I have read it. Violence is wrong and anyone threatening it should be arrested or at least cautioned.
My view is tempered by the fact that her words and opinions are being written by the author of the piece and are not direct quotes, but the basis on which the article says her opinions are based is also wrong. The oppression of women is not impossible to fight because of our bodies - women fight oppression all the time and in lots of ways. It sounds like an excuse to justify transphobia.
In the 1980s or 1990s someone probably would have been manually checking all the time to make sure data wasn't being truncated from a spreadsheet in this sort of situation. These days people are so confident in technology that they don't think checks are necessary.
There's something in that. Time is an issue too of course. I once discovered an error in a spreadsheet table which had been used for years for a minor calculation (fortunately of very little importance). In fairness, I too had not bothered to actually check it either, but it has left me paranoid about such things.
So who’s accounting for the Excel fiasco? It’s such a basic error. The development capability must be totally undermined by morons chasing ministers whims.
In the 1980s or 1990s someone probably would have been manually checking all the time to make sure data wasn't being truncated from a spreadsheet in this sort of situation. These days people are so confident in technology that they don't think checks are necessary.
It is one of the problems with technology, people see data on the screen and assume it must be correct. More and more we will get this as governments get bigger and bigger databases on us all. We will see conversations coming up like
Q: Why did you stop my pension? A: Because you are dead.
Q: But I am not dead unless you think I am a zombie A: Then you cant be that person because that person is dead. You are trying to defraud us.
Q: Look heres my driving licence showing you its me. A: It can't be you because that person is dead the computer says so. (confiscates licence)
There is a woman in Oregon who is insisting that she is not dead. Her bank refuses to believe her and has informed the credit reference agencies that she is dead.
It sounds funny but when you are in the middle of it then its not so funny. This is exactly what led to all thost sub post masters having issues. The computer with flawed software said one thing they said another and the computer must be infallible so they were obviously lying.
The lady in Oregon thought it was amusing too until all her cards were cancelled (she's dead after all)
So, to be clear: Excel (even in modern versions) has a million-row limit.... OK, pretty naff in this day and age, but OK, given that it's not meant to be a serious software system...
But it doesn't give an error if you append a CSV file which would take you over the limit, but just silently truncates it? Really? I knew Excel was bad, but that bad?
Just tested it and got a dialog up with an exclamation and the message file not loaded completely which you have to ok away
In that case the explanation in this Guardian article doesn't make sense (unless some half-wit ignored the error):
But while CSV files can be any size, Microsoft Excel files can only be 1,048,576 rows long. When a CSV file longer than that is opened, the bottom rows get cut off and are no longer displayed.
Or the load was part of a macro with warnings turned off (Application.DisplayAlerts = False)
Oh god I bet that's exactly what happened. Normally it wouldn't matter but there probably wasn't any exception handling in the code to catch actual showstopping errors.
People who think Excel is "The Answer" are probably not aware of try { } catch { } blocks .... (or the Excel equivalent)
In the 1980s or 1990s someone probably would have been manually checking all the time to make sure data wasn't being truncated from a spreadsheet in this sort of situation. These days people are so confident in technology that they don't think checks are necessary.
There's something in that. Time is an issue too of course. I once discovered an error in a spreadsheet table which had been used for years for a minor calculation (fortunately of very little importance). In fairness, I too had not bothered to actually check it either, but it has left me paranoid about such things.
It takes years of experience to build the paranoia up to the right level.
Trump on steroids used to be an abstract concept designed to strike fear into the heart of all right minded people. Now Trump is actually on steroids. 😱
In the 1980s or 1990s someone probably would have been manually checking all the time to make sure data wasn't being truncated from a spreadsheet in this sort of situation. These days people are so confident in technology that they don't think checks are necessary.
Anyone with this type of job in the 80s or 90s would have been used to using command lines and be up to speed will all kinds of things directory and file handling, regular expressions, etc.
Then around 20 years ago good quality science and maths students started coming through to uni who were supposedly "computer literate" but had never used anything other than point and click. The software that had opened up computing to the masses also hid the basics of computing. Only those teenagers who were really keen were getting their hands dirty with things like Linux.
It is the software equivalent of no one knows how to change a spark plug anymore.
So who’s accounting for the Excel fiasco? It’s such a basic error. The development capability must be totally undermined by morons chasing ministers whims.
