I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
Quite. You could invent it all completely if you wanted. I suppose it depends what kind of story you are telling and how 'realistic' a story you want to tell as to how much you depart from the facts (some departure being necessary in any case as real life does not always fit convenient narratives).
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
In the early series they made up conversations, based on their best guess as to what credibly could have happened, given the evidence. Now they are making up conversations to create a good story.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
In the early series they made up conversations, based on their best guess as to what credibly could have happened, given the evidence. Now they are making up conversations to create a good story.
COVID is a funny bugger. Just heard that alex dowcett, the pro cyclist has contracted covid and had to call off his attempt at the world hour record. Only reason he suspected it, couldn't get his usual power output during a training session and drank a non alcoholic beer with a meal that tasted rank.
His partner, who he lives in a very small flat with, hasn't got it.
Is it moral to think that this is particularly bad for a pro sportsman? If he gets long COVID, his career is gone...
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
In the early series they made up conversations, based on their best guess as to what credibly could have happened, given the evidence. Now they are making up conversations to create a good story.
Sounds more entertaining then.
Yes, it’s well worth a watch. And, given its huge global audience, you’ll know that the storyline as depicted is what people, especially American people, will always henceforth think happened, regardless of what any historian might have or will ever write.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I had indeed never heard of Fish or Tommy Flowers.
This was the strategic communication network for the Germans. Literally getting the inside track on what the German military was going to do next, at the top level.
It does neatly illustrate the weak link between fame and achievement. Of course none of the people worked on Ultra seeking fame, so it doesn't ultimately matter, but it would be nice if such an important part of WWII history wasn't reduced down to one bloke and one cipher machine when it was a very large project with thousands of people involved.
Or the work of Operations Researchers. While the people at the front end were demanding giant depth charges - culminating in the Mk X - they pointed out that the evidence was that what was needed was better targeting combined with a weapon that matched the accuracy of the targeting to the "spread"
Which led to Hedgehog and then Squid.
Which turned attacking U Boats from throwing depth charges at them until you ran out, to kill rates per attack that were off the charts.
More dead Nazis per dollar/pound by an order of magnitude.
It turned the Battle of the North Atlantic from a battle to a slaughter. Of U Boats. Well that and closing the air cover gap.
And having cracked naval enigma so you knew where they were, and new tactics from WATO war-gamers at Liverpool.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I had indeed never heard of Fish or Tommy Flowers.
This was the strategic communication network for the Germans. Literally getting the inside track on what the German military was going to do next, at the top level.
It does neatly illustrate the weak link between fame and achievement. Of course none of the people worked on Ultra seeking fame, so it doesn't ultimately matter, but it would be nice if such an important part of WWII history wasn't reduced down to one bloke and one cipher machine when it was a very large project with thousands of people involved.
Or the work of Operations Researchers. While the people at the front end were demanding giant depth charges - culminating in the Mk X - they pointed out that the evidence was that what was needed was better targeting combined with a weapon that matched the accuracy of the targeting to the "spread"
Which led to Hedgehog and then Squid.
Which turned attacking U Boats from throwing depth charges at them until you ran out, to kill rates per attack that were off the charts.
More dead Nazis per dollar/pound by an order of magnitude.
It turned the Battle of the North Atlantic from a battle to a slaughter. Of U Boats. Well that and closing the air cover gap.
And having cracked naval enigma so you knew where they were, and new tactics from WATO war-gamers at Liverpool.
Though there are those who say that automated Huff Duff was the key to *killing* the U Boats. As opposed to avoiding them.
COVID is a funny bugger. Just heard that alex dowcett, the pro cyclist has contracted covid and had to call off his attempt at the world hour record. Only reason he suspected it, couldn't get his usual power output during a training session and drank a non alcoholic beer with a meal that tasted rank.
His partner, who he lives in a very small flat with, hasn't got it.
He drank a non alcoholic beer which tasted rank... So how did he suspect he had Covid?
Been rather busy today, what idiocy did Toby Young do today that he had to delete?
Mess up calculating 50 000 / 5 000 000.
The "Toby Young" who is into traditional academic values and had a part in setting up a genuinely good secondary school must be furious that there's a gibbering fool who keeps popping up spouting rubbish who shares the same name.
Further proof that the University of Oxford is a complete dump.
As no Cambridge graduate would ever make a fool of herself with numbers on live TV.
We gave the world Alan Turing, you gave the world Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, and Toby Young.
That was Alan Turning who argued against the US knocking up a version of Enigma that could always crack the code because it was “inelegant”
Without Alan Turing millions more people would have died. Shameful post from you.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
Don't forget the role of the Poles.
Indeed. When someone asks "Who broke Enigma?" the sensible questions include
1) Do you mean Enigma or do you actually mean another cipher, such as Fish (which may have been more important) 2) Which version of the Enigma machine 3) Which keying/setup system 4) Which rotors 5) Which Enigma network (combines 2, 3 & 4 with an actual usage) 6) Do you mean a real break, rather than a theoretical demonstration 7) Do you mean a daily break 8) Do you mean a break of the majority of the traffic
I had a go at building a table of this stuff a long time ago - should really finish it and add it the Wikipedia article on ULTRA
I`m not sure that Turing`s fame is primarily based on his cracking the code is it? I think it`s more to do with the appalling way that he, as a homosexual, was treated.
Surely that came later. He did formulate the concept of the programmable Turing Machine. Or maybe as a nerdy type that made more of an impression on me - also when the Enigma revelations happ[ened in the 1970s and 1980s less was made of Mr T's dfemise.
Not sure. Turing came into my consciousness, In guess, 10 years or so ago. See below from 2013:
The BBC made a TV version of a 1980s play about him in 1996 where he was played by Derek Jacobi, so his public fame goes back before then.
I studied Turing machines in the early 70s as part of my maths degree. It was Manchester university which may have had something to do with it.
Don't know anyone outside of that who had heard of him.
I studied mathematical philosophy, and was occasionally set questions that required me to describe how you would solve a problem with a Turing machine.
I quickly realized that I hated Turing machines, and would instead demonstrate that a Turing machine was functionally identical to a Minsky machine, and would solve the problem using that.
My tutors seemed entirely unfazed by my presenting work that was completely different to everyone else.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I don't agree with that at all. If you want to read history, read history. The play Macbeth casts very little light on, and indeed distorts, the story of the real Macbeth, whom history regards as a pretty effective and well liked monarch. Would you regard it, therefore, as "failed"?
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
Keir successfully swerves bad press, makes it look like the NEC aren't on his side and will reform it, a blinder
Splitting the labour vote in half a Blinder?!
