Germany and France look set to approve the AstraZeneca Covid jab for the over 65s in a major U-turn aimed at speeding up their stuttering vaccine drives.
I bet these will be 75% of the full price, not 60% of the price.
The thing is going in will cost people several thousand quid extra a year, for basically nothing. They'll do it if they have to, but for employed WFH white collar workers they'll have less money than they do now:
See. Here is where Labour could differentiate if they listen to Blair. We hear this. We hear taxes on Online deliveries to tempt folk back to the High Street. We have the PM basically implying levels of commuting will be back to normal "in a few short months." Essentially we have a government sketching out the ideal daily life in September 2021. And it is absolutely identical to February 2020 in every way. However. It doesn't work like that. Blair said that the next election will be fought on who has the most persuasive view of the future and incorporating new technology. (Given that there is a consensus on the economy). Covid has brought 20 years of habit changes in a year. Not all of them were bad. Several overdue. Labour could produce some serious thinking on what has been learned, what is worth keeping and how it could be done. Facilitating and integrating WFH for those who want to being one. Public transport, retail, cities, education, health care, etc, etc. Vision of the Future vs Return to the Past. Not holding my breath mind.
Boris has parked his bus on Labour’s lawn whilst delivering what is probably the most successful vaccination rollout in the world.
I can’t see where Labour go from here?
Wait until the COVID bill have to be paid and there is years of difficult and unpopular decisions will have to be made.
Currently, my assessment is the Conservative coalition is stable enough to win - save economic disaster, fiscal recklessness or totemic incompetence. We'll get out of Covid reasonably early, compared to everyone else, and Brexit is rapidly fading as an issue.
The Liberal Democrats are so weak now that they don't really threaten the Tories in its wealthy marginal seats, and there's enough innovation in No. 10 at present to be able to ride two horses at once - Surrey stockbrokers, and Red Wallers - at the same time. The former will get action on climate change, fiscal conservatism and a reasonable position on tax, the latter more spending, investment and cultural respect.
The bigger risks to the Tories are political, like the loss of the Union, or conflict in Northern Ireland, or global "events" that could emerge in the next 3 years.
I think in the very long-term 50-60+ years £300 billion of debt is neither here nor there; it'll steadily be eroded by inflation and economic growth, and eventually paid back.
I'm much more interested in how the Government plan to close the new structural deficit in the budget by the mid-late 2020s (and, I think, so will be the markets) and their plans to stop this ever happening again.
Because there almost certainly will be a next time, and we can only do this once every 50 years (minimum).
Not sure about the "steadily" eroded by inflation. There's some real pressure brewing on that front.
Agreed. We are boring and actually quite shit. Surprised more people haven’t realised this.
The box kick....again and again and again....today wasn't the worst for that, but since the WC, that has been England's gameplan.
It’s predictable and dull.
Eddie Jones most go. We are a dour team.
The worst thing about it is: England are oozing talent. They have amazing players. Yes, this is always true, as a bigger rugby nation they have a larger pool to trawl from, like France - but even so, the present generation is golden.
Eddie Jones has over-coached them, or something. They lack confidence and pzazz. This is largely the team which nailed the All Blacks in the World Cup semis two seasons ago (and should have won the Cup). Now they can't beat Scotland or Wales. Something has gone very wrong
They're passive, submissive, and too political. Some take the knee, some don't. They're not unified. They have huddles and factions. They don't have the live fans to shake them out of it.
Ditch the prima donnas. Ditch the politics. Ditch the egos. Focus on superb team unity and excellence, and the rugby.
Just the rugby.
More of the startling 15 play in the second division than in the top 4 clubs in the premiership. Has this ever happened in any other sport?
I think in the very long-term 50-60+ years £300 billion of debt is neither here nor there; it'll steadily be eroded by inflation and economic growth, and eventually paid back.
I'm much more interested in how the Government plan to close the new structural deficit in the budget by the mid-late 2020s (and, I think, so will be the markets) and their plans to stop this ever happening again.
Because there almost certainly will be a next time, and we can only do this once every 50 years (minimum).
Not sure about the "steadily" eroded by inflation. There's some real pressure brewing on that front.
It is the dog that hasn't barked for decades. There's entire generations that have never known it.
Major inflation would be a bad thing, but a little bit of inflation would not be. The complete lack of inflation and ongoing threat of deflation in recent years hasn't been good.
Agreed. We are boring and actually quite shit. Surprised more people haven’t realised this.
The box kick....again and again and again....today wasn't the worst for that, but since the WC, that has been England's gameplan.
It’s predictable and dull.
Eddie Jones most go. We are a dour team.
The worst thing about it is: England are oozing talent. They have amazing players. Yes, this is always true, as a bigger rugby nation they have a larger pool to trawl from, like France - but even so, the present generation is golden.
Eddie Jones has over-coached them, or something. They lack confidence and pzazz. This is largely the team which nailed the All Blacks in the World Cup semis two seasons ago (and should have won the Cup). Now they can't beat Scotland or Wales. Something has gone very wrong
They're passive, submissive, and too political. Some take the knee, some don't. They're not unified. They have huddles and factions. They don't have the live fans to shake them out of it.