You are assuming that it wasn't just PHE managing to do it, all by themselves.
PHE have not been particularly fast moving with the data - took them ages to get to a single unified system. It certainly doesn't look like they were doing any chasing of whims.....
quick question for the learned ones on here. How at risk is Simon Blake for libel by calling Fox a racist and does this statement change his risk and, conversely, if Fox tried to reverse ferret and make a similar apology for his remarks, would that mitigate his risk?
So, to be clear: Excel (even in modern versions) has a million-row limit.... OK, pretty naff in this day and age, but OK, given that it's not meant to be a serious software system...
But it doesn't give an error if you append a CSV file which would take you over the limit, but just silently truncates it? Really? I knew Excel was bad, but that bad?
Just tested it and got a dialog up with an exclamation and the message file not loaded completely which you have to ok away
In that case the explanation in this Guardian article doesn't make sense (unless some half-wit ignored the error):
But while CSV files can be any size, Microsoft Excel files can only be 1,048,576 rows long. When a CSV file longer than that is opened, the bottom rows get cut off and are no longer displayed.
Or the load was part of a macro with warnings turned off (Application.DisplayAlerts = False)
Oh god I bet that's exactly what happened. Normally it wouldn't matter but there probably wasn't any exception handling in the code to catch actual showstopping errors.
People who think Excel is "The Answer" are probably not aware of try { } catch { } blocks .... (or the Excel equivalent)
try: blah except: pass
Then I don't have to worry about the errors. That's how it works, right?
I have two fired people for that sort of attitude. One at a company where I was contracted as a Senior A/P, the other was an employee of my business.
You either code correctly or you do not bother. I have no time for chancers.
In the 1980s or 1990s someone probably would have been manually checking all the time to make sure data wasn't being truncated from a spreadsheet in this sort of situation. These days people are so confident in technology that they don't think checks are necessary.
Anyone with this type of job in the 80s or 90s would have been used to using command lines and be up to speed will all kinds of things directory and file handling, regular expressions, etc.
Then around 20 years ago good quality science and maths students started coming through to uni who were supposedly "computer literate" but had never used anything other than point and click. The software that had opened up computing to the masses also hid the basics of computing. Only those teenagers who were really keen were getting their hands dirty with things like Linux.
It is the software equivalent of no one knows how to change a spark plug anymore.
They don't seem to teach basics anymore either like basic data structures such as linked lists, binary trees etc. Too reliant on library collection classes without understanding what underlies them and why a particular class might be better for certain jobs
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed drugs which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
I guess all sorts of presidents have been prescribed all sorts of cr8p down the decades.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
One has to hope so. (And that the coordinates of the targets aren't stored in an Excel spreadsheet...)
Regarding the quirks of Excel, I was once puzzled by an error I kept getting in one particular spreadsheet. Eventually I found it. One of the columns was abbreviations of academic qualifications. For Master of Architecture, the abbreviation was MArch. Excel had "helpfully" converted it to a date.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
But if the patient happened to have those conditions already, does it double down, or flip them back toward normality?
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
In reality the generals would step in before he could press the red button... Wouldn't they?
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
Had an idea recently to illustrate the issue with exponential growth and how we don't instinctively grasp it from our linear visualisations.
I've switched the England-only (as most up-to-date) daily hospital admissions to a logarithmic scale (base 2, as doublings are the currency by which we're watching this thing). From the earliest data on the coronavirus dashboard (mid-March) to the present, with a 7-day smoothed average.
(Apologies, but I haven't shifted that line as we don't know the next three days yet, so the smoothed average lags the situation by about 3 days).
We came down about 6 doublings from the peak in early April to the trough in late August.
Since then, we've gone up about 3 doublings.
At its current level, we can probably sustain it indefinitely as well as plenty (all?) of non-covid activity. One more doubling would probably see quite a bit of non-covid activity suspended. Two more doublings would see that even worse. Three more doublings would get us to the same peak as before. Four doublings would be breaking new ground and putting the NHS (which would probably be almost solely covid-focused at this point) under extreme pressure. Five doublings would take it past breaking point of the NHS to a significant degree.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
Not many patients on steroids get truly psychotic, but mood changes and ebullience are not unusual, and may be followed by lethargy and depression.
