves and the Tories on Brexit
If after 26 years Labour cannot move on from calling people ‘Blairite,’ ‘Brownite’ etc., then it matters little who the leader is or what their policies are.
Tories still call themselves Thatcherites or Cameroons
Dare it be said that Keir looks a little...gammony in that picture?
Yep. Compared to the lithe athlete, that is Boris. A bit on the portly side!
Blimey, people are a bit salty about an innocuous comment today (though gammony was not a refernce to his size). It wasn't a criticism, he just looks a little flushed. Maybe he's under the weather, maybe he's excited, maybe he's just naturally a little red, it wasn't a suggestion Boris was a human adonis.
You would be a little flushed after learning of a meeting pencilled in for next week with someone not recovering too well from Covid-19. I recommend Starmer wears mask, visor and thick rigger's gloves!
From the looks of it, the vast majority in their 20s/30s. The wrong message took hold, that the old die from it, when it should have been that all except those under ten will suffer from it.
Not necessarily. 20-30 year old cramming into pubs might indicate that. People sitting in parks on their own or in family groups is more people interpreting the guidance in their own way and concluding they are following the spirit, if not the letter, of the Govt advice. They’re not doing it in expectation of getting it and being fine.
The instruction was to stay at home. This is why guidance is not enough, there needs to be something clearer.
I thought it was clear. You can go out for excercise including going for a walk or walking a dog. Once a day, up to an hour. Sun bathing is not excercise or going for walk.
I've never known about that hour rule.
There is no one hour rule in the regulations or the published guidance, nor is there a once a day rule.
Published guidance -
one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle - alone or with members of your household.
Guidance.
Ergo, it's a good idea to follow it given the purpoe of the legislation, but it is not a rule.
"These measures must be followed by everyone. "
That's a rule, folks, not guidance. Once a day (could be two hours or whatever, but once a day it is).
No, if the law does not back up the guidance it remains guidance, which is why you quoted it as guidance. If the law says you can only go out once, it is a rule.
I'm following that guidance, I've been going out once a day for less than hour close to my home. But if the law does not say that is the rule then I won't accept it is a rule, it doesn't matter how much the guidance says it must be followed or even if the government says 'this is what the law means' - government guidance is not law, ministerial statements are not law.
Governments have found before that the way a law is drafted means it does not mean what they wanted it to mean.
The message that "These measures must be followed by everyone. " is clear. Everything else is just people trying it on. The government are letting themselves be led rather than leading. Either they clamp down now, or (as Ferguson said) we are going to be locked down for a lot longer because of them.
Virtual Grand National was fun, by the way. Amazing what they can do with computer graphics nowadays.
Today’s main event has been the frankly epic amount of weeding I’ve done. I trust no one with a badge is going to complain that I have enjoyed my time outdoors too much.
Lying down in parks. I noticed yesterday the gate to our local park has a new sign limiting our freedom to sell sex in the park. Or possibly to buy sex; I forget which. I imagine this is a side effect of killjoy Boris closing massage parlours.
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
The version of 'proves' used in that saying is an old version which means 'tests' as opposed to 'verifies'. So the way people use the saying today indeed makes no sense.
It derives from Scandinavian. In Norwegian the verb 'to try' is 'prove'. Pronounced 'prer-ver'.
I don't see that either version makes sense. Say your rule is that all swans are white, and you come across a black swan. The modern misunderstanding is that this confirms the rule because it wouldn't be an exception unless there was a rule for it to be an exception to. But if it proves in the sense of tests, it doesn't just test, it tests and shows to be false - which doesn't seem interesting enough to have a proverb about it.
Starmer is no Corbynite but he is no Blairite either, this is more a victory for Brownites ideologically (Brown endorsed Starmer after all). The fact Nandy only got 16% as the candidate most willing to reach out to Leavers suggests Labour also clearly wants to put clear blue water between themselves and the Tories on Brexit
If after 26 years Labour cannot move on from calling people ‘Blairite,’ ‘Brownite’ etc., then it matters little who the leader is or what their policies are.
Tories still call themselves Thatcherites or Cameroons
Maybe you`re wrong. Maybe your particular wager went to DecrepiterJohn. How do you feel about that then?
Well he deserves it if he worked that one out. But providing Sporting Index made a net profit my £6 goes to carers.
However, just thinking this through, the pot for distribution has been reduced by @DecrepiterJohnL winning - if he also did Sporting - and thus he has effectively stolen some PPE from carers by being such a shrewdcake.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Maybe you`re wrong. Maybe your particular wager went to DecrepiterJohn. How do you feel about that then?
Well he deserves it if he worked that one out. But providing Sporting Index made a net profit my £6 goes to carers.