Indeed I will vote Lab in 2021 for my excellent Labour Candidate
Cant see me voting SKS in 2024 if he continues down his current path
Jeremy Corbyn! It's all about Jeremy. His ego is bigger than Johnson's majority!
Why do you think that?
Seems the least egotistical politician i can remember. Always uses we, us, our
The polar opposite of eg Jess Phillips
There is a kind of humbleness that is actually a form of demented self centred-ness.
"Look at me, the saint"...
He wouldnt say that and you know it
Have spoke to him twice.
I do not feel he has an inflated ego.
You are entitled to disagree.
He doesn't need to actually say it to demonstrate it. He does have an apparently sincere, humble manner, and would be a pleasant person to talk to. But his apparent obsessive dogmatic approach to ideological purity, and refusal to see the scale of problems because he cannot recognise how he might have failed in any way om them, does make it reasonable to question whether he rather enjoys his reputation more than he should - his fanboys elevating him to the greatest politician, well beyond typical political fanboying, did not happen in a vacuum, someone was pushing such stuff on his behalf.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I had indeed never heard of Fish or Tommy Flowers.
This was the strategic communication network for the Germans. Literally getting the inside track on what the German military was going to do next, at the top level.
It does neatly illustrate the weak link between fame and achievement. Of course none of the people worked on Ultra seeking fame, so it doesn't ultimately matter, but it would be nice if such an important part of WWII history wasn't reduced down to one bloke and one cipher machine when it was a very large project with thousands of people involved.
Or the work of Operations Researchers. While the people at the front end were demanding giant depth charges - culminating in the Mk X - they pointed out that the evidence was that what was needed was better targeting combined with a weapon that matched the accuracy of the targeting to the "spread"
Which led to Hedgehog and then Squid.
Which turned attacking U Boats from throwing depth charges at them until you ran out, to kill rates per attack that were off the charts.
More dead Nazis per dollar/pound by an order of magnitude.
It turned the Battle of the North Atlantic from a battle to a slaughter. Of U Boats. Well that and closing the air cover gap.
And having cracked naval enigma so you knew where they were, and new tactics from WATO war-gamers at Liverpool.
The luckiest break was the Nazis turning off the system that warned U-boats of imminent air attacks because they wrongly thought allied aircraft were homing in on it, because they could not believe naval enigma had been broken.
Keir successfully swerves bad press, makes it look like the NEC aren't on his side and will reform it, a blinder
Splitting the labour vote in half a Blinder?!
Indeed I will vote Lab in 2021 for my excellent Labour Candidate
Cant see me voting SKS in 2024 if he continues down his current path
I'm the opposite. My Labour GE VI is pretty firm at the moment, though it wavered for the first time last night. But, after 15 years in which I voted nothing but Labour, I've got a taste for other parties in a period when I voted for Corbyn's Labour fewer times than @DavidHerdson did (i.e. 0). I'd like to bolster SKS in the meantime but b that would mean abandoning Green councillors who do an excellent local job for a Labour administration run by a Corbynite who is having a poor pandemic, and supporting the fatally complacent police commissioner who has allowed WY crime to spiral.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
That's nonsense, it would depend what kind of historical drama you were making. Was the 2018 Mary Queen of Scots movie good? Not really, but not because of any historical inaccuracies in it. Would a more accurate movie be good? Not if it was poorly written, poorly acted and poorly directed. And when the facts may be uncertain or disputed in many cases, making choices as to what to display as the 'truth' is unavoidable even if you don't just want to make things up for the sake of the narrative.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I don't agree with that at all. If you want to read history, read history. The play Macbeth casts very little light on, and indeed distorts, the story of the real Macbeth, whom history regards as a pretty effective and well liked monarch. Would you regard it, therefore, as "failed"?
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
It wouldn't have occurred to me to put The Crown in the same category as Shakespeare. I agree that something can distort the truth and be good or even great art, but it shouldn't purport to be a historically accurate dramatisation.
In light of the fact that there is no fraud, a technical omission on an envelope should not render a ballot invalid. The lack of a written date onan otherwise qualified ballot is a minor technical defect that does not render it deficient
Doesn't that mean that the court has effectively said that the ballot does need to be dated?
That I don't know, but it seems important that in the absence of actual fraud, technical defects do not cause invalidation.
There are two judgements. The first one concerns dates and says that if the voter failed to date the ballot but it was received before the deadline and dated on the outer envelope by the Election Officials, then there was no doubt about the validity of the vote.
The second judgement was about signatures, The voter was required to sign twice but only did it once. The Republicans did not dispute the legitamacy of the vote, simply that technically it lacked a signature in part of the paperwork. The Judge said that in PA law, they always inclined to accept a vote and this was a well established practice.
Executive Summary: The Republicans did not dispute the validity of the votes, therefore they are valid. Case dismissed.
Been rather busy today, what idiocy did Toby Young do today that he had to delete?
Mess up calculating 50 000 / 5 000 000.
The "Toby Young" who is into traditional academic values and had a part in setting up a genuinely good secondary school must be furious that there's a gibbering fool who keeps popping up spouting rubbish who shares the same name.
Further proof that the University of Oxford is a complete dump.
As no Cambridge graduate would ever make a fool of herself with numbers on live TV.
We gave the world Alan Turing, you gave the world Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, and Toby Young.
That was Alan Turning who argued against the US knocking up a version of Enigma that could always crack the code because it was “inelegant”
Without Alan Turing millions more people would have died. Shameful post from you.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
Don't forget the role of the Poles.
Indeed. When someone asks "Who broke Enigma?" the sensible questions include
1) Do you mean Enigma or do you actually mean another cipher, such as Fish (which may have been more important) 2) Which version of the Enigma machine 3) Which keying/setup system 4) Which rotors 5) Which Enigma network (combines 2, 3 & 4 with an actual usage) 6) Do you mean a real break, rather than a theoretical demonstration 7) Do you mean a daily break 8) Do you mean a break of the majority of the traffic
I had a go at building a table of this stuff a long time ago - should really finish it and add it the Wikipedia article on ULTRA
I`m not sure that Turing`s fame is primarily based on his cracking the code is it? I think it`s more to do with the appalling way that he, as a homosexual, was treated.
Surely that came later. He did formulate the concept of the programmable Turing Machine. Or maybe as a nerdy type that made more of an impression on me - also when the Enigma revelations happ[ened in the 1970s and 1980s less was made of Mr T's dfemise.
Not sure. Turing came into my consciousness, In guess, 10 years or so ago. See below from 2013:
The BBC made a TV version of a 1980s play about him in 1996 where he was played by Derek Jacobi, so his public fame goes back before then.
I studied Turing machines in the early 70s as part of my maths degree. It was Manchester university which may have had something to do with it.