Too many nights of my youth was spent pulling patients off the ceiling, and chasing them with syringes of sedative. Usually these patients go off when night falls.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
Not many patients on steroids get truly psychotic...
Not the most comforting way of putting it. Non zero chance of psychotic patient in control of nuclear arsenal.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
I've always assumed there are, in reality, some layers of checks on this. It's always possible any President (or PM) has some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode, and that they couldn't in practice just launch a nuclear missile at 2am on a wet Tuesday.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
Hancock said earlier she wasn't speaking for the government, that she's not part of the committee making the decision and that the government will be making the decision based upon clinical advice.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
I've always assumed there are, in reality, some layers of checks on this. It's always possible any President (or PM) has some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode, and that they couldn't in practice just launch a nuclear missile at 2am on a wet Tuesday.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
There is a chain, and the president is part of that chain. If the president suddenly decides to bomb Kuala Lumpur just for fun, it's not going to happen.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
Not many patients on steroids get truly psychotic...
Not the most comforting way of putting it. Non zero chance of psychotic patient in control of nuclear arsenal.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
It's not that daft. Flu vaccine is restricted under the NHS to at risk groups for similar reasons.
It is not just health economics, but also balance of risks. A severe side effect affecting 0.1% for example may be tolerable in an eighty year old with chest and heart problems, less so in a fit student.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
Hancock said earlier she wasn't speaking for the government, that she's not part of the committee making the decision and that the government will be making the decision based upon clinical advice.
One of the more interesting things about this crisis has been the way in which various parts of the bureaucracy have gone on manoeuvres.
For example, early on, various officials adopted an-over-my-dead-body approach to using non NHS labs to process tests. It took ministers saying "Your proposal is acceptable"*, if effect, for them to move on this.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
It's not that daft. Flu vaccine is restricted under the NHS to at risk groups for similar reasons.
It is not just health economics, but also balance of risks. A severe side effect affecting 0.1% for example may be tolerable in an eighty year old with chest and heart problems, less so in a fit student.
Mostly it is about prioritising though
Never known anyone suffering the effects of flu 6 months later though. With covid it seems commonish.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
It's not that daft. Flu vaccine is restricted under the NHS to at risk groups for similar reasons.
It is not just health economics, but also balance of risks. A severe side effect affecting 0.1% for example may be tolerable in an eighty year old with chest and heart problems, less so in a fit student.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
I've always assumed there are, in reality, some layers of checks on this. It's always possible any President (or PM) has some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode, and that they couldn't in practice just launch a nuclear missile at 2am on a wet Tuesday.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
There is a chain, and the president is part of that chain. If the president suddenly decides to bomb Kuala Lumpur just for fun, it's not going to happen.
There is a chain, but if the president says 'Fire' then everyone beneath him is obliged to go through with it. (If the president has gone nuts then your only hope is that someone realizes it and decides to disobey orders.) It was designed like that because you can't have a functioning deterrent, what with the small timespan you have to react, if it has to be agreed by committee.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
I've always assumed there are, in reality, some layers of checks on this. It's always possible any President (or PM) has some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode, and that they couldn't in practice just launch a nuclear missile at 2am on a wet Tuesday.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
That's right. Trump would not at the best of times be allowed anywhere such a decision. There is no button.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
I've always assumed there are, in reality, some layers of checks on this. It's always possible any President (or PM) has some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode, and that they couldn't in practice just launch a nuclear missile at 2am on a wet Tuesday.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
There is a chain, and the president is part of that chain. If the president suddenly decides to bomb Kuala Lumpur just for fun, it's not going to happen.
There is a chain, but if the president says 'Fire' then everyone beneath him is obliged to go through with it. (If the president has gone nuts then your only hope is that someone realizes it and decides to disobey orders.) It was designed like that because you can't have a functioning deterrent, what with the small timespan you have to react, if it has to be agreed by committee.
There is a 2 man rule at each stage in the chain - the Presidents launch order has to be verified by the Sec. Def.
How was Hillary doing in Ohio at the same juncture I wonder......Up a couple....??
And look at those undecideds.....
The last RCP poll average in 2016 was Trump +4 over Clinton. Trafalgar Group this cycle has consistently been the single most favorable pollster for Trump across the board of state and national polls, by quite a big margin to the average. Hence my comment.
