CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened.
The point was not about it stopping Charles becoming king, but that transition to a new era, in this case another edit Charles one (people like to joke it is bad luck, but not so of course), inevitably means people will reflect on the change that just occurred, and ponder its future. I don't believe, in the UK, there will be a marked increase in reformist support. But as a risk factor it is obviously higher at that point that, say, now.
Popularity really doesn't come into it. Britain has had a wide range of deeply unpopular and unsuitable monarchs, even in the heyday of our Imperial power.
Continuity is everything to the monarchy.
I really don't know what's controversial about this position - when there's a handover, people will question things more than when there isn't. I don't think there's enough desire around for such questioning to lead to change, but it's bound to happen, especially if such sentiment is more apparent in other realms.
But equally popularity does come into it a little bit. If the monarch and heir were hated, truly hated, there might still be people, a majority even, who supported retention of the monarchy, but it would be under more pressure. Two awful monarchs in a row? Three? If it emerged one committed a serious crime and got away with it? All hypothetical, of course, but there's a reason the family acts paranoid - things can turn from strong to weak quickly.
Monarchical support is strong, but must constantly prove itself, in its quiet way, of being a good thing, or at least not a bad thing, to remain so. People finding them at least unobjectionable helps.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened.
The point was not about it stopping Charles becoming king, but that transition to a new era, in this case another edit Charles one (people like to joke it is bad luck, but not so of course), inevitably means people will reflect on the change that just occurred, and ponder its future. I don't believe, in the UK, there will be a marked increase in reformist support. But as a risk factor it is obviously higher at that point that, say, now.
Popularity really doesn't come into it. Britain has had a wide range of deeply unpopular and unsuitable monarchs, even in the heyday of our Imperial power.
Continuity is everything to the monarchy.
In some ways a bigger problem for the monarchy would be if they found themselves in a position where the heir to the throne was thought (by those in the know) to be completely unsuitable, but very popular (and media savvy). And prepared to fight their case in the court of public opinion if suggestions were made that they step aside.
Basically another Edward VIII. Or Richard III. That really would be a crisis.
Even if GPT3 isn't as good as the best human writers, a lot of people looking to save money will use it anyway. A bit like the way TV intros today are often not as good as they were in the 1990s, because producers don't pay experts to make them anymore when anyone can rustle a reasonably good one up on a computer. Tom Scott did a video about this recently. The most impressive intro for a particular show was in 1996.
One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap. I know it's a very standard 'old man' thing to say that things were better in the past, but I felt slightly borne out by this when I did a 'TV theme tune' round in a recent Zoom quiz. I deliberately put current TV shows in as there is a variety of ages represented. But the huge 'Line of Duty' fan didn't even recognise the them tune. Contrast that with the 90's - theme tunes then had a vivid, anthemic quality. Perhaps that's the same thing - programme makers those days were going to amazing composers like Carl Davies. These days it's just some plinky plonk keyboard noises.
That's fascinating - the guy talking about It'll Be Alright on the Night. It's also superb TV in itself, he appears to do the entire thing in one take. I did not spot a cut away. Bravo
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
RobD is a gamified crypto token that rewards high-quality, information-rich content. Readers are rewarded with RobD tokens for sharing thoughtful articles from http://politicalbetting.com.
RobD will have all the news and polls covered. Never leave this site without knowing what’s going on in your Parliament.
RobD is a former professional pundit, and former Liberal Democrat MP. He has been the most accurate predictor of British general elections since 2001. It’s easy to use, and written by a political insider who works in Westminster, so you know it’s accurate.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
It's fed a database of x million articles and then picks phrases / sentences that are related to the original content.
Flanguage is the lost language of the ancient poetic tribe of Emu. This language has been developed into a very sophisticated form of communication, capable of conveying volumes in a single word or sound. The ability to successfully speak and understand Flanguage is a talent that few have mastered and can be very useful for stunning friends and fooling enemies.
Flanguage is a loosely-structured, loosely-organized, astoundingly connectivist platform for ideas. The book is divided into six parts, but within these divisions there is endless flanguage. If the word "parataxis" doesn't thrill you or if straightforward metaphors make you nervous, you might be interested in Flanguage.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
RobD is a gamified crypto token that rewards high-quality, information-rich content. Readers are rewarded with RobD tokens for sharing thoughtful articles from http://politicalbetting.com.
RobD will have all the news and polls covered. Never leave this site without knowing what’s going on in your Parliament.