Don't know anyone outside of that who had heard of him.
There's the Turing test (which I have always thought was like the Drake equation in being a lot less interesting than it's cracked up to be). And I believe the apple of Apple Computers refers to his suicide, so there's immortality for you.
Seems brave to ask for a recount where you are behind -- better to ask where you are in front so that extra votes found are more likely to be on Trump's side than Biden's, assuming random distribution of errors. Maybe they really do believe their own propaganda about fraud.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I disagree.
If we hadn't cracked Enigma, our Atlantic shipping losses might have been insurmountable.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I had indeed never heard of Fish or Tommy Flowers.
This was the strategic communication network for the Germans. Literally getting the inside track on what the German military was going to do next, at the top level.
It does neatly illustrate the weak link between fame and achievement. Of course none of the people worked on Ultra seeking fame, so it doesn't ultimately matter, but it would be nice if such an important part of WWII history wasn't reduced down to one bloke and one cipher machine when it was a very large project with thousands of people involved.
Or the work of Operations Researchers. While the people at the front end were demanding giant depth charges - culminating in the Mk X - they pointed out that the evidence was that what was needed was better targeting combined with a weapon that matched the accuracy of the targeting to the "spread"
Which led to Hedgehog and then Squid.
Which turned attacking U Boats from throwing depth charges at them until you ran out, to kill rates per attack that were off the charts.
More dead Nazis per dollar/pound by an order of magnitude.
It turned the Battle of the North Atlantic from a battle to a slaughter. Of U Boats. Well that and closing the air cover gap.
And having cracked naval enigma so you knew where they were, and new tactics from WATO war-gamers at Liverpool.
The luckiest break was the Nazis turning off the system that warned U-boats of imminent air attacks because they wrongly thought allied aircraft were homing in on it, because they could not believe naval enigma had been broken.
I went to a wedding in the small German Baltic Sea port of Eckernforde some years ago. The naval base there was the U boat training school, and many of the local fishermen went into the subs. There are a phenomenonal number of names on the war memorial there as 90% of crews died.
COVID is a funny bugger. Just heard that alex dowcett, the pro cyclist has contracted covid and had to call off his attempt at the world hour record. Only reason he suspected it, couldn't get his usual power output during a training session and drank a non alcoholic beer with a meal that tasted rank.
His partner, who he lives in a very small flat with, hasn't got it.
He drank a non alcoholic beer which tasted rank... So how did he suspect he had Covid?
Lol....to be fair, he did say to be sure, he then tried a proper one and it tasted the same, then he knew something was definitely up.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I don't agree with that at all. If you want to read history, read history. The play Macbeth casts very little light on, and indeed distorts, the story of the real Macbeth, whom history regards as a pretty effective and well liked monarch. Would you regard it, therefore, as "failed"?
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
It wouldn't have occurred to me to put The Crown in the same category as Shakespeare. I agree that something can distort the truth and be good or even great art, but it shouldn't purport to be a historically accurate dramatisation.
To what extent do they purport that? It's obviously high budget and presented in an authentic seeming way, but do they make a big deal about it being 'accurate'?
Sounds like the Crown is going down about as well as the last season of tits and dragons.
It's well written, well directed, and well acted but completely at odds with reality, the writer has allowed their anti-Thatcherism to take control
Honestly it is like asking Mel Gibson to write and direct a film featuring the Jews. Again.
I once explained what almost certainly happened re Belgrano/HMS Conqueror to a friend who worked at the BBC.
Who told me that it was un-filmable - she'd been interested in presenting a pitch for a docu-drama on the subject and asks my opinion.
What almost certainly happened?
Due to American codebreaking of Argentine communications - passed directly to the UK - the UK War Cabinet and high command knew that the Belgrano was part of planned 2 axis attack on the UK task force
Admirał Woodward put a message on the communication satellite that would broadcast an order to HMS conqueror to sink the Belgrano. He didn't have authority to do this, and the order was pulled from the satellite.
The official version is that the Conqueror didn't receive the order and that she sank the Belgrano on receipt of a later order.
I believe that the order was received and, despite the Captain knowing that Woodward did not have the authority to issue to the sink order, carried it out. When you consider the story of Troubridge & the Goben, Coronel, The Battle of the Falkland Islands, the Graf Spee etc, it would have been almost impossible *not* to attack..... "being an enemy then flying" and all that.
The clincher to me is that it was the signal book for the Conqueror that went missing. Not the signal books at Northwood, or anywhere else.
Perhaps on the grounds that where there are a large number of votes they have abetter chance of revealing a few irregularities, which can then feed the narrative of a cheat even if its a few hundred out of hundreds of thousands?
COVID is a funny bugger. Just heard that alex dowcett, the pro cyclist has contracted covid and had to call off his attempt at the world hour record. Only reason he suspected it, couldn't get his usual power output during a training session and drank a non alcoholic beer with a meal that tasted rank.
His partner, who he lives in a very small flat with, hasn't got it.
Is it moral to think that this is particularly bad for a pro sportsman? If he gets long COVID, his career is gone...
Long covid': Grigor Dimitrov on still suffering from coronavirus symptoms
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I had indeed never heard of Fish or Tommy Flowers.
This was the strategic communication network for the Germans. Literally getting the inside track on what the German military was going to do next, at the top level.
It does neatly illustrate the weak link between fame and achievement. Of course none of the people worked on Ultra seeking fame, so it doesn't ultimately matter, but it would be nice if such an important part of WWII history wasn't reduced down to one bloke and one cipher machine when it was a very large project with thousands of people involved.
Or the work of Operations Researchers. While the people at the front end were demanding giant depth charges - culminating in the Mk X - they pointed out that the evidence was that what was needed was better targeting combined with a weapon that matched the accuracy of the targeting to the "spread"
Which led to Hedgehog and then Squid.
Which turned attacking U Boats from throwing depth charges at them until you ran out, to kill rates per attack that were off the charts.
More dead Nazis per dollar/pound by an order of magnitude.
It turned the Battle of the North Atlantic from a battle to a slaughter. Of U Boats. Well that and closing the air cover gap.
And having cracked naval enigma so you knew where they were, and new tactics from WATO war-gamers at Liverpool.
Though there are those who say that automated Huff Duff was the key to *killing* the U Boats. As opposed to avoiding them.
Yes. But note you want the merchant ships to avoid the U-boats and let the destroyers and frigates, and later aircraft, attack and sink them. What many people do not realise is U-boats were not like modern submarines built to operate underwater, but surface vessels that could also go under water for a bit, but only for a few hours, and at very low speeds.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I disagree.