Ditch the prima donnas. Ditch the politics. Ditch the egos. Focus on superb team unity and excellence, and the rugby.
Just the rugby.
More of the startling 15 play in the second division than in the top 4 clubs in the premiership. Has this ever happened in any other sport?
Agreed. We are boring and actually quite shit. Surprised more people haven’t realised this.
The box kick....again and again and again....today wasn't the worst for that, but since the WC, that has been England's gameplan.
It’s predictable and dull.
Eddie Jones most go. We are a dour team.
The worst thing about it is: England are oozing talent. They have amazing players. Yes, this is always true, as a bigger rugby nation they have a larger pool to trawl from, like France - but even so, the present generation is golden.
Eddie Jones has over-coached them, or something. They lack confidence and pzazz. This is largely the team which nailed the All Blacks in the World Cup semis two seasons ago (and should have won the Cup). Now they can't beat Scotland or Wales. Something has gone very wrong
They're passive, submissive, and too political. Some take the knee, some don't. They're not unified. They have huddles and factions. They don't have the live fans to shake them out of it.
Ditch the prima donnas. Ditch the politics. Ditch the egos. Focus on superb team unity and excellence, and the rugby.
Just the rugby.
More of the startling 15 play in the second division than in the top 4 clubs in the premiership. Has this ever happened in any other sport?
Or, more correctly, don't play at the moment.
Indeed. Itoje gave away 10 penalties personally. Should he ever wear a Lions jersey, he could single handedly lose a test match.
I reckon Salmond knows he has enough to bring down Nicola Sturgeon. He has the air of a man who has carefully checked the numbers and has a winning lottery ticket in his wallet. Whether Sturgeon accepts it until she has destroyed her reputation is the issue. Her bind is she can't now admit she has lied. Not even once - or she has to go. As do all those who have gone in to bat for her. Which is a big chunk of the current Scottish Establishment. It is all or nothing.
And she is pursuing the path that will deliver her - and them - nothing. She will deny, deny, deny - until the evidence is so overwhelming, she will look somewhere between stupid and criminal.
I bet these will be 75% of the full price, not 60% of the price.
The thing is going in will cost people several thousand quid extra a year, for basically nothing. They'll do it if they have to, but for employed WFH white collar workers they'll have less money than they do now:
See. Here is where Labour could differentiate if they listen to Blair. We hear this. We hear taxes on Online deliveries to tempt folk back to the High Street. We have the PM basically implying levels of commuting will be back to normal "in a few short months." Essentially we have a government sketching out the ideal daily life in September 2021. And it is absolutely identical to February 2020 in every way. However. It doesn't work like that. Blair said that the next election will be fought on who has the most persuasive view of the future and incorporating new technology. (Given that there is a consensus on the economy). Covid has brought 20 years of habit changes in a year. Not all of them were bad. Several overdue. Labour could produce some serious thinking on what has been learned, what is worth keeping and how it could be done. Facilitating and integrating WFH for those who want to being one. Public transport, retail, cities, education, health care, etc, etc. Vision of the Future vs Return to the Past. Not holding my breath mind.
I think a number of city jobs, certainly in Insurance will move to more WAH.
My employer seems to acknowledge that and I believe actually wants that
A colleague at a major Insurance company has agreed with his employer that he is moving to the north end of Derbyshire and will be in office a couple of days a month, rest working from home.
He, I and another of his colleagues have virtual boozy long lunches every couple of months- not quite the same but pleasant enough
I think in the very long-term 50-60+ years £300 billion of debt is neither here nor there; it'll steadily be eroded by inflation and economic growth, and eventually paid back.
I'm much more interested in how the Government plan to close the new structural deficit in the budget by the mid-late 2020s (and, I think, so will be the markets) and their plans to stop this ever happening again.
Because there almost certainly will be a next time, and we can only do this once every 50 years (minimum).
Not sure about the "steadily" eroded by inflation. There's some real pressure brewing on that front.
It is the dog that hasn't barked for decades. There's entire generations that have never known it.
Major inflation would be a bad thing, but a little bit of inflation would not be. The complete lack of inflation and ongoing threat of deflation in recent years hasn't been good.
There must be a ton of younger people who have never really known interest rates, as is something above 1% or thereabouts. Real shock coming for those with debt.
Agreed. We are boring and actually quite shit. Surprised more people haven’t realised this.
The box kick....again and again and again....today wasn't the worst for that, but since the WC, that has been England's gameplan.
It’s predictable and dull.
Eddie Jones most go. We are a dour team.
The worst thing about it is: England are oozing talent. They have amazing players. Yes, this is always true, as a bigger rugby nation they have a larger pool to trawl from, like France - but even so, the present generation is golden.
