The sadness that follows the happiness when you order something wonderful and then discover it is going to be delivered either by Yodel or Hermes.
This morning there was an unmarked delivery van going down the road dropping off Amazon packages. Whether this is an entrepreneurial startup delivery service taking advantage of the boom in online shopping, or a new security measure, I could not say.
The operators of these vans delivering for Amazon are sons of Satan. They are the mill and mine owners of the 21st century.
A driver was telling me yesterday (socially distanced of course) he earns £85 a day on average, delivering a specified number of packages. He was getting around £120 during Covid for the same hours and number of drops. He said he is well below minimum wage, but that's ok because he is "self employed". He gets a phonecall before midnight to confirm his work for the following day. Shameful, but it's the future!
In which case he is also breaking regulations on working hours driving! I think is 9 hours max per day, £8.72 min wage so £85 is over it if he is legal?
I forgot to mention 6.00 til 18.00. The first hour or so is sorting and loading..
Not sure how you legislate against it if its structured as business to business but £85 for 12 hours not including petrol is certainly exploitative.
The entire tax & legislation system needs ripping up and starting over for today's business, supplier and consumer structures.
Yes incremental change is great but occasionally we should rip it up and start from scratch.
And what are the chances of their actually being released before November ?
Where does Trump go next legally speaking ? SCOTUS has just ruled 7-2 against him.
He could pass an executive order and delay but SCOTUS would likely overturn that but it could buy him some time.
All eyes should be on William Barr.
Edit - I suppose Trump could take his time redacting so much that it takes time and/or requires SCOTUS to rule on exactly what can or cannot be redacted.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
Well you are using moral suasion, seeking to impose your world view and beliefs on someone else which doesn't sound particularly libertarian. But maybe I've got the definition of libertarian all wrong.
I'm not trying to impose anything.
I'm seeking in a debate to win an argument using words and persuasion.
How is that anything other than liberal free speech?
The sadness that follows the happiness when you order something wonderful and then discover it is going to be delivered either by Yodel or Hermes.
This morning there was an unmarked delivery van going down the road dropping off Amazon packages. Whether this is an entrepreneurial startup delivery service taking advantage of the boom in online shopping, or a new security measure, I could not say.
The operators of these vans delivering for Amazon are sons of Satan. They are the mill and mine owners of the 21st century.
A driver was telling me yesterday (socially distanced of course) he earns £85 a day on average, delivering a specified number of packages. He was getting around £120 during Covid for the same hours and number of drops. He said he is well below minimum wage, but that's ok because he is "self employed". He gets a phonecall before midnight to confirm his work for the following day. Shameful, but it's the future!
In which case he is also breaking regulations on working hours driving! I think is 9 hours max per day, £8.72 min wage so £85 is over it if he is legal?
I forgot to mention 6.00 til 18.00. The first hour or so is sorting and loading..
Not sure how you legislate against it if its structured as business to business but £85 for 12 hours not including petrol is certainly exploitative.
The entire tax & legislation system needs ripping up and starting over for today's business, supplier and consumer structures.
Yes incremental change is great but occasionally we should rip it up and start from scratch.
THe problem we have right now is that it's all overlarge & overcomplicated, and incremental change will simply expand it all even more.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
Fascinatingly the suburb is actually called Corona.
And what are the chances of their actually being released before November ?
Where does Trump go next legally speaking ? SCOTUS has just ruled 7-2 against him.
He could pass an executive order and delay but SCOTUS would likely overturn that but it could buy him some time.
All eyes should be on William Barr.
Edit - I suppose Trump could take his time redacting so much that it takes time and/or requires SCOTUS to rule on exactly what can or cannot be redacted.
"Whether Mr. Sunak’s measures yesterday will tempt foreigners I very much doubt. Fear of catching the virus for the vulnerable age groups dominates everything. "
I'm sure that most foreigners are completely unaware that there was a mini-budget yesterday, that will reduce the cost of being a tourist in the UK by a modest amount. Of those who did take notice of it by watching/listening to the more highbrow news, I think the number who would change their mind and go to the UK this summer after all would be vanishingly small.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
Fascinatingly the suburb is actually called Corona.
I know. Weird.
A suburb called "Crown" in the borough of "Queens" isn't that weird really!
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I really couldn’t be bothered to go on holiday if there are a million COVIDrules and regulations to adhere to, hardly relaxing. Airports are a horror show at the best of times. Now they must be horrendous... and you can’t get a drink!
Here's a moral conundrum for you - I booked (ages ago) to go to Greece on July 19th for a week. Four days after Greece is expected to let flights from the UK resume.
Greece's policy is to randomly test arrivals and, if they are found to be positive, to send them for 14 days to a "Quarantine Hotel".
So the gamble is go, test negative, have holiday all good; or go, test positive, not only not have holiday but be banged up in some Greek run hostel with food shoved under your door for two weeks.
Would you roll the dice?
Not in any way.
Noted. But you are presumably fit and healthy now? And you have said how you haven't exposed yourself to risk? So.....???
I'm moderate risk (on immune suppression) but have been frequenting supermarkets and have even been dating (with the lack of social distancing that entails). So I guess I have been exposing myself to risk.
Regardless I wouldn't gamble with flying 3 hours to be banged up in a Greek hostel for two weeks.
IF you are dating, you most definitely are exposing yourself to risk - Covid or no Covid!
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
That general testing is going on. See the ONS tweet above.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
I guess you must fume at things like 'And Then There Were None' as the new name for an Agatha Christie novel.
Is it still possible to read The Nigger of the Narcissus without being hissed at?
Nope, you have to call it A Tale of the Forecastle or something else in America.