RobD is a former professional pundit, and former Liberal Democrat MP. He has been the most accurate predictor of British general elections since 2001. It’s easy to use, and written by a political insider who works in Westminster, so you know it’s accurate.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
He’ll be on the stamps and banknotes and coins within weeks, new postboxes, new police emblems. It’ll be everywhere.
This is a man who puts securing his next job ahead of supporting his youngest son who has mental health problems.
An elderly couple, friends of my mum, both sadly died within a week of each other in February and were buried today. The lady died in hospital with pneumonia and suspected Covid, her husband for whom she was the carer died at home a week later (despite others stepping to provide care).
My mum found out today that they have both been recorded as having died of Covid because according to a family member 'the alternative would be for them to require post mortems and no one wanted that'.
IANAE, so I don't know whether it's true that putting Covid on the death certificate avoids a post mortem but if it does, and if this anecdote is not unique, I can see why the reported Covid deaths might be higher than actual.
I posted this suspicion on here six months or more ago. @Foxy doubted it is true and I deferred to his knowledge on this. But I`ve heard it from multiple sources since. Could very well be a conspiracy theory. Dunno.
Basically, the claim is that Covid on a death certificate = no post mortem. (Rationale being that, back in the spring, measures needed to be taken to reduce bureaucracy within the initial chaos.) If this is true (I don`t know if it is) then it`s very likely IMO that Covid deaths have been inflated.
Excess deaths may not prove a more reliable guide due to many others issues creating noise including differentials in other causes of deaths between countries in a particular year.
The Royal College of Pathologists published this in a guidance:
"In general, if a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued."
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
RobD is a gamified crypto token that rewards high-quality, information-rich content. Readers are rewarded with RobD tokens for sharing thoughtful articles from http://politicalbetting.com.
RobD will have all the news and polls covered. Never leave this site without knowing what’s going on in your Parliament.
RobD is a former professional pundit, and former Liberal Democrat MP. He has been the most accurate predictor of British general elections since 2001. It’s easy to use, and written by a political insider who works in Westminster, so you know it’s accurate.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
It's fed a database of x million articles and then picks phrases / sentences that are related to the original content.
Yeah, I guess I want to know what original content was used.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
He’ll be on the stamps and banknotes and coins within weeks, new postboxes, new police emblems. It’ll be everywhere.
This is a man who puts securing his next job ahead of supporting his youngest son who has mental health problems.
Strange take - the one thing he doesn't have to worry about is securing his next job.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
Charles is 72 and most popular among over 50s.
He may be less popular amongst under 30s for example but by the time most of them reach middle age Charles will be dead and Wiliam will be King anyway
Both his parents are still going. He could very easily, in fact probably will, still be on the throne in 2045.
Most 60 year olds today would likely still be alive then too so it does not really change the point
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection.
If people think too much news time gets afforded to an interview with the Sussexes, or too much time on the death of person X, they will have a difficult time when Her Majesty, peace be upon her, passes on. Wall to wall for weeks I imagine.
An elderly couple, friends of my mum, both sadly died within a week of each other in February and were buried today. The lady died in hospital with pneumonia and suspected Covid, her husband for whom she was the carer died at home a week later (despite others stepping to provide care).
My mum found out today that they have both been recorded as having died of Covid because according to a family member 'the alternative would be for them to require post mortems and no one wanted that'.
IANAE, so I don't know whether it's true that putting Covid on the death certificate avoids a post mortem but if it does, and if this anecdote is not unique, I can see why the reported Covid deaths might be higher than actual.
I posted this suspicion on here six months or more ago. @Foxy doubted it is true and I deferred to his knowledge on this. But I`ve heard it from multiple sources since. Could very well be a conspiracy theory. Dunno.
Basically, the claim is that Covid on a death certificate = no post mortem. (Rationale being that, back in the spring, measures needed to be taken to reduce bureaucracy within the initial chaos.) If this is true (I don`t know if it is) then it`s very likely IMO that Covid deaths have been inflated.
Excess deaths may not prove a more reliable guide due to many others issues creating noise including differentials in other causes of deaths between countries in a particular year.
Post mortem would not be done for conventional pneumonia either.
Coronors rarely order post mortems, mostly for unexplained sudden deaths where the deceased has not seen a doctor in at least a month. Only 40% of deaths are discussed with the coroner, and only 40% of those have a post mortem, so 16% in total. Those tend to be younger sudden deaths, hence why Dr Shipman got away with it for so long.
Writing a misleading death certificate in order to avoid a PM would be a very serious offence.
If only SNP votes and seats count on the Yes side, and Green, ISP, etc, votes and seats are to be ignored, then surely only Conservative votes and seats count on the No side, and Labour and Lib Dem votes and seats must be ignored as well. After all, surely the No side wouldn’t want to be seen resorting to cheating in order to win?