Eddie Jones has over-coached them, or something. They lack confidence and pzazz. This is largely the team which nailed the All Blacks in the World Cup semis two seasons ago (and should have won the Cup). Now they can't beat Scotland or Wales. Something has gone very wrong
They're passive, submissive, and too political. Some take the knee, some don't. They're not unified. They have huddles and factions. They don't have the live fans to shake them out of it.
Ditch the prima donnas. Ditch the politics. Ditch the egos. Focus on superb team unity and excellence, and the rugby.
Just the rugby.
More of the startling 15 play in the second division than in the top 4 clubs in the premiership. Has this ever happened in any other sport?
Or, more correctly, don't play at the moment.
Indeed. Itoje gave away 10 penalties personally. Should he ever wear a Lions jersey, he could single handedly lose a test match.
Itoje is a quality player who always plays right on the edge. Unfortunately he isn't fleet of brain enough to judge where the edge is. The ref decides that not him.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
Boris has parked his bus on Labour’s lawn whilst delivering what is probably the most successful vaccination rollout in the world.
I can’t see where Labour go from here?
Wait until the COVID bill have to be paid and there is years of difficult and unpopular decisions will have to be made.
Currently, my assessment is the Conservative coalition is stable enough to win - save economic disaster, fiscal recklessness or totemic incompetence. We'll get out of Covid reasonably early, compared to everyone else, and Brexit is rapidly fading as an issue.
The Liberal Democrats are so weak now that they don't really threaten the Tories in its wealthy marginal seats, and there's enough innovation in No. 10 at present to be able to ride two horses at once - Surrey stockbrokers, and Red Wallers - at the same time. The former will get action on climate change, fiscal conservatism and a reasonable position on tax, the latter more spending, investment and cultural respect.
The bigger risks to the Tories are political, like the loss of the Union, or conflict in Northern Ireland, or global "events" that could emerge in the next 3 years.
That's what I'd be worried about.
Here's my counter argument. The next three years are going to be hard economically for the Conservative Party - not because of CV19, nor Brexit, but because house prices, especially in much of the South are going to drift downwards.
The vast bulk of UK savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar. A combination of four things:
- Less pressure on housing from immigration - An ageing population (which means there are going to be more people trading down than up) - People not feeling they have to live in expensive locations so much and - A lot of new housebuilding
Will work together and result in house prices falling modestly in nominal terms. This will negatively hit labour mobility, and (most importantly) result in people feeling like they have less savings. The wealth effect of housing will go into reverse, and Brits will up their savings rates to compensate. (This will probably simply be reflected in lower mortgage borrowings.)
Which will lead to slow economic growth, and a general feeling of malaise.
Boris has parked his bus on Labour’s lawn whilst delivering what is probably the most successful vaccination rollout in the world.
I can’t see where Labour go from here?
Wait until the COVID bill have to be paid and there is years of difficult and unpopular decisions will have to be made.
Currently, my assessment is the Conservative coalition is stable enough to win - save economic disaster, fiscal recklessness or totemic incompetence. We'll get out of Covid reasonably early, compared to everyone else, and Brexit is rapidly fading as an issue.
The Liberal Democrats are so weak now that they don't really threaten the Tories in its wealthy marginal seats, and there's enough innovation in No. 10 at present to be able to ride two horses at once - Surrey stockbrokers, and Red Wallers - at the same time. The former will get action on climate change, fiscal conservatism and a reasonable position on tax, the latter more spending, investment and cultural respect.
The bigger risks to the Tories are political, like the loss of the Union, or conflict in Northern Ireland, or global "events" that could emerge in the next 3 years.
That's what I'd be worried about.
Are fiscal conservatism, a reasonable position on tax, more spending and more investment mutually sustainable over the longer term? May get you to the next election though, yeah. May not be worth winning then, mind.
Boris has parked his bus on Labour’s lawn whilst delivering what is probably the most successful vaccination rollout in the world.
I can’t see where Labour go from here?
Wait until the COVID bill have to be paid and there is years of difficult and unpopular decisions will have to be made.
Currently, my assessment is the Conservative coalition is stable enough to win - save economic disaster, fiscal recklessness or totemic incompetence. We'll get out of Covid reasonably early, compared to everyone else, and Brexit is rapidly fading as an issue.
The Liberal Democrats are so weak now that they don't really threaten the Tories in its wealthy marginal seats, and there's enough innovation in No. 10 at present to be able to ride two horses at once - Surrey stockbrokers, and Red Wallers - at the same time. The former will get action on climate change, fiscal conservatism and a reasonable position on tax, the latter more spending, investment and cultural respect.
The bigger risks to the Tories are political, like the loss of the Union, or conflict in Northern Ireland, or global "events" that could emerge in the next 3 years.
That's what I'd be worried about.
Here's my counter argument. The next three years are going to be hard economically for the Conservative Party - not because of CV19, nor Brexit, but because house prices, especially in much of the South are going to drift downwards.