If we hadn't cracked Enigma, our Atlantic shipping losses might have been insurmountable.
Even in the Happy Times, the Germans weren't sinking them faster than the Americans were building them.
Seems brave to ask for a recount where you are behind -- better to ask where you are in front so that extra votes found are more likely to be on Trump's side than Biden's, assuming random distribution of errors. Maybe they really do believe their own propaganda about fraud.
Is that right?
If the error you're looking for (crudely) is Trump votes wrongly counted for Biden, but there's an equal risk of finding Biden votes wrongly counted for Trump, then this is the right strategy for Trump. Because if you're thumbing through a pile of 1000 Biden votes, you're more likely to find errors than in the pile of 500 Trump votes, simply because there are more.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I don't agree with that at all. If you want to read history, read history. The play Macbeth casts very little light on, and indeed distorts, the story of the real Macbeth, whom history regards as a pretty effective and well liked monarch. Would you regard it, therefore, as "failed"?
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
It wouldn't have occurred to me to put The Crown in the same category as Shakespeare. I agree that something can distort the truth and be good or even great art, but it shouldn't purport to be a historically accurate dramatisation.
To what extent do they purport that? It's obviously high budget and presented in an authentic seeming way, but do they make a big deal about it being 'accurate'?
It might help if they signposted that it isn't. Perhaps they could have had their Thatcher standing up in the House of Commons and saying, "I'm a global icon and none of you people are fit to tie my shoelaces!"
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I had indeed never heard of Fish or Tommy Flowers.
This was the strategic communication network for the Germans. Literally getting the inside track on what the German military was going to do next, at the top level.
It does neatly illustrate the weak link between fame and achievement. Of course none of the people worked on Ultra seeking fame, so it doesn't ultimately matter, but it would be nice if such an important part of WWII history wasn't reduced down to one bloke and one cipher machine when it was a very large project with thousands of people involved.
Or the work of Operations Researchers. While the people at the front end were demanding giant depth charges - culminating in the Mk X - they pointed out that the evidence was that what was needed was better targeting combined with a weapon that matched the accuracy of the targeting to the "spread"
Which led to Hedgehog and then Squid.
Which turned attacking U Boats from throwing depth charges at them until you ran out, to kill rates per attack that were off the charts.
More dead Nazis per dollar/pound by an order of magnitude.
It turned the Battle of the North Atlantic from a battle to a slaughter. Of U Boats. Well that and closing the air cover gap.
And having cracked naval enigma so you knew where they were, and new tactics from WATO war-gamers at Liverpool.
The luckiest break was the Nazis turning off the system that warned U-boats of imminent air attacks because they wrongly thought allied aircraft were homing in on it, because they could not believe naval enigma had been broken.
I went to a wedding in the small German Baltic Sea port of Eckernforde some years ago. The naval base there was the U boat training school, and many of the local fishermen went into the subs. There are a phenomenonal number of names on the war memorial there as 90% of crews died.
IIRC 75% of everyone who passed U Boat training died. A chunk of the rest were captured and a big chunk of the rest were being held back, onshore for the Type XXIs.
Seems brave to ask for a recount where you are behind -- better to ask where you are in front so that extra votes found are more likely to be on Trump's side than Biden's, assuming random distribution of errors. Maybe they really do believe their own propaganda about fraud.
The aim is to sow distrust in cities with high numbers of minority voters. In the minds of those who don't live there. Thus de-legitimising their votes in the future. It is not about overturning the results, but sowing the seeds of doubt for a later harvest of voter suppression. There is a word for it and it begins with r. Not a word I often bandy about.
Keir successfully swerves bad press, makes it look like the NEC aren't on his side and will reform it, a blinder
Splitting the labour vote in half a Blinder?!
Indeed I will vote Lab in 2021 for my excellent Labour Candidate
Cant see me voting SKS in 2024 if he continues down his current path
Jeremy Corbyn! It's all about Jeremy. His ego is bigger than Johnson's majority!
Why do you think that?
Seems the least egotistical politician i can remember. Always uses we, us, our
The polar opposite of eg Jess Phillips
There is a kind of humbleness that is actually a form of demented self centred-ness.
"Look at me, the saint"...
He wouldnt say that and you know it
Have spoke to him twice.
I do not feel he has an inflated ego.
You are entitled to disagree.
When the EHRC report was published, all Corbyn had to do was to button his lip initially and then issue a humble statement acknowledging that it happened on his watch. Starmer had met with Corbyn a few days earlier to try and coordinate a response. Did the prima donna Corbyn take the cue? No. Instead, he sprinted to the microphone and in front of the cameras issued at valedictory statement that stole the limelight and completely blew out of the water Starmer's attempt to convince the public that under his leadership Labour would act in order to take anti-semitism seriously.
Self-centred? Yes, Corbyn just has to be the centre of attention, always as the victim and serial rebel.
Demented? Probably. Any politician with an ounce of nous would have realised that such a direct challenge could not go unanswered and that it and the inevitable response would blow the whole thing out of the water. It's demented unless Corbyn's intention was to stir up a civil war within the party.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
In the early series they made up conversations, based on their best guess as to what credibly could have happened, given the evidence. Now they are making up conversations to create a good story.
Sounds more entertaining then.
Yes, it’s well worth a watch. And, given its huge global audience, you’ll know that the storyline as depicted is what people, especially American people, will always henceforth think happened, regardless of what any historian might have or will ever write.
I'm still on the third series of the crown -- the Duke of Windsor has just got cancer in Paris -- but the downfall of Mrs Thatcher surely was stranger than fiction. It beggars belief that she appointed to run her campaign a drunkard sex offender and someone tied up in Edinburgh rescuing a bank.
I don't know what "their" expectations were and certainly the idea of a "blue wave" sweeping through both the Executive and Legislature proved unfounded but ultimately they still control the House, the White House and have an outside chance of the Senate.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
I'm sure I've said this before, but I can't help repeating myself. Enigma wasn't even the most important cryptosystem broken, it was Fish, which was the code used by the German High Command. Flowers deserves at least as much credit for his work as Turing gets, and they are only two out of many others.
It's a bit like everyone knowing about Project Mercury, but hardly anyone knowing about the minor matter of LANDING ON THE MOON in Project Apollo.
I had indeed never heard of Fish or Tommy Flowers.
This was the strategic communication network for the Germans. Literally getting the inside track on what the German military was going to do next, at the top level.
It does neatly illustrate the weak link between fame and achievement. Of course none of the people worked on Ultra seeking fame, so it doesn't ultimately matter, but it would be nice if such an important part of WWII history wasn't reduced down to one bloke and one cipher machine when it was a very large project with thousands of people involved.