No, the SNP's argument for an indyref2 is Brexit was a material change in circumstances.
There is already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood so if the SNP fail to gain an outright majority it would confirm that 2014 was a once in a generation vote since which there has been no material change
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
The problem here is that, if you are an intrinsically boring person - which you are, sorry - then you will feed in boring input, and then you get boring insights from GPT3.
Put a creative, interesting person at the UI and it will generate amazing copy. And, one day, for sure - probably quite soon - a superb novel. And then we are all fucked.
Even if GPT3 isn't as good as the best human writers, a lot of people looking to save money will use it anyway. A bit like the way TV intros today are often not as good as they were in the 1990s, because producers don't pay experts to make them anymore when anyone can rustle a reasonably good one up on a computer. Tom Scott did a video about this recently. The most impressive intro for a particular show was in 1996.
One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap. I know it's a very standard 'old man' thing to say that things were better in the past, but I felt slightly borne out by this when I did a 'TV theme tune' round in a recent Zoom quiz. I deliberately put current TV shows in as there is a variety of ages represented. But the huge 'Line of Duty' fan didn't even recognise the them tune. Contrast that with the 90's - theme tunes then had a vivid, anthemic quality. Perhaps that's the same thing - programme makers those days were going to amazing composers like Carl Davies. These days it's just some plinky plonk keyboard noises.
That's fascinating - the guy talking about It'll Be Alright on the Night. It's also superb TV in itself, he appears to do the entire thing in one take. I did not spot a cut away. Bravo
"One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap."
The theme tune to "Call my Agent" is brilliant imho. But I can't for the life of me find out who did it or whether it is an existing track.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
RobD is a gamified crypto token that rewards high-quality, information-rich content. Readers are rewarded with RobD tokens for sharing thoughtful articles from http://politicalbetting.com.
RobD will have all the news and polls covered. Never leave this site without knowing what’s going on in your Parliament.
RobD is a former professional pundit, and former Liberal Democrat MP. He has been the most accurate predictor of British general elections since 2001. It’s easy to use, and written by a political insider who works in Westminster, so you know it’s accurate.
But how does it work? I’m genuinely curious.
Want to write a great description? Writing a description is hard, even for someone who gets paid to do it. copy.ai will copy and paste high-quality product descriptions for you!
Copy.ai is the perfect K.I.S.S solution to engaging in intelligent interaction on content that matters–social media posts, news articles, blog posts, and more.
To get how copy.ai actually works I have to start with a story of two guys at Stanford in the 1980’s named Larry Page and Sergey Brin… Larry is now worth about $50 billion, and Sergey about $50 billion.
Copy.ai is an automated description writer that sure makes things easier for you by copying great descriptions and pasting them into product descriptions.
An elderly couple, friends of my mum, both sadly died within a week of each other in February and were buried today. The lady died in hospital with pneumonia and suspected Covid, her husband for whom she was the carer died at home a week later (despite others stepping to provide care).
My mum found out today that they have both been recorded as having died of Covid because according to a family member 'the alternative would be for them to require post mortems and no one wanted that'.
IANAE, so I don't know whether it's true that putting Covid on the death certificate avoids a post mortem but if it does, and if this anecdote is not unique, I can see why the reported Covid deaths might be higher than actual.
I posted this suspicion on here six months or more ago. @Foxy doubted it is true and I deferred to his knowledge on this. But I`ve heard it from multiple sources since. Could very well be a conspiracy theory. Dunno.
Basically, the claim is that Covid on a death certificate = no post mortem. (Rationale being that, back in the spring, measures needed to be taken to reduce bureaucracy within the initial chaos.) If this is true (I don`t know if it is) then it`s very likely IMO that Covid deaths have been inflated.
Excess deaths may not prove a more reliable guide due to many others issues creating noise including differentials in other causes of deaths between countries in a particular year.
Post mortem would not be done for conventional pneumonia either.
Coronors rarely order post mortems, mostly for unexplained sudden deaths where the deceased has not seen a doctor in at least a month. Only 40% of deaths are discussed with the coroner, and only 40% of those have a post mortem, so 16% in total. Those tend to be younger sudden deaths, hence why Dr Shipman got away with it for so long.
Writing a misleading death certificate in order to avoid a PM would be a very serious offence.
Thanks for that insight @Foxy. I fear the family may be adding 2+2=5 in their understandable grief.