University cities on brink of local lockdown in wake of the Test and Trace blunder
Telegraph
I still don't understand why the government haven't just come out and said the additional data is primarily from university labs, not only do I know that they get the data, I also know they started sending it to PHE exactly around the time the problems started and unsurprisingly the additional cases are showing up in university towns like Leeds and Manchester.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
I've always assumed there are, in reality, some layers of checks on this. It's always possible any President (or PM) has some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode, and that they couldn't in practice just launch a nuclear missile at 2am on a wet Tuesday.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
There is a chain, and the president is part of that chain. If the president suddenly decides to bomb Kuala Lumpur just for fun, it's not going to happen.
There is a chain, but if the president says 'Fire' then everyone beneath him is obliged to go through with it. (If the president has gone nuts then your only hope is that someone realizes it and decides to disobey orders.) It was designed like that because you can't have a functioning deterrent, what with the small timespan you have to react, if it has to be agreed by committee.
There is a 2 man rule at each stage in the chain - the Presidents launch order has to be verified by the Sec. Def.
Not according to this:
Note that the secretary of defense does not confirm the president’s decision, nor does he or she have a right to veto it, nor does anyone else have the authority to override the decision. This is what Elaine Scarry has identified as, in effect, a “thermonuclear monarchy,” which gives the US president almost carte blanche command over the nuclear forces.
The sample had a 2016 recall vote of plus 6 for Trump which is bigger than the actual result of plus 4.
Also an A+ rated pollster by 538, with about half the polling coming after Trump had fessed up to catching the plague, so another pointer to Trump going backwards nationally.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
I think that's been refuted already by Hancock.
The original story didn't seem credible. Why were they buying 100m+ doses if only a fraction of the population were going to get it.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
I think that's been refuted already by Hancock.
Vaccinating people in their 20s - 40s pays itself back quickly in economic terms I think. Also good for herd immunity given our likely strong immune response. Obviously I know we're at the back of the queue but that's not a worry.
Can anyone fathom the thinking behind this bizarre statement giving the impression that the government has taken a deliberate decision not to vaccinate anyone under 50?
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
I think that's been refuted already by Hancock.
Vaccinating people in their 20s - 40s pays itself back quickly in economic terms I think. Also good for herd immunity given our likely strong immune response. Obviously I know we're at the back of the queue but that's not a worry.
Yes, it's definitely worth it to get young people out in the pubs and bars again quickly.
The sample had a 2016 recall vote of plus 6 for Trump which is bigger than the actual result of plus 4.
Also an A+ rated pollster by 538, with about half the polling coming after Trump had fessed up to catching the plague, so another pointer to Trump going backwards nationally.
The "shy Trumper" theory is tricky to reconcile that with this voter recall.
To be fair, I've seen no advertising from cinemas - I'd have thought being a reasonably safe form of public entertainment (sitting facing one way in a socially distant fashion) they'd have fought a bit more.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen says she has placed herself in isolation after being in contact with a person infected with coronavirus.
You can have all the unconscious bias training in the world, it won't help if they don't also offer idiot training. The latter, helpfully, is equally necessary for people of all genders and races.
Trump is in charge of an arsenal which could destroy a large chunk of mankind in minutes. The fact that he is being prescribed a drug which can induce psychosis and mania is deeply worrying.
The military Will have disconnected his box and changed the codes
I've always assumed there are, in reality, some layers of checks on this. It's always possible any President (or PM) has some sort of breakdown or psychotic episode, and that they couldn't in practice just launch a nuclear missile at 2am on a wet Tuesday.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
There is a chain, and the president is part of that chain. If the president suddenly decides to bomb Kuala Lumpur just for fun, it's not going to happen.
There is a chain, but if the president says 'Fire' then everyone beneath him is obliged to go through with it. (If the president has gone nuts then your only hope is that someone realizes it and decides to disobey orders.) It was designed like that because you can't have a functioning deterrent, what with the small timespan you have to react, if it has to be agreed by committee.
There is a 2 man rule at each stage in the chain - the Presidents launch order has to be verified by the Sec. Def.
Not according to this:
Note that the secretary of defense does not confirm the president’s decision, nor does he or she have a right to veto it, nor does anyone else have the authority to override the decision. This is what Elaine Scarry has identified as, in effect, a “thermonuclear monarchy,” which gives the US president almost carte blanche command over the nuclear forces.