However, just thinking this through, the pot for distribution has been reduced by @DecrepiterJohnL winning - if he also did Sporting - and thus he has effectively stolen some PPE from carers by being such a shrewdcake.
The oddest part about the once a day rule is seriously, how many go went out for exercise more than once a day ?!
Not me, but presumably it's to back up that there needs to be a reasonable excuse for being out and about, so if you're look you're lollygagging you probably don't have a good excuse.
I'm starting to ponder just what people did all day outside the house pre lockdown
Slow runners aren’t allowed to run as far? That’s ability-ist!
I ran five miles for the first time today. I'm also half-a-stone lighter. The lockdown and the whole plague situation may be shit in almost all respects but my fitness seems much improved!
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
The version of 'proves' used in that saying is an old version which means 'tests' as opposed to 'verifies'. So the way people use the saying today indeed makes no sense.
It derives from Scandinavian. In Norwegian the verb 'to try' is 'prove'. Pronounced 'prer-ver'.
I don't see that either version makes sense. Say your rule is that all swans are white, and you come across a black swan. The modern misunderstanding is that this confirms the rule because it wouldn't be an exception unless there was a rule for it to be an exception to. But if it proves in the sense of tests, it doesn't just test, it tests and shows to be false - which doesn't seem interesting enough to have a proverb about it.
Falsification is the basis of scientific principle. At least if you follow Karl Popper. If you cannot falsify something you cannot use it in a scientific study.
ROME — There is a growing sense in Italy that the worst may have passed. The weeks of locking down the country, center of the world’s deadliest coronavirus outbreak, may be starting to pay off, as officials announced this week that the numbers of new infections had plateaued.
That glimmer of hope has turned the conversation to the daunting challenge of when and how to reopen without setting off another cataclysmic wave of contagion. To do so, Italian health officials and some politicians have focused on an idea that might once have been relegated to the realm of dystopian novels and science fiction films.
Having the right antibodies to the virus in one’s blood — a potential marker of immunity — may soon determine who gets to work and who does not, who is locked down and who is free.
My plan, mentioned here days ago, was similar. Those that can (and, going further, want to risk) being outside a lockdown can and they will be backed up by the health system. Those who can't (and don't want to) will stay under lockdown and will be backed up economically. As the virus dies out, or if there is a successful vaccine, then the two elements can be put back together again.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
To day is the first day that the reported number of deaths was higher in the UK than in Italy*
*Caveat: The Guardian is reporting "On Saturday, the country registered 681 deaths from Covid-19 " I am assuming this means that no further cases/deaths will be anounced in Italy today.
The oddest part about the once a day rule is seriously, how many go went out for exercise more than once a day ?!
Not me, but presumably it's to back up that there needs to be a reasonable excuse for being out and about, so if you're look you're lollygagging you probably don't have a good excuse.
I'm starting to ponder just what people did all day outside the house pre lockdown
Slow runners aren’t allowed to run as far? That’s ability-ist!
2 miles in a little under a quarter of an hour last night. Today is 10k planned when my other half gets back home.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Surely the bears would 'go' in the woods, where, by all accounts they do have toilet facilities.
Woods, like many public lavatory facilities, can be few and far between however.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
The Scottish Highlands. The UK has no - literally no - wild landscapes. But a charity called Trees for Life (https://treesforlife.org.uk/) is re-wilding a large tract of highlands. Superb project - gives one a little hope.
A gambling question. I'm translating Danish regulations for casino operators. What do you call one game of chance transaction, using the same word (in Danish "traek") for one pull on a one-armed bandit or one session of bingo? Or maybe one needs different words in English? A pull? Works for the one-armed bandit but still doesn't feel quite right.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
We also already have wildcats, beavers, wild boar (who are a right nuisance) wading birds, birds of prey.
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
The version of 'proves' used in that saying is an old version which means 'tests' as opposed to 'verifies'. So the way people use the saying today indeed makes no sense.
It derives from Scandinavian. In Norwegian the verb 'to try' is 'prove'. Pronounced 'prer-ver'.
I don't see that either version makes sense. Say your rule is that all swans are white, and you come across a black swan. The modern misunderstanding is that this confirms the rule because it wouldn't be an exception unless there was a rule for it to be an exception to. But if it proves in the sense of tests, it doesn't just test, it tests and shows to be false - which doesn't seem interesting enough to have a proverb about it.
Falsification is the basis of scientific principle. At least if you follow Karl Popper. If you cannot falsify something you cannot use it in a scientific study.
So it means the theoretical possibility of the exception proves the rule. I know popper said that but it seems an over sophisticated point for a proverb to make (and undermines popper's claim to originality).