The vast bulk of UK savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar. A combination of four things:
- Less pressure on housing from immigration - An ageing population (which means there are going to be more people trading down than up) - People not feeling they have to live in expensive locations so much and - A lot of new housebuilding
Will work together and result in house prices falling modestly in nominal terms. This will negatively hit labour mobility, and (most importantly) result in people feeling like they have less savings. The wealth effect of housing will go into reverse, and Brits will up their savings rates to compensate. (This will probably simply be reflected in lower mortgage borrowings.)
Which will lead to slow economic growth, and a general feeling of malaise.
That's possible but also self-correcting to some extent since making homes more affordable ameliorates the long-term threat the Conservatives face from the next generation.
Attlee, Eden, Heath And Cameron were the only post war UK PM's who failed to do what?
Remember to flush the Number 10 loo when they left?
It's just a little more mainstream and political than that....
Didn’t move to the House of Lords?
Think International Relations.
Didn't have a change of US President on their watch?
Correct, failed to serve opposite more than one US president.
While Eden especially didn't last long its amusing to have Attlee and Cameron on that short list considering they're relatively two of the longer serving postwar PMs. Also amusing that Cameron's and Attlee's length of tenure was less than a month apart.
And Brown, May and Callaghan got a change of President despite serving relatively short terms (and Boris got one very quickly too).
And Douglas-Home!
Without Googling it, I wonder how many have had two or more changes of POTUS? I don't think any have for decades as our longest serving PMs like Blair and Thatcher coincided with long serving Presidents.
It wouldn't surprise me if Boris outlasts Biden.
Thinking some more, one could ask this question the opposite way round - if a PM spanned 3 presidencies, the middle president would fall to outserve a single British PM.
I guess the single post war President in that category would be even more startling Stateside than Attlee's and Cameron's inclusions in the British list.
Seriously. A civilisation whose food has degraded to this extent is a civilisation in steep decline. Would any Greek willingly migrate from Thessaloniki to Cincinnati, now?
It is oft said that Mozambique joined the Commonwealth in 1995, the first member without any historic links to the Empire, but which port was a British Concession between 1891 and 1923?
No takers?
Ok, it was Chinde, between 1891 and 1923. Mozambique's tenuous link to British colonial history.
Seriously. A civilisation whose food has degraded to this extent is a civilisation in steep decline. Would any Greek willingly migrate from Thessaloniki to Cincinnati, now?
No. Why? There is no reason
Do you know that if margarine were not allowed to used artificial colouring, it would be GREY? The Government should ban it from being coloured. It isn't food. The fact that it's still being sold as a healthy option is a hideous anachronism.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
Attlee, Eden, Heath And Cameron were the only post war UK PM's who failed to do what?
Remember to flush the Number 10 loo when they left?
It's just a little more mainstream and political than that....
Didn’t move to the House of Lords?
Think International Relations.
Didn't have a change of US President on their watch?
Correct, failed to serve opposite more than one US president.
While Eden especially didn't last long its amusing to have Attlee and Cameron on that short list considering they're relatively two of the longer serving postwar PMs. Also amusing that Cameron's and Attlee's length of tenure was less than a month apart.
And Brown, May and Callaghan got a change of President despite serving relatively short terms (and Boris got one very quickly too).
And Douglas-Home!
Without Googling it, I wonder how many have had two or more changes of POTUS? I don't think any have for decades as our longest serving PMs like Blair and Thatcher coincided with long serving Presidents.
It wouldn't surprise me if Boris outlasts Biden.
Thinking some more, one could ask this question the opposite way round - if a PM spanned 3 presidencies, the middle president would fall to outserve a single British PM.
I guess the single post war President in that category would be even more startling Stateside than Attlee's and Cameron's inclusions in the British list.
Are you saying you've worked this out and there's exactly one POTUS who meets this?
Logic would dictate someone short serving like JFK but its not him. Hmmm 🤔 - not going to Google or Wiki this, want to figure it out.
Seriously. A civilisation whose food has degraded to this extent is a civilisation in steep decline. Would any Greek willingly migrate from Thessaloniki to Cincinnati, now?
No. Why? There is no reason
Do you know that if margarine were not allowed to used artificial colouring, it would be GREY? The Government should ban it from being coloured. It isn't food. The fact that it's still being sold as a healthy option is a hideous anachronism.
My mother apologised to me for feeding us all margarine as kids. I used to bake cakes with the stuff.
Attlee, Eden, Heath And Cameron were the only post war UK PM's who failed to do what?
Remember to flush the Number 10 loo when they left?
It's just a little more mainstream and political than that....
Didn’t move to the House of Lords?
Think International Relations.
Didn't have a change of US President on their watch?
Correct, failed to serve opposite more than one US president.
While Eden especially didn't last long its amusing to have Attlee and Cameron on that short list considering they're relatively two of the longer serving postwar PMs. Also amusing that Cameron's and Attlee's length of tenure was less than a month apart.
And Brown, May and Callaghan got a change of President despite serving relatively short terms (and Boris got one very quickly too).
And Douglas-Home!
Without Googling it, I wonder how many have had two or more changes of POTUS? I don't think any have for decades as our longest serving PMs like Blair and Thatcher coincided with long serving Presidents.