I read many years ago when the FBI were tracking a white supremacist group they used to refer to the title of the book as a euphemism for assaulting African Americans.
Many years ago , working for the Police, we were all sent on a course after the , Stephen Lawrence enquiry. We were told not to use the phrase nitty gritty, which many were surprised at. Since then I have heard it used many times on the media including the BBC.
I heard it might be on the coffee without milk list soon
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
This wasnt a test of the general population, it is of people going for an antibody test. “For sure, the persons who are seeking antibody testing probably have a higher likelihood of being positive than the general population,” said Professor Nash. “If you went out in Corona and tested a representative sample, it wouldn’t be 68 percent.”
The ONS data referred to the in the thread is general population (but current infections not antibody for some reason).
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
If you actually paid attention to what I write instead of dismissing it all as "woke nonsense" you would know that I have continuously opposed the removal of monuments and the "cancelling" of historical figures.
Then you should appreciate that all these activities do not exist in isolation from one another, but are all part of a continuous spectrum, with the same ideology motivating them all. I entirely agree that the fate of one word or one statue is unimportant and can always be justified in one way or another - the point is that it's an incremental, salami-slicing technique to get people used to much more pervasive changes because 'Well, we got rid of those words and no one cared, so why should they care when we do X Y Z...'
If you believe this - which imo is florid in the extreme but let's go with it - you have no choice but to leap upon every single change of a word, to a street name, to a habit or custom, and fight it. Fight it with everything you've got until you are completely spent. You may lose, you probably will, but you will at least be able in 40 50 years time, with the woke world established all around you, to point at it and tell your grandkids, "See all this shit? Nothing to do with me. I took a rebel stand. Ask your dad."
There won't be a woke world because the woke are a minority. You just imagine you aren't because its a noisy one. Most normal people just roll their eyes and sigh and ignore you and carry on as normal. Another ideology destined for the dustbin of history.
The extremists are a minority, yes. A small one. And there's genuine nuttery there. But for me it's quite simple and not particularly ideological. It is about racism and sexism moving from (i) the celebrated norm to (ii) the uncelebrated norm to (iii) the guilty secret to (iv) extinction. I'd say that here & now we are in transition from (ii) to (iii). I'd also say that regardless of either GE results or internet noise and what have you, there is no going back. We will get to (iii) and then it's full steam ahead for (iv).
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
This wasnt a test of the general population, it is of people going for an antibody test. “For sure, the persons who are seeking antibody testing probably have a higher likelihood of being positive than the general population,” said Professor Nash. “If you went out in Corona and tested a representative sample, it wouldn’t be 68 percent.”
The ONS data referred to the in the thread is general population (but current infections not antibody for some reason).
I did not say it was the "general population" (in NY), I said that *I* thought they should be testing the UK general population....
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
That general testing is going on. See the ONS tweet above.
It is now. I was saying that it should always have been that way.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
If you actually paid attention to what I write instead of dismissing it all as "woke nonsense" you would know that I have continuously opposed the removal of monuments and the "cancelling" of historical figures.
Then you should appreciate that all these activities do not exist in isolation from one another, but are all part of a continuous spectrum, with the same ideology motivating them all. I entirely agree that the fate of one word or one statue is unimportant and can always be justified in one way or another - the point is that it's an incremental, salami-slicing technique to get people used to much more pervasive changes because 'Well, we got rid of those words and no one cared, so why should they care when we do X Y Z...'
So if I were to call you a c**t would you be OK with that?
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
You mean the 2014 case of Matt Taylor who still works for the European Space Agency? Ok!
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
Fascinatingly the suburb is actually called Corona.
I know. Weird.
A suburb called "Crown" in the borough of "Queens" isn't that weird really!
"Goodbye to Rosie, the queen of Corona Seein' me and Julio Down by the schoolyard"
Re: Wiki, Corona was called West Flushing until either
a) real estate agent coined the new name saying the neighborhood was the crown of Queens
b) Italian immigrants settling there early 20th century called the place "Corona" after a local Crown Building Co.
Either way, name is definitely "royal"
BTW, the Borough of Brooklyn, New York City is coterminous with Kings County, New York State. So Kings (Brookly) & Queens were a matched set.
BTW had a uncle & aunt who lived in Corona back in late '70s.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
That general testing is going on. See the ONS tweet above.
It is now. I was saying that it should always have been that way.
They've been doing it for a few months now. I think the moment a reliable antibody test became available.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
This wasnt a test of the general population, it is of people going for an antibody test. “For sure, the persons who are seeking antibody testing probably have a higher likelihood of being positive than the general population,” said Professor Nash. “If you went out in Corona and tested a representative sample, it wouldn’t be 68 percent.”
The ONS data referred to the in the thread is general population (but current infections not antibody for some reason).
It might also suggest that the much lower rate in the well-off mainly white suburb is because this group are more likely choose to be tested "just because" than in the poorer districts.
Its seems the disease has followed almost exactly the path predicted for it by Professor Gupta and the Oxford team. Predictions that were widely mocked and scorned when I first mentioned them on here weeks ago.
Recently Professor Gupta commented that lockdown and social distancing risk weakening our immune systems because we are not coming into contact with bugs and germs in the normal way.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
You mean the 2014 case of Matt Taylor who still works for the European Space Agency? Ok!
It's good that he still works for them, but that was an example of the misdirected and sometimes quite extreme censoriousness that Chomsky and others were talking about yesterday.
It's most recently exaggerated by the actions of corporations sometimes incorrectly firing employees after twitter trends, and the most stridently expressed identity politics and our current phase of ultra-individualised capitalism tend to dovetail very neatly.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
The fascinating part is the 60% level. Presumably, since they were being tested, they had not been been in hospital with this.