I ran five miles for the first time today. I'm also half-a-stone lighter. The lockdown and the whole plague situation may be shit in almost all respects but my fitness seems much improved!
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
A gambling question. I'm translating Danish regulations for casino operators. What do you call one game of chance transaction, using the same word (in Danish "traek") for one pull on a one-armed bandit or one session of bingo? Or maybe one needs different words in English? A pull? Works for the one-armed bandit but still doesn't feel quite right.
A gambling question. I'm translating Danish regulations for casino operators. What do you call one game of chance transaction, using the same word (in Danish "traek") for one pull on a one-armed bandit or one session of bingo? Or maybe one needs different words in English? A pull? Works for the one-armed bandit but still doesn't feel quite right.
Spin, Hand, Pull, are the 3 in a casino that I can think of.
Btw, if anyone wants to reinvest their Starmer winnings and is a Rishi Sunak believer than I've got £400 at 4.1 available (I'm trying to lay). I think that Johnson isn't going anywhere soon and current circumstances will have long gone by the time there's a leadership election, but if you think Sunak will make it then it's better odds than the bookies will offer.
The oddest part about the once a day rule is seriously, how many go went out for exercise more than once a day ?!
Not me, but presumably it's to back up that there needs to be a reasonable excuse for being out and about, so if you're look you're lollygagging you probably don't have a good excuse.
I'm starting to ponder just what people did all day outside the house pre lockdown
Slow runners aren’t allowed to run as far? That’s ability-ist!
2 miles in a little under a quarter of an hour last night. Today is 10k planned when my other half gets back home.
Your sub 50Min 10k inspired me to try and run faster, I had been slacking to around 25:20 for 5k, but managed 24:00 the other day (actually 23:58 when I got in but I fumbled the phone, and the official time is the one I stopped the clock on)
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
Well, let’s find out.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law Stanley Baldwin Neville Chamberlain* Winston Churchill Anthony Eden Harold Macmillan Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home Edward Heath Margaret Thatcher John Major William Hague Iain Duncan Smith* Michael Howard David Cameron Theresa May (just short) Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
Blair of course had more in common with Whig or Liberal leaders than traditional Labour leaders and in the 18th and 19th and early 20th century it was much less common for Tory leaders to win majorities, no Tory leader won a majority or even most seats while Blair was Labour leader
Hmmm.
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby Benjamin Disraeli Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law* Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
18/1 -- reasoning in previous thread -- has won last two races so in form and is one of only two to have won at the distance.
Graphics were better than I expected.
You must have processed the data like the program did. That's a talent that could perhaps be monetized in other ways.
Second successive year I've given pb an Aintree winner but enough aftertiming! Since I will likely be made redundant in the summer, I shall need an alternative source of income!
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
How many Tories have won majorities, by way of comparison?
4 in my lifetime (born 80s) Vs 1 for Labour.
If you were born after 1983, you're yet to see a single Tory leader make it through a full term with a majority intact.
Pedant alert: Someone born in1984 did see Margaret Thatcher make it through to the full term with a Majority in June 1987. He/She was not there for the whole of the term though.
A gambling question. I'm translating Danish regulations for casino operators. What do you call one game of chance transaction, using the same word (in Danish "traek") for one pull on a one-armed bandit or one session of bingo? Or maybe one needs different words in English? A pull? Works for the one-armed bandit but still doesn't feel quite right.
Spin, Hand, Pull, are the 3 in a casino that I can think of.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
A gambling question. I'm translating Danish regulations for casino operators. What do you call one game of chance transaction, using the same word (in Danish "traek") for one pull on a one-armed bandit or one session of bingo? Or maybe one needs different words in English? A pull? Works for the one-armed bandit but still doesn't feel quite right.
Spin, Hand, Pull, are the 3 in a casino that I can think of.
Can you not check the British (or any other English language) regulations?
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
Christ, must admit I hadn't realised the DJIA fell steadily for 20-30 years once. That's nuts. How did people make money during that period? This was a time of defined benefit pensions, how did that work when the second half of their career returns were negative?
They didn’t invest in the stock market.
Did bonds give sufficient returns in those decades to finance pension plans? Genuine question.
What is your horseshittest old proverb kinabalu? I've never liked "a problem shared is a problem halved", but might work for some people.
Oh there are so many but one that springs immediately to mind is "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I mean - what?
Although - just occurs - it might just work for the virus. If you catch it and pull through you will get your government issued "corona card", proving immunity, and armed with this most valuable of items in post covid Britain you will be able to resume normal life while the less fortunate remain incarcerated until there is a vaccine.
I`ve never got to grips with ""it`s the exception that proves the rule".