Or the work of Operations Researchers. While the people at the front end were demanding giant depth charges - culminating in the Mk X - they pointed out that the evidence was that what was needed was better targeting combined with a weapon that matched the accuracy of the targeting to the "spread"
Which led to Hedgehog and then Squid.
Which turned attacking U Boats from throwing depth charges at them until you ran out, to kill rates per attack that were off the charts.
More dead Nazis per dollar/pound by an order of magnitude.
It turned the Battle of the North Atlantic from a battle to a slaughter. Of U Boats. Well that and closing the air cover gap.
And having cracked naval enigma so you knew where they were, and new tactics from WATO war-gamers at Liverpool.
Though there are those who say that automated Huff Duff was the key to *killing* the U Boats. As opposed to avoiding them.
Yes. But note you want the merchant ships to avoid the U-boats and let the destroyers and frigates, and later aircraft, attack and sink them. What many people do not realise is U-boats were not like modern submarines built to operate underwater, but surface vessels that could also go under water for a bit, but only for a few hours, and at very low speeds.
Hence the idea that flying B-24s in slow circles over the North Atlantic to keep the U Boats "down" was far more valuable than trying to use B-24s to eliminate ball bearing production or whatever.
A different question entirely. A worthwhile question to explore, but when looking into why they didn't it would be important to keep in context that it was still a victory, and not go overboard with the self recrimination.
Perhaps on the grounds that where there are a large number of votes they have abetter chance of revealing a few irregularities, which can then feed the narrative of a cheat even if its a few hundred out of hundreds of thousands?
In 2016 Clinton won Milwaukee County by 37 points so a 40 point win doesn't look unreasonable.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I don't agree with that at all. If you want to read history, read history. The play Macbeth casts very little light on, and indeed distorts, the story of the real Macbeth, whom history regards as a pretty effective and well liked monarch. Would you regard it, therefore, as "failed"?
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
It wouldn't have occurred to me to put The Crown in the same category as Shakespeare. I agree that something can distort the truth and be good or even great art, but it shouldn't purport to be a historically accurate dramatisation.
To what extent do they purport that? It's obviously high budget and presented in an authentic seeming way, but do they make a big deal about it being 'accurate'?
It might help if they signposted that it isn't. Perhaps they could have had their Thatcher standing up in the House of Commons and saying, "I'm a global icon and none of you people are fit to tie my shoelaces!"
It never occurs to me to expect a high degree of accuracy from historical drama.
One thing I'll grant you in relation to recent history like this, or subjects you know a little about, is that jarring inaccuracies can bring you out of the suspension of disbelief. As soon as a courtroom drama shows a British judge with a gavel, for example, I immediately and completely lose interest - although I don't expect others to particularly. I think that some of the "political" people reacting against the Crown are taking that line - but I think they are wrong to say it's therefore bad art, when what they mean is that, because they know a bit about the topic, they find the inaccuracies difficult to watch.
Seems brave to ask for a recount where you are behind -- better to ask where you are in front so that extra votes found are more likely to be on Trump's side than Biden's, assuming random distribution of errors. Maybe they really do believe their own propaganda about fraud.
Is that right?
If the error you're looking for (crudely) is Trump votes wrongly counted for Biden, but there's an equal risk of finding Biden votes wrongly counted for Trump, then this is the right strategy for Trump. Because if you're thumbing through a pile of 1000 Biden votes, you're more likely to find errors than in the pile of 500 Trump votes, simply because there are more.
Yes, on reflection I suppose it does depend what type of error they are hoping to catch: uncounted or wrongly counted votes.
Perhaps on the grounds that where there are a large number of votes they have abetter chance of revealing a few irregularities, which can then feed the narrative of a cheat even if its a few hundred out of hundreds of thousands?
In 2016 Clinton won Milwaukee County by 37 points so a 40 point win doesn't look unreasonable.
That wasn't what i was suggesting, just that with more votes there's more chance of some human or technical error occuring somewhere along the line, even if it has no impact. I think all Trump wants is some tiny mistake, something inconsequential, that he can refer to while making outlandish claims.
Pennsylvania's state Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will take up challenges to more than 8,000 ballots in Philadelphia filed by President Donald Trump's campaign, among the lawsuits launched by the Republican and his allies amid President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the battleground state.
The high court's five-member Democratic majority agreed to take up the case, at the city's request, and the question of whether state law requires counties to disqualify mail-in or absentee ballots where a voter didn't write certain information.
Seems brave to ask for a recount where you are behind -- better to ask where you are in front so that extra votes found are more likely to be on Trump's side than Biden's, assuming random distribution of errors. Maybe they really do believe their own propaganda about fraud.
Is that right?
If the error you're looking for (crudely) is Trump votes wrongly counted for Biden, but there's an equal risk of finding Biden votes wrongly counted for Trump, then this is the right strategy for Trump. Because if you're thumbing through a pile of 1000 Biden votes, you're more likely to find errors than in the pile of 500 Trump votes, simply because there are more.
Yes, on reflection I suppose it does depend what type of error they are hoping to catch: uncounted or wrongly counted votes.
They probably wouldn't find many uncounted votes as I understand the way most states do it (and I believe this is also the case in the UK) is first count how many ballots they have and check it against number issued, then count and check the totals against that. Sometimes there is a minor discrepancy and, if that's equivalent to a bundle of votes then you check it. But if it's a case of one bundle of 25 actually having 24 or 26 in it, and it doesn't matter to the result, you don't bother.They would, I'd expect know the scale of this, though, and whether the particular county is a handful short or a handful over.
I don't know what "their" expectations were and certainly the idea of a "blue wave" sweeping through both the Executive and Legislature proved unfounded but ultimately they still control the House, the White House and have an outside chance of the Senate.
They believed the polls and believed they might flip the Senate - which would have given them the Presidency, Senate and the House. Which in US terms is the equivalent of a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons in the UK. You do what you want, pretty much.
Instead they have the Presidency and a moderate lead in the House. The Senate is still a block to anything happening on the legislative front. The moderate House lead will mean that the Democrats there will circle the wagons and not do very much to upset the voters.
There was an article around the time Lady Thatcher died which pointed out The Queen liked Lady Thatcher a lot, there was the OM, and the fact she attended Thatcher's 80th birthday, there were a lot of ways the Queen could have dissed Lady Thatcher but she didn't.
Don't you think that the Queen - and probably both her father and grandfather - would regard "disliking" virtually any PM as profoundly unprofessional?
Yup, but there has this meme that refuses to die that Thatcher and the Queen hated each other, the evidence is that they had a warm and cordial relationship.
Whilst I'm an arch republican, one thing I've always admired about her is that the contents of her weekly audience with her PM has never leaked.