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
This wasnt a test of the general population, it is of people going for an antibody test. “For sure, the persons who are seeking antibody testing probably have a higher likelihood of being positive than the general population,” said Professor Nash. “If you went out in Corona and tested a representative sample, it wouldn’t be 68 percent.”
The ONS data referred to the in the thread is general population (but current infections not antibody for some reason).
It might also suggest that the much lower rate in the well-off mainly white suburb is because this group are more likely choose to be tested "just because" than in the poorer districts.
Absolutely. Im vaguely tempted to pay to get antibody tested because I had that cold in December! If I was skint it wouldnt cross my mind.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
I guess you must fume at things like 'And Then There Were None' as the new name for an Agatha Christie novel.
Is it still possible to read The Nigger of the Narcissus without being hissed at?
Nope, you have to call it A Tale of the Forecastle or something else in America.
I read many years ago when the FBI were tracking a white supremacist group they used to refer to the title of the book as a euphemism for assaulting African Americans.
Many years ago , working for the Police, we were all sent on a course after the , Stephen Lawrence enguiry. We were told not to use the phrase nitty gritty, which many were surprised at. Since then I have heard it used many times on the media including the BBC.
Niggardly is now unallowed, despite having no etymological link to the N-word
You just said it, will anything happen? No, very little is actually "unallowed", all that happens is others will judge people on their words as they have always done.
Exactly. Poster comes along and types "niggardly is not allowed". Epitomizes so much of this debate. Not that there is no issue - there is - but the problem of existing racism and sexism is by a million miles a more serious and substantial one than us here in England supposedly "losing our right of free speech". That is hyperbole bordering on invention. Also rather insulting to the many people in totalitarian states who ARE deprived of free speech.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
Surely he was sacked for being an idiot. I wouldn't, frankly, describe him as 'averagely immature' if he wore that shirt during, effectively, working hours.
Eyeballing, there's no reason to think that exponential decay isn't continuing, but the number of infections is small compared to the uncertainty range. And flattening off is what curves do.
The ZOE/KCL app is estimating about 1400 new infections a day now, which looks like a similar ballpark and would be a dozen or so deaths a day in a month's time.
That's all fairly good news, though it's all a fair bit higher than elsewhere in Europe (see the header) and the government shredded a fair bit of credibility by mucking around with data presentation when things were grim.
The sadness that follows the happiness when you order something wonderful and then discover it is going to be delivered either by Yodel or Hermes.
Or DPD....
You're the first person I've ever heard list DPD as a bad one.
I love DPD. I'd rather DPD than the Royal Mail, its my favourite one to get a delivery from. Their live tracking is fantastic.
It's downright amazing. When DPD say they will deliver between say 15:15 and 16:15 they almost always deliver within a minute or so of the start time. I don't know how they are so accurate with their timings, but no other company comes close.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
If you actually paid attention to what I write instead of dismissing it all as "woke nonsense" you would know that I have continuously opposed the removal of monuments and the "cancelling" of historical figures.
Then you should appreciate that all these activities do not exist in isolation from one another, but are all part of a continuous spectrum, with the same ideology motivating them all. I entirely agree that the fate of one word or one statue is unimportant and can always be justified in one way or another - the point is that it's an incremental, salami-slicing technique to get people used to much more pervasive changes because 'Well, we got rid of those words and no one cared, so why should they care when we do X Y Z...'
If you believe this - which imo is florid in the extreme but let's go with it - you have no choice but to leap upon every single change of a word, to a street name, to a habit or custom, and fight it. Fight it with everything you've got until you are completely spent. You may lose, you probably will, but you will at least be able in 40 50 years time, with the woke world established all around you, to point at it and tell your grandkids, "See all this shit? Nothing to do with me. I took a rebel stand. Ask your dad."
It will be my greatest pleasure to be able to say so
You'll be a right old pain in the pipe, rabbiting on about when you could chew tobacco and call a spade a spade.
Its seems the disease has followed almost exactly the path predicted for it by Professor Gupta and the Oxford team. Predictions that were widely mocked and scorned when I first mentioned them on here weeks ago.
Recently Professor Gupta commented that lockdown and social distancing risk weakening our immune systems because we are not coming into contact with bugs and germs in the normal way.
I suggest we listen for a change.
For the record, I for one did mock Oxford. I was one of those arguing it was worth a serious look.
Even more so when the details of Ferguson's so-called "model" and code became public.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
You mean the 2014 case of Matt Taylor who still works for the European Space Agency? Ok!
It's good that he still works for them, but that was an example of the misdirected and sometimes quite extreme censoriousness that Chomsky and others were talking about yesterday.
It's most recently exaggerated by the actions of corporations firing employees after twitter trends, and there's a link between the most stridently expressed identity politics and ultra-individualised capitalism.
As I said yesterday if its disproportionate of course it is wrong and should be stopped. No-one really came up with concrete cases where this was the case. Its all anecdotes that are incomplete or incorrect, as your "recent" "sacking" shows when its from 2014 and he wasnt sacked.
Do people get rubbish and unwarranted abuse on twitter for this? Absolutely.
Do a significant number lose their jobs disproportionately? Not seen any evidence of that at all.
At a clinic in Corona, a working-class neighborhood in Queens, more than 68 percent of people tested positive for antibodies to the new coronavirus. At another clinic in Jackson Heights, Queens, that number was 56 percent. But at a clinic in Cobble Hill, a mostly white and wealthy neighborhood in Brooklyn, only 13 percent of people tested positive for antibodies.
NYTimes
That is possibly very, very big news.
Fascinatingly the suburb is actually called Corona.
I know. Weird.