The version of 'proves' used in that saying is an old version which means 'tests' as opposed to 'verifies'. So the way people use the saying today indeed makes no sense.
It derives from Scandinavian. In Norwegian the verb 'to try' is 'prove'. Pronounced 'prer-ver'.
I don't see that either version makes sense. Say your rule is that all swans are white, and you come across a black swan. The modern misunderstanding is that this confirms the rule because it wouldn't be an exception unless there was a rule for it to be an exception to. But if it proves in the sense of tests, it doesn't just test, it tests and shows to be false - which doesn't seem interesting enough to have a proverb about it.
Falsification is the basis of scientific principle. At least if you follow Karl Popper. If you cannot falsify something you cannot use it in a scientific study.
It’s clearly a fantastic proverb, since it provokes sustained discussion about falsifiability.
Comments
because of multiple interpretations.
edit: good because of the ambiguities.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1246331327869313024
But I suspect the big problem was that the algorithm could not cope with a grey and so it had to make it fall as soon as it looked like it might win.
Should have realized that before I did my money. Still, it goes towards some PPE for care workers.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1246475266827915264
Graphics were better than I expected.
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1246440386912030721
7 Tory majorities (With 4 different leaders)
1970
1979
1983
1987
1992
2015
2019
to 5 Labour (With 2 different leaders)
1966
1974 (Oct)
1997
2001
2005
Virtual Grand National was fun, by the way. Amazing what they can do with computer graphics nowadays.
However, just thinking this through, the pot for distribution has been reduced by @DecrepiterJohnL winning - if he also did Sporting - and thus he has effectively stolen some PPE from carers by being such a shrewdcake.
The post of Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party was created in 1922. Since that time all the leaders except those in bold have won majorities (*means never fought an election):
Bonar Law
Stanley Baldwin
Neville Chamberlain*
Winston Churchill
Anthony Eden
Harold Macmillan
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home
Edward Heath
Margaret Thatcher
John Major
William Hague
Iain Duncan Smith*
Michael Howard
David Cameron
Theresa May (just short)
Boris Johnson
I make that 16 leaders, of whom 2 never fought elections, in total 10 who won overall majorities and just four who did not, including May who also won an election by a much larger distance than Macdonald ever did.
Quite a contrast.
I can see the case for wolves and lynx, and beavers are already being re-established, but reintroducing bears seems as plausible as my niece, who when young told her parents that she’d like to adopt a gorilla because “we have a big back garden and it would be no trouble”.
Without looking it up and going from memory that's 5 Tories and 3 Labour isn't it?
*Caveat: The Guardian is reporting "On Saturday, the country registered 681 deaths from Covid-19 " I am assuming this means that no further cases/deaths will be anounced in Italy today.
So I’m not sure how helpful a chart that is, tbh.
Worth looking at a 100 year chart of the Dow Jones index - see link below.
Whilst (of course!) the overall trend is very strongly upwards it's worth noting not just the bear markets but more importantly just how long you have had to wait to just get your money back in cash (ie not even real) terms if you invest at the wrong time, ie
eg Invest in 1929 - wait till late 1950s - ie 30 years - to get back to same level
Invest in mid 1960s - wait till early 1990s - again almost 30 years - to get back to same level
The above excludes dividends but US dividend yields are very low.
OK, the above are the worst two examples and what's the chance of investing at the very peak? But even so there are many examples where you make no cash gain at all over say 10 years.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dow+jones+100+year+chart&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ijc28Sf4ti0sEM%3A%2CyptiZ_pi2JeLCM%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQ5H8P496OR6YZ1XstAyptTMNdGiQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx7ZaAnM_oAhWRi1wKHbCfB4wQ9QEwAXoECAoQHA#imgrc=ijc28Sf4ti0sEM:
Let’s start with the basics. There was no ‘Tory leader’ in the nineteenth century. There was a Leader in the Commons and a Leader in the Lords. If one was an ex-Prime Minister he was regarded as the overall leader. If not, it was the one who had served for longest who was considered Senior, but not overall leader. So for example, in 1880 Northcote was considered senior to Salisbury, and in 1911 Lansdowne was considered senior to Bonar Law.
But if I take those Tory leaders who after 1832 were considered leaders of the overall party, my list runs as follows:
Robert Peel
Edward Smith Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby
Benjamin Disraeli
Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury
Arthur Balfour
And I suppose you could add:
Bonar Law*
Austen Chamberlain*
Which to be honest, leaving aside that last bit, doesn’t look terribly different.
The Betfair forum is full of complaints that bookmakers forgot to lift their blocks on shrewd punters that are applied to proper racing.
Plus, Morgan does like his flags!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-52151951
https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1246146713523453957