Watching The Crown was amazed Michael Fagan entered Buckingham Palace twice. On the second occasion sat on the Queens bed, whilst she was in it. Must have been a truly frightening experience.
Weird fact: I used to do drugs with Michael Fagan. A surprisingly smart guy
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I don't agree with that at all. If you want to read history, read history. The play Macbeth casts very little light on, and indeed distorts, the story of the real Macbeth, whom history regards as a pretty effective and well liked monarch. Would you regard it, therefore, as "failed"?
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
It wouldn't have occurred to me to put The Crown in the same category as Shakespeare. I agree that something can distort the truth and be good or even great art, but it shouldn't purport to be a historically accurate dramatisation.
The difference with Shakespeare is that he had the sense to avoid recent, living memory history. In the modern age to do dramas about recent stuff which is part of the fabric of common memory is fatal unless you pitch it right. It's another version of those awful dramas set in mid/early 20th century where they get the costume perfect and the dialogue is patently modern/East Enders.
I also heard some commentator or other say "artistic licence doesn't mean you can make up your own facts". To which the answer is that is EXACTLY what artistic licence means by definition.
To be fair, I think what is meant by that is that contradicting known facts is outside the scope of artistic licence for a historical drama. If you make something up with the effect of distorting the essential truth, as opposed to illuminating it, then you've failed.
I don't agree with that at all. If you want to read history, read history. The play Macbeth casts very little light on, and indeed distorts, the story of the real Macbeth, whom history regards as a pretty effective and well liked monarch. Would you regard it, therefore, as "failed"?
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
It wouldn't have occurred to me to put The Crown in the same category as Shakespeare. I agree that something can distort the truth and be good or even great art, but it shouldn't purport to be a historically accurate dramatisation.
To what extent do they purport that? It's obviously high budget and presented in an authentic seeming way, but do they make a big deal about it being 'accurate'?
It might help if they signposted that it isn't. Perhaps they could have had their Thatcher standing up in the House of Commons and saying, "I'm a global icon and none of you people are fit to tie my shoelaces!"
It never occurs to me to expect a high degree of accuracy from historical drama.
One thing I'll grant you in relation to recent history like this, or subjects you know a little about, is that jarring inaccuracies can bring you out of the suspension of disbelief. As soon as a courtroom drama shows a British judge with a gavel, for example, I immediately and completely lose interest - although I don't expect others to particularly. I think that some of the "political" people reacting against the Crown are taking that line - but I think they are wrong to say it's therefore bad art, when what they mean is that, because they know a bit about the topic, they find the inaccuracies difficult to watch.
Yes, I think that’s it, or at least a large part of it. The rest is that the people making it lived through the more recent events, as well, and are more inclined to impose their own first hand recollection and interpretation.
The next season will have to decide what interpretation to put on Diana’s death, which will be interesting. This season has already decided that Charles carried on with Camilla from the beginning (of his marriage), claiming that they spoke on the phone every day - whereas the reliable evidence suggests that they had next to no contact for the first five years but started an affair once the marriage became irretrievable.
Been rather busy today, what idiocy did Toby Young do today that he had to delete?
Mess up calculating 50 000 / 5 000 000.
The "Toby Young" who is into traditional academic values and had a part in setting up a genuinely good secondary school must be furious that there's a gibbering fool who keeps popping up spouting rubbish who shares the same name.
Further proof that the University of Oxford is a complete dump.
As no Cambridge graduate would ever make a fool of herself with numbers on live TV.
We gave the world Alan Turing, you gave the world Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, and Toby Young.
That was Alan Turning who argued against the US knocking up a version of Enigma that could always crack the code because it was “inelegant”
Without Alan Turing millions more people would have died. Shameful post from you.
Alan Turing made major contributions to the ULTRA decryptions.
However, to claim that it was all down to him, is simply wrong. Engima was broken before he got involved.
Dilly Knox did more, but is ignored in the popular imagination. As is Tommy Flowers.
Don't forget the role of the Poles.
Indeed. When someone asks "Who broke Enigma?" the sensible questions include
1) Do you mean Enigma or do you actually mean another cipher, such as Fish (which may have been more important) 2) Which version of the Enigma machine 3) Which keying/setup system 4) Which rotors 5) Which Enigma network (combines 2, 3 & 4 with an actual usage) 6) Do you mean a real break, rather than a theoretical demonstration 7) Do you mean a daily break 8) Do you mean a break of the majority of the traffic
I had a go at building a table of this stuff a long time ago - should really finish it and add it the Wikipedia article on ULTRA
I`m not sure that Turing`s fame is primarily based on his cracking the code is it? I think it`s more to do with the appalling way that he, as a homosexual, was treated.
Surely that came later. He did formulate the concept of the programmable Turing Machine. Or maybe as a nerdy type that made more of an impression on me - also when the Enigma revelations happ[ened in the 1970s and 1980s less was made of Mr T's dfemise.
Not sure. Turing came into my consciousness, In guess, 10 years or so ago. See below from 2013:
The BBC made a TV version of a 1980s play about him in 1996 where he was played by Derek Jacobi, so his public fame goes back before then.
I studied Turing machines in the early 70s as part of my maths degree. It was Manchester university which may have had something to do with it.
Don't know anyone outside of that who had heard of him.
I studied mathematical philosophy, and was occasionally set questions that required me to describe how you would solve a problem with a Turing machine.
I quickly realized that I hated Turing machines, and would instead demonstrate that a Turing machine was functionally identical to a Minsky machine, and would solve the problem using that.
My tutors seemed entirely unfazed by my presenting work that was completely different to everyone else.
It seems to have gone unnoticed - by most - that computers have now sailed through the Turing Test, with flying colours, so, by the definition of Alan Turing, we are now in the era of genuine Artificial Intelligence
I'm a Remainer, but wonder if that graph is actually just the same as you'd find just before and after a divorce? The favourability rating of your partner declines, the split occurs, then you remember that they're not such a bad old stick and you had some good times. Not sure it's a case to do a Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor.
I think I would like to know where this individual received their medical training from....
Former British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman claimed he was unaware of testosterone's performance-enhancing benefits, as his fitness to practise medicine hearing continued.
A question. Is there anyone on the social democrat wing of Labour who have said they want Jezza back, and anyone on the left who want him to stay out? Is this just straight factional lines or are there any principles involved?
Seems brave to ask for a recount where you are behind -- better to ask where you are in front so that extra votes found are more likely to be on Trump's side than Biden's, assuming random distribution of errors. Maybe they really do believe their own propaganda about fraud.
Is that right?