A suburb called "Crown" in the borough of "Queens" isn't that weird really!
"Goodbye to Rosie, the queen of Corona Seein' me and Julio Down by the schoolyard"
Re: Wiki, Corona was called West Flushing until either
a) real estate agent coined the new name saying the neighborhood was the crown of Queens
b) Italian immigrants settling there early 20th century called the place "Corona" after a local Crown Building Co.
Either way, name is definitely "royal"
BTW, the Borough of Brooklyn, New York City is coterminous with Kings County, New York State. So Kings (Brookly) & Queens were a matched set.
BTW had a uncle & aunt who lived in Corona back in late '70s.
Corona was a brand of soft drinks in my youth, and indeed much later.
Eyeballing, there's no reason to think that exponential decay isn't continuing, but the number of infections is small compared to the uncertainty range. And flattening off is what curves do.
The ZOE/KCL app is estimating about 1400 new infections a day now, which looks like a similar ballpark and would be a dozen or so deaths a day in a month's time.
That's all fairly good news, though it's all a fair bit higher than elsewhere in Europe (see the header) and the government shredded a fair bit of credibility by mucking around with data presentation when things were grim.
The number of positive tests is tiny so very hard to know the trends at these levels.
It should be an urgent government priority to increase the sample size by 10x so we can continue tracking this way and get accurate results.
Its seems the disease has followed almost exactly the path predicted for it by Professor Gupta and the Oxford team. Predictions that were widely mocked and scorned when I first mentioned them on here weeks ago.
Recently Professor Gupta commented that lockdown and social distancing risk weakening our immune systems because we are not coming into contact with bugs and germs in the normal way.
I suggest we listen for a change.
For the record, I for one did mock Oxford. I was one of those arguing it was worth a serious look.
Even more so when the details of Ferguson's so-called "model" and code became public.
Indeed, and this isn't an I told you so trip. I worry that something else could rip though our population in the winter because our immune systems have spent the last four months on the sofa eating pizza and drinking lager.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
You mean the 2014 case of Matt Taylor who still works for the European Space Agency? Ok!
It's good that he still works for them, but that was an example of the misdirected and sometimes quite extreme censoriousness that Chomsky and others were talking about yesterday.
It's most recently exaggerated by the actions of corporations firing employees after twitter trends, and there's a link between the most stridently expressed identity politics and ultra-individualised capitalism.
As I said yesterday if its disproportionate of course it is wrong and should be stopped. No-one really came up with concrete cases where this was the case. Its all anecdotes that are incomplete or incorrect, as your "recent" "sacking" shows when its from 2014 and he wasnt sacked.
Do people get rubbish and unwarranted abuse on twitter for this? Absolutely.
Do a significant number lose their jobs disproportionately? Not seen any evidence of that at all.
The paragraph that Chomsky, Rushdie and others put their name to yesterday is fairly accurate, I think.
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes."
There's two processes at work - a sometimes excessive social-media driven censoriousness, which has for some people definitely affected careers and quietened others, and a reactionary parody of this which is extremely useful for the radical Brexiters and Trumpists of this world, and are like the opening act of their own extremism. These are the two sides of our current extreme personal identity politics.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
OK yes. There are excesses leading to deeply unfair outcomes. But it's my genuine perception that they are rare. Certainly much rarer than the "mood music" would have you believe. I'd draw a comparison with the old "immigrant given 6 bedroom luxury mansion" type stories of old. It did happen - and every single time it did it was front page news in the Mail. Showing how rare it was.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
You mean the 2014 case of Matt Taylor who still works for the European Space Agency? Ok!
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
It is the effective but informal repression via sackings, disciplinary hearings and boycotts that are the biggest problem.
The impression is sometimes given that loads of people are losing their livelihood due to slips of the tongue, or to simply speaking or joking around in non PC fashion, but this is simply not the case. The "problem" is wildly exaggerated by reactionary bad actors in order to whip up the backlash and to win votes in elections from the exploited and bamboozled ignorami.
I think this is sometimes the case, but very much not always. The recent case of the averagely immature, young-ish scientist who was recently sacked by twitter for having a pattern with naked women on his shirt during a press conference comes to mind.
You mean the 2014 case of Matt Taylor who still works for the European Space Agency? Ok!
It's good that he still works for them, but that was an example of the misdirected and sometimes quite extreme censoriousness that Chomsky and others were talking about yesterday.
It's most recently exaggerated by the actions of corporations firing employees after twitter trends, and there's a link between the most stridently expressed identity politics and ultra-individualised capitalism.
As I said yesterday if its disproportionate of course it is wrong and should be stopped. No-one really came up with concrete cases where this was the case. Its all anecdotes that are incomplete or incorrect, as your "recent" "sacking" shows when its from 2014 and he wasnt sacked.
Do people get rubbish and unwarranted abuse on twitter for this? Absolutely.
Do a significant number lose their jobs disproportionately? Not seen any evidence of that at all.
There's two processes at work - a sometimes excessive social-media driven censoriousness, which has for some people definitely affected careers and quietened others, and a reactionary parody of this which is extremely useful for the radical Brexiters and Trumpists of this world, and are like the opening act of their own extremism. They are the two sides of our current extreme identity politics.
The paragraph that Chomsky, Rushdie and others put their name to yesterday is fairly accurate, I think.
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes."
1 Editors are fired for running controversial pieces - always happened, any recent examples to discuss? 2 journalists are barred from writing on certain topics - its never been easier for journalists to write about what they really want and publicise it. 3 professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class - investigated for what? was there any disproportionate action taken? 4 a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study - peer review is not always a particularly robust process, if I was in charge of an academic department that wouldnt be a sufficient defence for promoting a study if it was weak, incorrect or misleading. 5 the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes - always happened, any recent examples to discuss?