It wouldn't surprise me if Boris outlasts Biden.
Thinking some more, one could ask this question the opposite way round - if a PM spanned 3 presidencies, the middle president would fall to outserve a single British PM.
I guess the single post war President in that category would be even more startling Stateside than Attlee's and Cameron's inclusions in the British list.
Are you saying you've worked this out and there's exactly one POTUS who meets this?
Logic would dictate someone short serving like JFK but its not him. Hmmm 🤔 - not going to Google or Wiki this, want to figure it out.
Attlee, Eden, Heath And Cameron were the only post war UK PM's who failed to do what?
Remember to flush the Number 10 loo when they left?
It's just a little more mainstream and political than that....
Didn’t move to the House of Lords?
Think International Relations.
Didn't have a change of US President on their watch?
Correct, failed to serve opposite more than one US president.
While Eden especially didn't last long its amusing to have Attlee and Cameron on that short list considering they're relatively two of the longer serving postwar PMs. Also amusing that Cameron's and Attlee's length of tenure was less than a month apart.
And Brown, May and Callaghan got a change of President despite serving relatively short terms (and Boris got one very quickly too).
And Douglas-Home!
Without Googling it, I wonder how many have had two or more changes of POTUS? I don't think any have for decades as our longest serving PMs like Blair and Thatcher coincided with long serving Presidents.
It wouldn't surprise me if Boris outlasts Biden.
Thinking some more, one could ask this question the opposite way round - if a PM spanned 3 presidencies, the middle president would fall to outserve a single British PM.
I guess the single post war President in that category would be even more startling Stateside than Attlee's and Cameron's inclusions in the British list.
Are you saying you've worked this out and there's exactly one POTUS who meets this?
Logic would dictate someone short serving like JFK but its not him. Hmmm 🤔 - not going to Google or Wiki this, want to figure it out.
Attlee, Eden, Heath And Cameron were the only post war UK PM's who failed to do what?
Remember to flush the Number 10 loo when they left?
It's just a little more mainstream and political than that....
8 Didn’t move to the House of Lords?
Think International Relations.
Didn't have a change of US President on their watch?
Correct, failed to serve opposite more than one US president.
While Eden especially didn't last long its amusing to have Attlee and Cameron on that short list considering they're relatively two of the longer serving postwar PMs. Also amusing that Cameron's and Attlee's length of tenure was less than a month apart.
And Brown, May and Callaghan got a change of President despite serving relatively short terms (and Boris got one very quickly too).
And Douglas-Home!
Without Googling it, I wonder how many have had two or more changes of POTUS? I don't think any have for decades as our longest serving PMs like Blair and Thatcher coincided with long serving Presidents.
It wouldn't surprise me if Boris outlasts Biden.
Thinking some more, one could ask this question the opposite way round - if a PM spanned 3 presidencies, the middle president would fall to outserve a single British PM.
I guess the single post war President in that category would be even more startling Stateside than Attlee's and Cameron's inclusions in the British list.
Are you saying you've worked this out and there's exactly one POTUS who meets this?
Logic would dictate someone short serving like JFK but its not him. Hmmm 🤔 - not going to Google or Wiki this, want to figure it out.
Shocking considering how many POTUS's the USA has gone through postwar, including some very short serving ones, if Reagan is the only one who never saw a change of PM.
Shocking considering how many POTUS's the USA has gone through postwar, including some very short serving ones, if Reagan is the only one who never saw a change of PM.
How many British Prime Ministers have there been since Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany?
Seriously. A civilisation whose food has degraded to this extent is a civilisation in steep decline. Would any Greek willingly migrate from Thessaloniki to Cincinnati, now?
No. Why? There is no reason
Do you know that if margarine were not allowed to used artificial colouring, it would be GREY? The Government should ban it from being coloured. It isn't food. The fact that it's still being sold as a healthy option is a hideous anachronism.
It was, genuinely, that episode of Anthony Bourdain that made me realise America is in quite steep, albeit relative decline, and that China is bound to take over - tho China itself will face demographic problems which mean China will soon enough succumb to the same law...
The only people that want to emigrate to America, now, are the very poor, or the very rich (for tax purposes)
A sensible Third World-er would aim for Europe, as they are doing. One day soon China might herself become an object of unwanted economic immigration: that will be a spectacle
News to no one. Greenslade loathes Britain, and always has. One of them ones
Funny how in the first column, Greenslade works for the Mirror and Guardian, and only in the fourth column does the Sunday Times reveal he was a news executive at the, erm, Sunday Times!
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
Shocking considering how many POTUS's the USA has gone through postwar, including some very short serving ones, if Reagan is the only one who never saw a change of PM.
How many British Prime Ministers have there been since Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany?
She just beats Adenauer to the record because Macmillan left as PM seven days after Adenauer ceased being Chancellor.
Shocking considering how many POTUS's the USA has gone through postwar, including some very short serving ones, if Reagan is the only one who never saw a change of PM.
How many British Prime Ministers have there been since Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany?
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
Leap years are funky and follow a pattern. But even that pattern breaks down, eg 2100 won't be a leap year.