If the error you're looking for (crudely) is Trump votes wrongly counted for Biden, but there's an equal risk of finding Biden votes wrongly counted for Trump, then this is the right strategy for Trump. Because if you're thumbing through a pile of 1000 Biden votes, you're more likely to find errors than in the pile of 500 Trump votes, simply because there are more.
Yes, on reflection I suppose it does depend what type of error they are hoping to catch: uncounted or wrongly counted votes.
They probably wouldn't find many uncounted votes as I understand the way most states do it (and I believe this is also the case in the UK) is first count how many ballots they have and check it against number issued, then count and check the totals against that. Sometimes there is a minor discrepancy and, if that's equivalent to a bundle of votes then you check it. But if it's a case of one bundle of 25 actually having 24 or 26 in it, and it doesn't matter to the result, you don't bother.They would, I'd expect know the scale of this, though, and whether the particular county is a handful short or a handful over.
Not in the US. That they didn’t know how many votes they had until they finished (or at least were well on the way) was a key aspect of betting during that mega long ‘election day’.
I'm a Remainer, but wonder if that graph is actually just the same as you'd find just before and after a divorce? The favourability rating of your partner declines, the split occurs, then you remember that they're not such a bad old stick and you had some good times. Not sure it's a case to do a Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor.
What an excellent time to join EEA/EFTA and satisfy honour on all sides. Divorce and then have a civil partnership.
Encouraging signs on the case numbers today that the new lockdown might be having the desired effect. We're two weeks supposedly from the end of this current lockdown and everyone seems confident it will be a return to the Tier system for the run up to Christmas. It'll be good to see the new case infections fall back to where they were in mid summer.
Then there's the small matter of a vaccine...
Over in America as the cases surge, the counting goes on. Looking at the states we still have votes to come from the following:
Washington DC (95% counted) Illinois (97%) Kentucky (98%) Iowa (98%) Maine (91%) - Biden now leads by 10% Maryland (94%) Massachusetts (95%) New Jersey (98%) New York (84%) Ohio (96%) Oregon (98%)
That suggests the likelihood of Biden further extending his lead. He is currently approximately 5,830,000 votes ahead of Trump or in percentage terms 51.0-47.2 so a 0.85% swing from 2016..
Seems brave to ask for a recount where you are behind -- better to ask where you are in front so that extra votes found are more likely to be on Trump's side than Biden's, assuming random distribution of errors. Maybe they really do believe their own propaganda about fraud.
Is that right?
If the error you're looking for (crudely) is Trump votes wrongly counted for Biden, but there's an equal risk of finding Biden votes wrongly counted for Trump, then this is the right strategy for Trump. Because if you're thumbing through a pile of 1000 Biden votes, you're more likely to find errors than in the pile of 500 Trump votes, simply because there are more.
Yes, on reflection I suppose it does depend what type of error they are hoping to catch: uncounted or wrongly counted votes.
They probably wouldn't find many uncounted votes as I understand the way most states do it (and I believe this is also the case in the UK) is first count how many ballots they have and check it against number issued, then count and check the totals against that. Sometimes there is a minor discrepancy and, if that's equivalent to a bundle of votes then you check it. But if it's a case of one bundle of 25 actually having 24 or 26 in it, and it doesn't matter to the result, you don't bother.They would, I'd expect know the scale of this, though, and whether the particular county is a handful short or a handful over.
Not in the US. That they didn’t know how many votes they had until they finished was a key aspect of betting during that mega long ‘election day’.
I believe they do know how many they have in each tranche in each county before they run them through the machines, though. The issue arises because counties count separately and at different times, and that absentee ballots come through at different times (important particularly for postal ballots as you don't know whether the ballot is in the post or on the mantelpiece until later). So you don't quickly know how many people voted in Idaho, say. But it's not the case that they simply don't validate the numbers.
I don't know what "their" expectations were and certainly the idea of a "blue wave" sweeping through both the Executive and Legislature proved unfounded but ultimately they still control the House, the White House and have an outside chance of the Senate.
They believed the polls and believed they might flip the Senate - which would have given them the Presidency, Senate and the House. Which in US terms is the equivalent of a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons in the UK. You do what you want, pretty much.
Instead they have the Presidency and a moderate lead in the House. The Senate is still a block to anything happening on the legislative front. The moderate House lead will mean that the Democrats there will circle the wagons and not do very much to upset the voters.
It's a big come down for some people.
Oddly enough, I think Biden will be very happy with the outcome. Presidents forced to co-habit with a hostile Senate usually do quite well as they are forced to be conciliatory and bi-partisan and that always plays well with the electorate.
I'll go further - IF the GOP holds the Senate in 2021, the Democrats will hold the White House in 2024.
I think I would like to know where this individual received their medical training from....
Former British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman claimed he was unaware of testosterone's performance-enhancing benefits, as his fitness to practise medicine hearing continued.
As the Adelaide COVID-19 cluster grows to 22 positive cases, the state is preparing for a six-day "circuit breaker" lockdown to curb the spread of the virus, which SA Premier Steven Marshall called "a particularly sneaky strain".
South Australia's chief health officer, Nicola Spurrier, added that the strain behind the cluster has "certain characteristics".
"It has a very, very short incubation period," Professor Spurrier said.
"That means when somebody gets exposed, it is taking 24 hours or even less for that person to become infectious to others."
I don't know what "their" expectations were and certainly the idea of a "blue wave" sweeping through both the Executive and Legislature proved unfounded but ultimately they still control the House, the White House and have an outside chance of the Senate.
They believed the polls and believed they might flip the Senate - which would have given them the Presidency, Senate and the House. Which in US terms is the equivalent of a 100 seat majority in the House of Commons in the UK. You do what you want, pretty much.
Instead they have the Presidency and a moderate lead in the House. The Senate is still a block to anything happening on the legislative front. The moderate House lead will mean that the Democrats there will circle the wagons and not do very much to upset the voters.
It's a big come down for some people.
Oddly enough, I think Biden will be very happy with the outcome. Presidents forced to co-habit with a hostile Senate usually do quite well as they are forced to be conciliatory and bi-partisan and that always plays well with the electorate.
I'll go further - IF the GOP holds the Senate in 2021, the Democrats will hold the White House in 2024.
2022? Nearly two thirds of the seats up will be defending GOP’ers, tho
TSE is a big fan of measuring success as outcome v expectation.
Reasonable expectations, I mean Biden absolutely beat expectations and then some if you use Trafalgar polls as your baseline.
But like the poll showing Biden Wisconsin by 17% it was said at time both seemed unrealistic.
My own view, Biden met expectations, the Dems did not.
I agree with that, and the interesting debates over the next couple of years are "Should the Democrats be more like Biden?" and "Should the Republicans be less like Trump?"