If these issues are as widespread as believed there should be a dozen well known answers to 1 & 5. During McCarthyism people could have given a dozen examples easily of people impacted - can it be done today? I dont know but I doubt it.
Most of the disproportionate actions taken against them are simply other people on twitter not liking them or speaking unfairly about them, nothing to do with their jobs or preventing academia or journalism functioning.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
"People working from home during the coronavirus pandemic could be given the opportunity to relocate to the Caribbean under a proposal from the Barbados government.
Prime Minister Mia Mottley is considering introducing a "Barbados Welcome Stamp" which would allow international arrivals to live on the island while working remotely for up to a year."
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
That's perhaps a misconception of the word vocation then.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
Your way of 'arguing' is incredibly dense - what I have an emotional bond with is the principle that ordinary linguistic usages should not be effaced simply to pander to the offense-seeking of woke idiots. I know that you prefer mindless compliance with whatever the last person told you to say or not to say, but not everyone embraces unthinking orthodoxy with such gusto, I'm afraid.
As I've previously stated, I don't really care. I'll use whitelist, or blacklist, or allowlist, or blocklist. I don't care because it doesn't matter.
It really seems to matter to you though and you should probably have a think why.
I just explained why it matters. There's an entire global movement busy effacing or censoring monuments and cancelling historical figures on solipsistic grounds. Now they're moving effortlessly on to the heart of culture: language, books, art, authors, academics, public figures, films etc. I think they should be resisted, others will just lie down in front of their cultural steamroller for the sake of a quiet life. Your choice; others will make their own.
If you actually paid attention to what I write instead of dismissing it all as "woke nonsense" you would know that I have continuously opposed the removal of monuments and the "cancelling" of historical figures.
Then you should appreciate that all these activities do not exist in isolation from one another, but are all part of a continuous spectrum, with the same ideology motivating them all. I entirely agree that the fate of one word or one statue is unimportant and can always be justified in one way or another - the point is that it's an incremental, salami-slicing technique to get people used to much more pervasive changes because 'Well, we got rid of those words and no one cared, so why should they care when we do X Y Z...'
If you believe this - which imo is florid in the extreme but let's go with it - you have no choice but to leap upon every single change of a word, to a street name, to a habit or custom, and fight it. Fight it with everything you've got until you are completely spent. You may lose, you probably will, but you will at least be able in 40 50 years time, with the woke world established all around you, to point at it and tell your grandkids, "See all this shit? Nothing to do with me. I took a rebel stand. Ask your dad."
It will be my greatest pleasure to be able to say so
You'll be a right old pain in the pipe, rabbiting on about when you could chew tobacco and call a spade a spade.
The literal refusal to call a spade a spade actually goes back to Tacitus, who refers to those things 'per quae egeritur humus aut exciditur caespes' ('by means of which soil is dug out or turf is cut away').
Things were bad enough by the Silver Latin period. There's no need to let the rot spread any further...
"People working from home during the coronavirus pandemic could be given the opportunity to relocate to the Caribbean under a proposal from the Barbados government.
Prime Minister Mia Mottley is considering introducing a "Barbados Welcome Stamp" which would allow international arrivals to live on the island while working remotely for up to a year."
The crucial point here is one I keep banging on about, which is that neither the UK government nor businesses are anywhere near on schedule to put in place the administrative systems which will be required in less than six months' time irrespective of whether Boris does another Houdini act and signs up to a trade deal. [I'm not sure whether the EU27 governments are better prepared or not]. A lot of people, on here and elsewhere, think it's going to be OK because Boris will fold and rebrand his U-turn as a triumph, as he did on the Withdrawal Agreement. Maybe he will, but that doesn't solve all the problems. From the EU document:
During the transition period, the United Kingdom is part of the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Therefore, there are currently no customs formalities for goods moving between the United Kingdom and the Union.
As of 1 January 2021, the United Kingdom will no longer be part of the EU Customs Union. Therefore, customs formalities required under Union law will apply to all goods entering the customs territory of the Union from the United Kingdom, or leaving that customs territory to the United Kingdom.
This will happen even if an ambitious free trade area is established with the United Kingdom, providing for zero tariffs and zero quotas on goods, with customs and regulatory cooperation.
On the EU side, customs authorities will carry out controls on the basis of the Union Customs Code, according to the common risk-based system applied to any other external border of the Union with regard to the movement of goods in relations to third countries. These controls are likely to lead to increased administrative burdens for businesses and longer delivery times in logistical supply chains.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
That's perhaps a misconception of the word vocation then.
What's your definition? A vocation is merely a trade of profession. I know you mean "practical" or "blue collar" but I see why no reason why these should be handled under separate institutions.
All blue collar professions are getting more technical anyway as technology improves, and require just as much skill and dedication as "white collar" professions. Why shouldn't those who train in such professions earn a degree, albeit through practical work as part of a university?
Why are "degree" and "university" such dirty words?
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
That's perhaps a misconception of the word vocation then.
What's your definition? A vocation is merely a trade of profession. I know you mean "practical" or "blue collar" but I see why no reason why these should be handled under separate institutions.
All blue collar professions are getting more technical anyway as technology improves, and require just as much skill and dedication as "white collar" professions. Why shouldn't those who train in such professions earn a degree, albeit through practical work as part of a university?
Why are "degree" and "university" such dirty words?
When someone says "vocational" qualification, I take that to mean formal training in something like plumbing or as an electrician. I don't take that to mean training as a theoretical physicist.
Nothing dirty with the word. I don't see why you can't have separate words to describe academic work, and technical work.