So I could see there being a pattern to be more than 1/7 in the short term but I'd be surprised if its more than 1/7 over an indefinite timespan.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
That is no doubt true in the current calendar, which repeats every 400 years.
But we have one leap year too many every 4000 years, and at some point someone will have to fix that...
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
I knew there was a 400 year cycle but did not realise that the number of days in 400 years is divisible by 7 though, that's interesting. So Saturday 27/02/2021 in 400 years will be Saturday 27/02/2421.
So the pattern is locked in the 400 year cycle. Learn something every day, didn't realise there was a point where the years were locked in a cycle exactly divisible by weeks like that.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
That is no doubt true in the current calendar, which repeats every 400 years.
But we have one leap year too many every 4000 years, and at some point someone will have to fix that...
Is that so?
Could fix it by not having the year 4000 as a leap year, at which point the Friday thing would break down.
Seriously. A civilisation whose food has degraded to this extent is a civilisation in steep decline. Would any Greek willingly migrate from Thessaloniki to Cincinnati, now?
No. Why? There is no reason
Do you know that if margarine were not allowed to used artificial colouring, it would be GREY? The Government should ban it from being coloured. It isn't food. The fact that it's still being sold as a healthy option is a hideous anachronism.
It was, genuinely, that episode of Anthony Bourdain that made me realise America is in quite steep, albeit relative decline, and that China is bound to take over - tho China itself will face demographic problems which mean China will soon enough succumb to the same law...
The only people that want to emigrate to America, now, are the very poor, or the very rich (for tax purposes)
A sensible Third World-er would aim for Europe, as they are doing. One day soon China might herself become an object of unwanted economic immigration: that will be a spectacle
The very rich might want to still emigrate to America, as you say it has low taxes and the highest earners in the US tend to earn more than almost anywhere else on earth but the very poor would probably be better off emigrating to western Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand which have more of a welfare state and healthcare for them
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
I knew there was a 400 year cycle but did not realise that the number of days in 400 years is divisible by 7 though, that's interesting. So Saturday 27/02/2021 in 400 years will be Saturday 27/02/2421.
So the pattern is locked in the 400 year cycle. Learn something every day, didn't realise there was a point where the years were locked in a cycle exactly divisible by weeks like that.
Yes. It surprised me too when I learnt it from my elder brother. More than a year ago. The last time we met.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
That is no doubt true in the current calendar, which repeats every 400 years.
But we have one leap year too many every 4000 years, and at some point someone will have to fix that...
Is that so?
Could fix it by not having the year 4000 as a leap year, at which point the Friday thing would break down.
Yes. If we haven't moved to decimal time or some multiple of Planck time by then...
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
Interesting, I know the calendar had a 400 year cycle in terms of leap years, but had simply assumed that the number of days in that cycle wasn't divisible by seven so that wouldn't be an issue.
Obviously it still fails in something like 4000 years or whatever time period it is when we need to add an extra leap year in...
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
That is no doubt true in the current calendar, which repeats every 400 years.
But we have one leap year too many every 4000 years, and at some point someone will have to fix that...
Is that so?
Could fix it by not having the year 4000 as a leap year, at which point the Friday thing would break down.
Yes. If we haven't moved to decimal time or some multiple of Planck time by then...
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
Interesting, I know the calendar had a 400 year cycle in terms of leap years, but had simply assumed that the number of days in that cycle wasn't divisible by seven so that wouldn't be an issue.
Obviously it still fails in something like 4000 years or whatever time period it is when we need to add an extra leap year in...
Alternatively do what was done with when the Julian/Gregorian calendar switchover was done and ignore the issue until we've had ten excess leap days.
That means the problem won't need to be dealt with until the 41st Millennium. By then the immortal God Emperor of Mankind can come up with a solution.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
Interesting, I know the calendar had a 400 year cycle in terms of leap years, but had simply assumed that the number of days in that cycle wasn't divisible by seven so that wouldn't be an issue.
Obviously it still fails in something like 4000 years or whatever time period it is when we need to add an extra leap year in...
Alternatively do what was done with when the Julian/Gregorian calendar switchover was done and ignore the issue until we've had ten excess leap days.
That means the problem won't need to be dealt with until the 41st Millennium. By then the immortal God Emperor of Mankind can come up with a solution.
The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine for emergency use, making it the third vaccine available to the US public and securing another vital step in the US fight to control Covid-19.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
Interesting, I know the calendar had a 400 year cycle in terms of leap years, but had simply assumed that the number of days in that cycle wasn't divisible by seven so that wouldn't be an issue.
Obviously it still fails in something like 4000 years or whatever time period it is when we need to add an extra leap year in...
Alternatively do what was done with when the Julian/Gregorian calendar switchover was done and ignore the issue until we've had ten excess leap days.
That means the problem won't need to be dealt with until the 41st Millennium. By then the immortal God Emperor of Mankind can come up with a solution.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
Interesting, I know the calendar had a 400 year cycle in terms of leap years, but had simply assumed that the number of days in that cycle wasn't divisible by seven so that wouldn't be an issue.