For me, that's the obvious logic of the results - but you'll get AOC on one side and Trumpers on the other saying "Where did the record turnout come from? Wasn't it youthquake on one side and MAGA on the other?" Which is also true to some extent.
Comments
Honestly it is like asking Mel Gibson to write and direct a film featuring the Jews. Again.
I would happily trade that for a bit of vanity.
Have spoke to him twice.
I do not feel he has an inflated ego.
You are entitled to disagree.
Who told me that it was un-filmable - she'd been interested in presenting a pitch for a docu-drama on the subject and asks my opinion.
https://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/national/18880181.nhs-medical-director-head-test-trace-self-isolation/?ref=twtrec
So how did he suspect he had Covid?
The medievals had some interesting thing to say about such characters. They had plenty of people trying for the saint gig.
I quickly realized that I hated Turing machines, and would instead demonstrate that a Turing machine was functionally identical to a Minsky machine, and would solve the problem using that.
My tutors seemed entirely unfazed by my presenting work that was completely different to everyone else.
I get the argument, although I don't really agree with it, that it's a bit harsh to do that to figures who are still alive or whose close family are still alive. But I don't at all accept it makes for bad art.
The second judgement was about signatures, The voter was required to sign twice but only did it once. The Republicans did not dispute the legitamacy of the vote, simply that technically it lacked a signature in part of the paperwork. The Judge said that in PA law, they always inclined to accept a vote and this was a well established practice.
Executive Summary: The Republicans did not dispute the validity of the votes, therefore they are valid. Case dismissed.
🗳 The @WelshLabour Government extended the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds in Senedd elections and now in local council elections too.
If we hadn't cracked Enigma, our Atlantic shipping losses might have been insurmountable.
Admirał Woodward put a message on the communication satellite that would broadcast an order to HMS conqueror to sink the Belgrano. He didn't have authority to do this, and the order was pulled from the satellite.
The official version is that the Conqueror didn't receive the order and that she sank the Belgrano on receipt of a later order.
I believe that the order was received and, despite the Captain knowing that Woodward did not have the authority to issue to the sink order, carried it out. When you consider the story of Troubridge & the Goben, Coronel, The Battle of the Falkland Islands, the Graf Spee etc, it would have been almost impossible *not* to attack..... "being an enemy then flying" and all that.
The clincher to me is that it was the signal book for the Conqueror that went missing. Not the signal books at Northwood, or anywhere else.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/54872855
Doenitz never closed that "gap"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54990506
If the error you're looking for (crudely) is Trump votes wrongly counted for Biden, but there's an equal risk of finding Biden votes wrongly counted for Trump, then this is the right strategy for Trump. Because if you're thumbing through a pile of 1000 Biden votes, you're more likely to find errors than in the pile of 500 Trump votes, simply because there are more.
And what will far too many people do at Christmas....
Thus de-legitimising their votes in the future.
It is not about overturning the results, but sowing the seeds of doubt for a later harvest of voter suppression.
There is a word for it and it begins with r. Not a word I often bandy about.
Self-centred? Yes, Corbyn just has to be the centre of attention, always as the victim and serial rebel.
Demented? Probably. Any politician with an ounce of nous would have realised that such a direct challenge could not go unanswered and that it and the inevitable response would blow the whole thing out of the water. It's demented unless Corbyn's intention was to stir up a civil war within the party.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/nyregion/absentee-ballot-counting.html
One thing I'll grant you in relation to recent history like this, or subjects you know a little about, is that jarring inaccuracies can bring you out of the suspension of disbelief. As soon as a courtroom drama shows a British judge with a gavel, for example, I immediately and completely lose interest - although I don't expect others to particularly. I think that some of the "political" people reacting against the Crown are taking that line - but I think they are wrong to say it's therefore bad art, when what they mean is that, because they know a bit about the topic, they find the inaccuracies difficult to watch.
The high court's five-member Democratic majority agreed to take up the case, at the city's request, and the question of whether state law requires counties to disqualify mail-in or absentee ballots where a voter didn't write certain information.
2 Republican justices dissented.
WHY??
Instead they have the Presidency and a moderate lead in the House. The Senate is still a block to anything happening on the legislative front. The moderate House lead will mean that the Democrats there will circle the wagons and not do very much to upset the voters.
It's a big come down for some people.
The next season will have to decide what interpretation to put on Diana’s death, which will be interesting. This season has already decided that Charles carried on with Camilla from the beginning (of his marriage), claiming that they spoke on the phone every day - whereas the reliable evidence suggests that they had next to no contact for the first five years but started an affair once the marriage became irretrievable.
https://twitter.com/philblanche/status/1329146264714424322
Former British Cycling and Team Sky doctor Richard Freeman claimed he was unaware of testosterone's performance-enhancing benefits, as his fitness to practise medicine hearing continued.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/54995495
Encouraging signs on the case numbers today that the new lockdown might be having the desired effect. We're two weeks supposedly from the end of this current lockdown and everyone seems confident it will be a return to the Tier system for the run up to Christmas. It'll be good to see the new case infections fall back to where they were in mid summer.
Then there's the small matter of a vaccine...
Over in America as the cases surge, the counting goes on. Looking at the states we still have votes to come from the following:
Washington DC (95% counted)
Illinois (97%)
Kentucky (98%)
Iowa (98%)
Maine (91%) - Biden now leads by 10%
Maryland (94%)
Massachusetts (95%)
New Jersey (98%)
New York (84%)
Ohio (96%)
Oregon (98%)
That suggests the likelihood of Biden further extending his lead. He is currently approximately 5,830,000 votes ahead of Trump or in percentage terms 51.0-47.2 so a 0.85% swing from 2016..
I'll go further - IF the GOP holds the Senate in 2021, the Democrats will hold the White House in 2024.
But like the poll showing Biden Wisconsin by 17% it was said at time both seemed unrealistic.
My own view, Biden met expectations, the Dems did not.
https://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/2854524
(OK I know it was rhetorical.)
South Australia's chief health officer, Nicola Spurrier, added that the strain behind the cluster has "certain characteristics".
"It has a very, very short incubation period," Professor Spurrier said.
"That means when somebody gets exposed, it is taking 24 hours or even less for that person to become infectious to others."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-11-18/adelaide-south-australia-coronavirus-strain-sneaky-contagious/12896262
Cameron was, is and will always remain a smug, overrated dickhead, whose biggest and most deluded fan was himself. Followed by you
For me, that's the obvious logic of the results - but you'll get AOC on one side and Trumpers on the other saying "Where did the record turnout come from? Wasn't it youthquake on one side and MAGA on the other?" Which is also true to some extent.