It's really cute that @BluestBlue seems to have an emotional cultural bond with the word "blacklist". Really demonstrates that they should probably get out more, or get a hobby.
It's just as bad as those who seem to have an obsession with Rachel Riley or JK Rowling. They need to get out more and get a grip.
My only problem with the words blacklist / whitelist is finding replacements that don't cause bigger issues during development.
allowlist and denylist seem reasonable, if a bit awkward.
Some companies already use safelist/blocklist. I'm really not sure it makes much of a difference.
There's plenty of combinations. I like allowlist/blocklist.
Really there's no reason not to change this at all. Its just simple decency this one.
How would you phrase the legal instrument and what would be the penalties for disobeying?
What legal instrument?
Common decency doesn't require a legal instrument.
No indeed but one man's common decency....
The discussion, perfectly summed up by @MaxPB, is facile.
Don't use the words fine. But you are banging on about (society, presumably) changing. Unless all you are doing is posturing, or you advocate some sanction, it is indeed facile for you to tell everyone how they should be talking.
I don't believe in sanction no. I don't believe sanction is necessary. Why would there need to be sanction?
Society can change through people's actions it doesn't need government sanctions to evolve change.
So you are seeking to influence others' use of language because of your particular belief of what constitutes decency. Not 1/100% sure exactly how libertarian that is.
Free people making free arguments using free speech without government sanction . . . how is that not libertarian?
Well you are using moral suasion, seeking to impose your world view and beliefs on someone else which doesn't sound particularly libertarian. But maybe I've got the definition of libertarian all wrong.
I'm not trying to impose anything.
I'm seeking in a debate to win an argument using words and persuasion.
How is that anything other than liberal free speech?
The issue isn't you using the words you want to use. The issue is that others who choose to different words are being fired from their jobs and being subjected to mob justice.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
That's perhaps a misconception of the word vocation then.
What's your definition? A vocation is merely a trade of profession. I know you mean "practical" or "blue collar" but I see why no reason why these should be handled under separate institutions.
All blue collar professions are getting more technical anyway as technology improves, and require just as much skill and dedication as "white collar" professions. Why shouldn't those who train in such professions earn a degree, albeit through practical work as part of a university?
Why are "degree" and "university" such dirty words?
When someone says "vocational" qualification, I take that to mean formal training in something like plumbing or as an electrician. I don't take that to mean training as a theoretical physicist.
Nothing dirty with the word. I don't see why you can't have separate words to describe academic work, and technical work.
But the LPC is a vocational course exactly as you describe. It isn't a course to study the law, it is a course to learn how to be a solicitor. It's exactly the same as learning to be a bricklayer, or as an electrician, or a plumber.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
That's perhaps a misconception of the word vocation then.
What's your definition? A vocation is merely a trade of profession. I know you mean "practical" or "blue collar" but I see why no reason why these should be handled under separate institutions.
All blue collar professions are getting more technical anyway as technology improves, and require just as much skill and dedication as "white collar" professions. Why shouldn't those who train in such professions earn a degree, albeit through practical work as part of a university?
Why are "degree" and "university" such dirty words?
When someone says "vocational" qualification, I take that to mean formal training in something like plumbing or as an electrician. I don't take that to mean training as a theoretical physicist.
Nothing dirty with the word. I don't see why you can't have separate words to describe academic work, and technical work.
But the LPC is a vocational course exactly as you describe. It isn't a course to study the law, it is a course to learn how to be a solicitor. It's exactly the same as learning to be a bricklayer, or as an electrician, or a plumber.
So is the course to train to be a theoretical physicist. That doesn't mean I'd describe it as vocational, and I suspect neither would the vast majority of people.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
That's perhaps a misconception of the word vocation then.
What's your definition? A vocation is merely a trade of profession. I know you mean "practical" or "blue collar" but I see why no reason why these should be handled under separate institutions.
All blue collar professions are getting more technical anyway as technology improves, and require just as much skill and dedication as "white collar" professions. Why shouldn't those who train in such professions earn a degree, albeit through practical work as part of a university?
Why are "degree" and "university" such dirty words?
When someone says "vocational" qualification, I take that to mean formal training in something like plumbing or as an electrician. I don't take that to mean training as a theoretical physicist.
Nothing dirty with the word. I don't see why you can't have separate words to describe academic work, and technical work.
But the LPC is a vocational course exactly as you describe. It isn't a course to study the law, it is a course to learn how to be a solicitor. It's exactly the same as learning to be a bricklayer, or as an electrician, or a plumber.
So is the course to train to be a theoretical physicist. That doesn't mean I'd describe it as vocational, and I suspect neither would the vast majority of people.
No it isn't though. It's a practical course. You are assessed in interviewing clients, in drafting documentation. It's not the same as training to be a "theoretical physicist" at all.
It's exactly the same as training to be a plumber. It's assessed in exactly the same way.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
Teenagers who want to be bricklayers (good for them, they'll always have work), won't want to be saddled with debt.
There's plenty of space for thick kids from well off families happy that their child is doing Media Studies at what used to be a polytechnic. Working class kids have a much better understanding of debt and value
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
That's perhaps a misconception of the word vocation then.
What's your definition? A vocation is merely a trade of profession. I know you mean "practical" or "blue collar" but I see why no reason why these should be handled under separate institutions.
All blue collar professions are getting more technical anyway as technology improves, and require just as much skill and dedication as "white collar" professions. Why shouldn't those who train in such professions earn a degree, albeit through practical work as part of a university?
Why are "degree" and "university" such dirty words?
When someone says "vocational" qualification, I take that to mean formal training in something like plumbing or as an electrician. I don't take that to mean training as a theoretical physicist.