Obviously it still fails in something like 4000 years or whatever time period it is when we need to add an extra leap year in...
I thought there was a millennia correction too ...
The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine for emergency use, making it the third vaccine available to the US public and securing another vital step in the US fight to control Covid-19.
Tangentially on topic. It’s quite hard to see Macron now as anything other than a French Trump. Anti science to the point of causing unnecessary health, social and economic pain to his citizens. Arrogant and unyielding. Hostile to allies. A bizarre personality with dare I say unusual sexual tastes.
Pick out what that means for his re-election chances. Pre Occupy Congress, Trump motivated the second largest number of people to tick his box in US history. But... he still lost.
Quite a hard one to call without knowing a lot of French that live in France. And the voting system is such that the anti Macron vote will be more fragmented in round 1, with round 2 seeing a consolidation of both anti Macron and anti Le Pen votes, if Manny gets there. A bit like if the US election was Trump versus Sanders I suppose.
Looks to me it’s an easy win for “anyone but these two” or “too close to call”. Which I know is roughly what the polling says but there we are.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
You numpty. The cycle, calculated in days, and once you allow for leap years (including those century turning years that don’t leap despite dividing by four) produces a cycle of days with a length that divides precisely by seven. It’s 146,097 days long, to be exact.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
You numpty. The cycle, calculated in days, and once you allow for leap years (including those century turning years that don’t leap despite dividing by four) produces a cycle of days with a length that divides precisely by seven. It’s 146,097 days long, to be exact.
As others have intuitively realised.
If something feels wrong, go double check.
Yes. The number of days is divisible by seven, which is why there is a cycle of week days on dates that repeats.
But the number of months in the cycle, i.e.the number of 13th of the month dates, is 400*12=4800 which is not divisible by 7.
So there cannot be an equal division of days of the week on the 13th of the month.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
You numpty. The cycle, calculated in days, and once you allow for leap years (including those century turning years that don’t leap despite dividing by four) produces a cycle of days with a length that divides precisely by seven. It’s 146,097 days long, to be exact.
As others have intuitively realised.
If something feels wrong, go double check.
Yes. The number of days is divisible by seven, which is why there is a cycle of week days on dates that repeats.
But the number of months in the cycle, i.e.the number of 13th of the month dates, is 400*12=4800 which is not divisible by 7.
So there cannot be an equal division of days of the week on the 13th of the month.
Except that the cycle spans five lifetimes, so for any individual the miniscule difference is irrelevant and swamped by the effect of the date of birth and death. And once you start looking over a longer timescale, only one cycle has so far been completed. Once you start looking at spans of cycles, after a couple more some adjustment such as that proposed by Herschel is going to become necessary.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
I've got an hour to prepare 10 quiz questions again. Does anyone have any tidbits of questions to chuck my way? Think lowbrow (that's not deregatory to my friends, I apply the same designation to me).
TIA!
How often is the 13th of the month a Friday?
The options being: Exactly 1/7. More than 1/7. Less than 1/7.
The answer is more than 1/7.
Please explain how it is more than exactly 1/7? That means that one (or more) days of the week occur less than 1/7 of the time on the 13th of any Month, which can certainly be true in any particular year, but I fail to see how it can be true over any long period of time.
There is a 400-year cycle in dates and days of the week (in the Gregorian calendar).
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
You numpty. The cycle, calculated in days, and once you allow for leap years (including those century turning years that don’t leap despite dividing by four) produces a cycle of days with a length that divides precisely by seven. It’s 146,097 days long, to be exact.
As others have intuitively realised.
If something feels wrong, go double check.
Yes. The number of days is divisible by seven, which is why there is a cycle of week days on dates that repeats.
But the number of months in the cycle, i.e.the number of 13th of the month dates, is 400*12=4800 which is not divisible by 7.
So there cannot be an equal division of days of the week on the 13th of the month.
Except that the cycle spans five lifetimes, so for any individual the miniscule difference is irrelevant and swamped by the effect of the date of birth and death. And once you start looking over a longer timescale, only one cycle has so far been completed. Once you start looking at spans of cycles, after a couple more some adjustment such as that proposed by Herschel is going to become necessary.
That's a very wordy way of saying: "I was wrong but don't want to admit it."
Comments
March: Please come to the vaccination centre urgently and take the vaccine we told you about in February.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1365787975276257281
We hear this. We hear taxes on Online deliveries to tempt folk back to the High Street. We have the PM basically implying levels of commuting will be back to normal "in a few short months."
Essentially we have a government sketching out the ideal daily life in September 2021. And it is absolutely identical to February 2020 in every way.
However. It doesn't work like that.
Blair said that the next election will be fought on who has the most persuasive view of the future and incorporating new technology. (Given that there is a consensus on the economy).
Covid has brought 20 years of habit changes in a year. Not all of them were bad. Several overdue.