Comments
My view is tempered by the fact that her words and opinions are being written by the author of the piece and are not direct quotes, but the basis on which the article says her opinions are based is also wrong. The oppression of women is not impossible to fight because of our bodies - women fight oppression all the time and in lots of ways. It sounds like an excuse to justify transphobia.
Just great.
I guess the 25th is a forlorn hope.
Telegraph
Then around 20 years ago good quality science and maths students started coming through to uni who were supposedly "computer literate" but had never used anything other than point and click. The software that had opened up computing to the masses also hid the basics of computing. Only those teenagers who were really keen were getting their hands dirty with things like Linux.
It is the software equivalent of no one knows how to change a spark plug anymore.
PHE have not been particularly fast moving with the data - took them ages to get to a single unified system. It certainly doesn't look like they were doing any chasing of whims.....
https://twitter.com/mejay227/status/1313142682991108101
You either code correctly or you do not bother. I have no time for chancers.
No and No.
But admissions and deaths don;t suit the government's narrative. lagging pneumonia and flu deaths as they are.
So....
Eventually I found it. One of the columns was abbreviations of academic qualifications.
For Master of Architecture, the abbreviation was MArch.
Excel had "helpfully" converted it to a date.
Absolutely sensationally executes.
Flawless.
https://twitter.com/Danesworlds/status/1313140500518580231
What is this meant to make people under 50 think? Surely, that there's no point in avoiding catching (and spreading) the virus, because they're not going to be vaccinated, so they're bound to get it sooner or later?
As if that wasn't moronic enough, the only reason the woman actually suggested for this policy was that the vaccine would have side-effects that would do more harm than good! How do people so mind-numbingly stupid get into positions of influence?
I've switched the England-only (as most up-to-date) daily hospital admissions to a logarithmic scale (base 2, as doublings are the currency by which we're watching this thing). From the earliest data on the coronavirus dashboard (mid-March) to the present, with a 7-day smoothed average.
(Apologies, but I haven't shifted that line as we don't know the next three days yet, so the smoothed average lags the situation by about 3 days).
We came down about 6 doublings from the peak in early April to the trough in late August.
Since then, we've gone up about 3 doublings.
At its current level, we can probably sustain it indefinitely as well as plenty (all?) of non-covid activity.
One more doubling would probably see quite a bit of non-covid activity suspended.
Two more doublings would see that even worse.
Three more doublings would get us to the same peak as before.
Four doublings would be breaking new ground and putting the NHS (which would probably be almost solely covid-focused at this point) under extreme pressure.
Five doublings would take it past breaking point of the NHS to a significant degree.
Too many nights of my youth was spent pulling patients off the ceiling, and chasing them with syringes of sedative. Usually these patients go off when night falls.
I'm not surprised they don't publicise what the procedures are precisely, but I'd be surprised (as well as terrified) if it was quite such a simple process as one man tapping in some codes.
Biden 49
Trump 41
The sample had a 2016 recall vote of plus 6 for Trump which is bigger than the actual result of plus 4.
It is not just health economics, but also balance of risks. A severe side effect affecting 0.1% for example may be tolerable in an eighty year old with chest and heart problems, less so in a fit student.
Mostly it is about prioritising though
https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/oh-pres-1020/
For example, early on, various officials adopted an-over-my-dead-body approach to using non NHS labs to process tests. It took ministers saying "Your proposal is acceptable"*, if effect, for them to move on this.
*SciFi joke.
And look at those undecideds.....
They turned out early to vote against him.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ohio/
Tossup this time round:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/ohio/
Trump subsequently got 51.7% and Clinton got 43.6%. So within the MOE.
So as usual you are wrong.
Note that the secretary of defense does not confirm the president’s decision, nor does he or she have a right to veto it, nor does anyone else have the authority to override the decision. This is what Elaine Scarry has identified as, in effect, a “thermonuclear monarchy,” which gives the US president almost carte blanche command over the nuclear forces.
https://www.wagingpeace.org/protocol-u-s-nuclear-strike/
Yes, the site has an anti-nuke agenda, but that's what I've always understood from other sources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-54419760
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42065714
https://twitter.com/pashulman/status/1313157479216406530?s=19