Nothing dirty with the word. I don't see why you can't have separate words to describe academic work, and technical work.
But the LPC is a vocational course exactly as you describe. It isn't a course to study the law, it is a course to learn how to be a solicitor. It's exactly the same as learning to be a bricklayer, or as an electrician, or a plumber.
So is the course to train to be a theoretical physicist. That doesn't mean I'd describe it as vocational, and I suspect neither would the vast majority of people.
No it isn't though. It's a practical course. You are assessed in interviewing clients, in drafting documentation. It's not the same as training to be a "theoretical physicist" at all.
It's exactly the same as training to be a plumber. It's assessed in exactly the same way.
OK, so vocational courses are distinct from academic ones?
Yes. Damaged in the making. No-one is born with Trump's astonishing array of negative traits already in place. One could drift into sympathy. Perhaps it will help him at the polls?
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
It has nothing to do with being held in the same regard. Unless I'm mistaken, bricklaying is a skill (I've little direct experience, did a tiny bit as a kid as my Dad is in construction) yes with underpinning theory, but with the majority of learning best delivered practically, in the workplace. Stretching the principles of bricklaying into a three year academic course is a misallocation of resources. It leads to piss easy courses that don't really deliver the skills required. That's what really brings bricklaying into disrepute.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
Teenagers who want to be bricklayers (good for them, they'll always have work), won't want to be saddled with debt.
There's plenty of space for thick kids from well off families happy that their child is doing Media Studies at what used to be a polytechnic. Working class kids have a much better understanding of debt and value
The crucial point here is one I keep banging on about, which is that neither the UK government nor businesses are anywhere near on schedule to put in place the administrative systems which will be required in less than six months' time irrespective of whether Boris does another Houdini act and signs up to a trade deal. [I'm not sure whether the EU27 governments are better prepared or not]. A lot of people, on here and elsewhere, think it's going to be OK because Boris will fold and rebrand his U-turn as a triumph, as he did on the Withdrawal Agreement. Maybe he will, but that doesn't solve all the problems. From the EU document:
During the transition period, the United Kingdom is part of the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Therefore, there are currently no customs formalities for goods moving between the United Kingdom and the Union.
As of 1 January 2021, the United Kingdom will no longer be part of the EU Customs Union. Therefore, customs formalities required under Union law will apply to all goods entering the customs territory of the Union from the United Kingdom, or leaving that customs territory to the United Kingdom.
This will happen even if an ambitious free trade area is established with the United Kingdom, providing for zero tariffs and zero quotas on goods, with customs and regulatory cooperation.
On the EU side, customs authorities will carry out controls on the basis of the Union Customs Code, according to the common risk-based system applied to any other external border of the Union with regard to the movement of goods in relations to third countries. These controls are likely to lead to increased administrative burdens for businesses and longer delivery times in logistical supply chains.
If you're going to go to the trouble of doing a U-turn, you might as well make it a simply massive one. It just won't be called a Customs Union. We will freely decide to unite our customs.
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
But the preconception is university is academic, not vocational. I don't think there are degrees in bricklaying.
But why isn't there? Why shouldn't bricklaying be held in the same regard as other vocations?
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
It has nothing to do with being held in the same regard. Unless I'm mistaken, bricklaying is a skill (I've little direct experience, did a tiny bit as a kid as my Dad is in construction) yes with underpinning theory, but with the majority of learning best delivered practically, in the workplace. Stretching the principles of bricklaying into a three year academic course is a misallocation of resources. It leads to piss easy courses that don't really deliver the skills required. That's what really brings bricklaying into disrepute.
Who said it had to be 3 years? Who said it had to be academic?
I'm saying that currently a lot of these courses are in "colleges" and rightly or wrongly these are less prestigious than "universities".
Why shouldn't we stop offering pointless courses at "universities" and offer world-leading practical courses in bricklaying, plumbing, etc in such institutions?
I don't agree ditching the 50% target. A "university" is just a name for a higher educational establishment. There's no reason why "Steve" cannot go to to university to do bricklaying, or to train to be an electrician.
There is a reason. Electricians are trained via apprenticeships.
Do you have one good reason why people should pay tens of thousands of pounds in fees to be taught how to be an electrician, rather than get an apprenticeship where they are taught how to be an electrician and are paid while they learn on the job?
Comments
All eyes should be on William Barr.
Edit - I suppose Trump could take his time redacting so much that it takes time and/or requires SCOTUS to rule on exactly what can or cannot be redacted.
I'm seeking in a debate to win an argument using words and persuasion.
How is that anything other than liberal free speech?
And of course that that was recently more pronounced, and will take some time to work through into perceptions.
I'm sure that most foreigners are completely unaware that there was a mini-budget yesterday, that will reduce the cost of being a tourist in the UK by a modest amount. Of those who did take notice of it by watching/listening to the more highbrow news, I think the number who would change their mind and go to the UK this summer after all would be vanishingly small.
As Class A-1 lickspittles, that is.
Overwhelming majority against Trumpsky (albeit on narrow grounds) is NO surprise. Only wonder is that two justices jumped down the rat hole with him.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-635_o7jq.pdf
The implication is that many (most?) people are asymptomatic. This would certainly explain the lack of second peaks in many situations.
I have long been a critic of the testing regime in the UK. I always said that we needed to test the general population and not just those in hospital.
The ONS data referred to the in the thread is general population (but current infections not antibody for some reason).
https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/personal-profiles/matt-taylor
Seein' me and Julio
Down by the schoolyard"
Re: Wiki, Corona was called West Flushing until either
a) real estate agent coined the new name saying the neighborhood was the crown of Queens
b) Italian immigrants settling there early 20th century called the place "Corona" after a local Crown Building Co.