Labour could produce some serious thinking on what has been learned, what is worth keeping and how it could be done. Facilitating and integrating WFH for those who want to being one. Public transport, retail, cities, education, health care, etc, etc.
Vision of the Future vs Return to the Past.
Not holding my breath mind.
The Liberal Democrats are so weak now that they don't really threaten the Tories in its wealthy marginal seats, and there's enough innovation in No. 10 at present to be able to ride two horses at once - Surrey stockbrokers, and Red Wallers - at the same time. The former will get action on climate change, fiscal conservatism and a reasonable position on tax, the latter more spending, investment and cultural respect.
The bigger risks to the Tories are political, like the loss of the Union, or conflict in Northern Ireland, or global "events" that could emerge in the next 3 years.
That's what I'd be worried about.
Major inflation would be a bad thing, but a little bit of inflation would not be. The complete lack of inflation and ongoing threat of deflation in recent years hasn't been good.
And she is pursuing the path that will deliver her - and them - nothing. She will deny, deny, deny - until the evidence is so overwhelming, she will look somewhere between stupid and criminal.
My employer seems to acknowledge that and I believe actually wants that
A colleague at a major Insurance company has agreed with his employer that he is moving to the north end of Derbyshire and will be in office a couple of days a month, rest working from home.
He, I and another of his colleagues have virtual boozy long lunches every couple of months- not quite the same but pleasant enough
The ref decides that not him.
Exactly 1/7.
More than 1/7.
Less than 1/7.
The vast bulk of UK savings are in the Bank of Bricks and Mortar. A combination of four things:
- Less pressure on housing from immigration
- An ageing population (which means there are going to be more people trading down than up)
- People not feeling they have to live in expensive locations so much
and
- A lot of new housebuilding
Will work together and result in house prices falling modestly in nominal terms. This will negatively hit labour mobility, and (most importantly) result in people feeling like they have less savings. The wealth effect of housing will go into reverse, and Brits will up their savings rates to compensate. (This will probably simply be reflected in lower mortgage borrowings.)
Which will lead to slow economic growth, and a general feeling of malaise.
"We give £350 million each week to IR35 tax dodgers.
Let's give it to Wetherspoons instead."
May get you to the next election though, yeah.
May not be worth winning then, mind.
I guess the single post war President in that category would be even more startling Stateside than Attlee's and Cameron's inclusions in the British list.
"Spaghetti topped with black beans & rice and shredded cheddar cheese."
"CHEDDAR POTATO
Steamed potato topped with margarine and shredded cheddar cheese."
https://www.skylinechili.com/menu/
This is ostensibly a GREEK restaurant
Seriously. A civilisation whose food has degraded to this extent is a civilisation in steep decline. Would any Greek willingly migrate from Thessaloniki to Cincinnati, now?
No. Why? There is no reason
Ok, it was Chinde, between 1891 and 1923. Mozambique's tenuous link to British colonial history.
Logic would dictate someone short serving like JFK but its not him. Hmmm 🤔 - not going to Google or Wiki this, want to figure it out.
Though butter can have its problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/24/canada-butter-dairy-industry-palm-oil
Edit: I got it without the clue!
The only people that want to emigrate to America, now, are the very poor, or the very rich (for tax purposes)
A sensible Third World-er would aim for Europe, as they are doing. One day soon China might herself become an object of unwanted economic immigration: that will be a spectacle
So I could see there being a pattern to be more than 1/7 in the short term but I'd be surprised if its more than 1/7 over an indefinite timespan.
400 is not divisible by 7, consequently no day of the week can occur exactly 1/7 of the time for any date.
That Friday is more common than 1/7, rather than less common, is left as an exercise for the reader.
But we have one leap year too many every 4000 years, and at some point someone will have to fix that...
So the pattern is locked in the 400 year cycle. Learn something every day, didn't realise there was a point where the years were locked in a cycle exactly divisible by weeks like that.
Could fix it by not having the year 4000 as a leap year, at which point the Friday thing would break down.
Obviously it still fails in something like 4000 years or whatever time period it is when we need to add an extra leap year in...
That means the problem won't need to be dealt with until the 41st Millennium. By then the immortal God Emperor of Mankind can come up with a solution.
Pick out what that means for his re-election chances. Pre Occupy Congress, Trump motivated the second largest number of people to tick his box in US history. But... he still lost.
Quite a hard one to call without knowing a lot of French that live in France. And the voting system is such that the anti Macron vote will be more fragmented in round 1, with round 2 seeing a consolidation of both anti Macron and anti Le Pen votes, if Manny gets there. A bit like if the US election was Trump versus Sanders I suppose.
Looks to me it’s an easy win for “anyone but these two” or “too close to call”. Which I know is roughly what the polling says but there we are.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/28/second-ex-aide-accuses-andrew-cuomo-of-sexual-harassment
As others have intuitively realised.
If something feels wrong, go double check.
But the number of months in the cycle, i.e.the number of 13th of the month dates, is 400*12=4800 which is not divisible by 7.
So there cannot be an equal division of days of the week on the 13th of the month.
HYUFD-esque.