Either way, name is definitely "royal"
BTW, the Borough of Brooklyn, New York City is coterminous with Kings County, New York State. So Kings (Brookly) & Queens were a matched set.
BTW had a uncle & aunt who lived in Corona back in late '70s.
Recently Professor Gupta commented that lockdown and social distancing risk weakening our immune systems because we are not coming into contact with bugs and germs in the normal way.
I suggest we listen for a change.
Reality gets away with it because it doesn't have to be realistic.
It's most recently exaggerated by the actions of corporations sometimes incorrectly firing employees after twitter trends, and the most stridently expressed identity politics and our current phase of ultra-individualised capitalism tend to dovetail very neatly.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1281215945436999691?s=20
Eyeballing, there's no reason to think that exponential decay isn't continuing, but the number of infections is small compared to the uncertainty range. And flattening off is what curves do.
The ZOE/KCL app is estimating about 1400 new infections a day now, which looks like a similar ballpark and would be a dozen or so deaths a day in a month's time.
That's all fairly good news, though it's all a fair bit higher than elsewhere in Europe (see the header) and the government shredded a fair bit of credibility by mucking around with data presentation when things were grim.
Even more so when the details of Ferguson's so-called "model" and code became public.
Do people get rubbish and unwarranted abuse on twitter for this? Absolutely.
Do a significant number lose their jobs disproportionately? Not seen any evidence of that at all.
It should be an urgent government priority to increase the sample size by 10x so we can continue tracking this way and get accurate results.
Anyone would think you had a pash on the unfortunate lady.
The paragraph that Chomsky, Rushdie and others put their name to yesterday is fairly accurate, I think.
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes."
There's two processes at work - a sometimes excessive social-media driven censoriousness, which has for some people definitely affected careers and quietened others, and a reactionary parody of this which is extremely useful for the radical Brexiters and Trumpists of this world, and are like the opening act of their own extremism. These are the two sides of our current extreme personal identity politics.
We need to see fewer children going to university.
The 40% target was a rare mistake by Margaret Thatcher.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1281244490414600197
Country went to the dogs when more plebs started going to university.
1. genuine concern for lack of technical skills of young people or
2. silence a few of what they consider (rightly or wrongly) hotbeds of lefty groupthink
As usual the last 3-5 days is subject to revision. Last 5 days included for completeness
"German style" education to go with the "Australian style" points system
2 journalists are barred from writing on certain topics - its never been easier for journalists to write about what they really want and publicise it.
3 professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class - investigated for what? was there any disproportionate action taken?
4 a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study - peer review is not always a particularly robust process, if I was in charge of an academic department that wouldnt be a sufficient defence for promoting a study if it was weak, incorrect or misleading.
5 the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes - always happened, any recent examples to discuss?
If these issues are as widespread as believed there should be a dozen well known answers to 1 & 5. During McCarthyism people could have given a dozen examples easily of people impacted - can it be done today? I dont know but I doubt it.
Most of the disproportionate actions taken against them are simply other people on twitter not liking them or speaking unfairly about them, nothing to do with their jobs or preventing academia or journalism functioning.
I'm going to be studying the LPC at university in September and that's essentially a vocational qualification.
Prime Minister Mia Mottley is considering introducing a "Barbados Welcome Stamp" which would allow international arrivals to live on the island while working remotely for up to a year."
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-working-from-a-holiday-home-barbados-to-offer-year-long-stays-to-remote-workers-12024543
Things were bad enough by the Silver Latin period. There's no need to let the rot spread any further...
During the transition period, the United Kingdom is part of the EU Single Market and Customs Union. Therefore, there are currently no customs formalities for goods moving between the United Kingdom and the Union.
As of 1 January 2021, the United Kingdom will no longer be part of the EU Customs Union. Therefore, customs formalities required under Union law will apply to all goods entering the customs territory of the Union from the United Kingdom, or leaving that customs territory to the United Kingdom.
This will happen even if an ambitious free trade area is established with the United Kingdom, providing for zero tariffs and zero quotas on goods, with customs and regulatory cooperation.
On the EU side, customs authorities will carry out controls on the basis of the Union Customs Code, according to the common risk-based system applied to any other external border of the Union with regard to the movement of goods in relations to third countries. These controls are likely to lead to increased administrative burdens for businesses and longer delivery times in logistical supply chains.
There's plenty more in this vein.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_files/info_site/com_2020_324_2_communication_from_commission_to_inst_en_0.pdf
All blue collar professions are getting more technical anyway as technology improves, and require just as much skill and dedication as "white collar" professions. Why shouldn't those who train in such professions earn a degree, albeit through practical work as part of a university?
Why are "degree" and "university" such dirty words?
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1281247912396296192
Nothing dirty with the word. I don't see why you can't have separate words to describe academic work, and technical work.
It's exactly the same as training to be a plumber. It's assessed in exactly the same way.
There's plenty of space for thick kids from well off families happy that their child is doing Media Studies at what used to be a polytechnic. Working class kids have a much better understanding of debt and value
It will take 11,111 pensioners payments just to pay Gary Lineker alone
It is just wrong
They do really fear for the sector, they expect some consolidations and closures.
We might see some of those former polytechnics close.
I'm saying that currently a lot of these courses are in "colleges" and rightly or wrongly these are less prestigious than "universities".
Why shouldn't we stop offering pointless courses at "universities" and offer world-leading practical courses in bricklaying, plumbing, etc in such institutions?
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1281236923047182337?s=20
Do you have one good reason why people should pay tens of thousands of pounds in fees to be taught how to be an electrician, rather than get an apprenticeship where they are taught how to be an electrician and are paid while they learn on the job?