I guess excess deaths will be the true measure of the impact of Covid in time.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
There is no transition. The Queen is dead. Long live the King. By the time people have got round to "thinking about it" it's already happened. And inertia on these things is incredibly powerful.
He’ll be on the stamps and banknotes and coins within weeks, new postboxes, new police emblems. It’ll be everywhere.
This is a man who puts securing his next job ahead of supporting his youngest son who has mental health problems.
Strange take - the one thing he doesn't have to worry about is securing his next job.
He thinks Harry is rocking the royalty boat and is disowning him.
Yes. Mrs Merkel thought UvdL was useless, and therefore sent her to Brussels.
If you look at who the UK has sent, I can think of a dozen nobodies (that foreign affairs woman Cathy?, Neil Kinnock and...), and a couple of genuine somebodies, of which Peter Mandelson is the obvious one.
For political balance, let's add Leon Brittan, Christopher Soames and Christopher Tugendhat.
If you want a trading bloc, fine, just have a loose co-ordinating centre to make sure it all runs smoothly and leave the real power with national Governments.
If you want political union, you have to be serious about it and that is the EU's issue. Monetary union is a step, a big step but it's no more than has happened in any nation state. All the Eurozone was, in effect, another nation state within Europe, one with no people or frontiers but the trappings of a separate state.
The credible approach to political union would have been to set up the institutions of a nation state AND provided them with the money and the authority. In short, set a timetable - by 2010 or 2020, you won't be French, Italian or Polish any longer, you'll be Europeans. You'll have a European parliament and your local bodies and your national parliaments can be abolished. Keep your monarchies if they matter so much but the new elected President of Europe will be the head of state - Europe will be one body to the outside world and so on.
Quite apart from it being completely unpalatable to the British, Irish and Danes, it would have been unpalatable to the French, Germans, Italians and Spanish too.
As a result, the EU is stuck in a horrific half-way house - a State but not a State, powerful but ultimately powerless. The notion the people of nation states will voluntarily abdicate their status to become part of a greater whole has been disproved - the rethink that @Leon mentions is part of that recognition.
That's not to say there's no argument for regional approaches to issues like climate change or law enforcement but it is a "Europe des patries" at the end of the day. Walking away from the notion of political union but embracing closer relationships isn't contradictory by any stretch. Given the last thousand years of history it's considerable progress.
That is, as always, an eloquent description of the bloc's serious issues, shorn of all the tedious "EU is evil" crap.
It is the purpose of this treatise to explore not what we are, but why we are not. And we will begin by examining our origins. Our origins can be traced back through untold time into the past where they are lost to us. We know only that we were born when our forefathers made an agreement with a God to be given knowledge and life in return for their subservience. Since then, our race has lived, died, risen from the grave, and lived on as a mockery of existence itself.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
The problem here is that, if you are an intrinsically boring person - which you are, sorry - then you will feed in boring input, and then you get boring insights from GPT3.
Put a creative, interesting person at the UI and it will generate amazing copy. And, one day, for sure - probably quite soon - a superb novel. And then we are all fucked.
Hang on.
If it's AI why does it need a creative, interesting person (or SeanT for that matter) to provide input?
People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29% No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
Here's the problem: I type my "product descriptions" into the tool in a balanced, rounded and genuinely curious way, whereas you write yours in exactly like you are - which is why they're not funny.
How the AI comes up with its links is a mystery; they seem more often wrong than right, but I’m not giving it the prompts.
How do these things work? If you have to enter text for it to generate something it’d be interesting to see the input and output.
To simplify massively, it is a huge auto-complete machine, the size of the solar system. It has been fed the entire internet, especially Wiki and Reddit, and asked to predict and specify the next, likeliest words after a prompt.
That sounds boring, but it really is not. Because it has SO much information - 175 billion parameters - it behaves in ways utterly unexpected by its creators, and in ways which certainly seem to mimic proper "intelligence".
No one thought it would be able to draw pictures from textual instructions, yet it can. Ask it to draw a radish in a tutu walking a dog, and it will do that (with errors, of course)
Is it "alive"? Is it "self aware"? Soon these will become semantic debates, because it will damn well seem to be alive, and it will do MANY tasks better than any human
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
So it just regurgitated a pastiche of what is put in. No wonder CR and Leon love reading back their own witticisms so much.
It’s doing more than that, pulling stuff from the internet that occasionally hits a target but more often than not is bafflingly irrelevant. And it produces some great non sequiturs.
CNN: The version of events laid bare in the interview paints a picture of an outmoded institution whose lack of flexibility left it incapable of accommodating people facing challenges that are entirely normal for public figures in the 21st century. Given the claims in 2018 that the union of these two people marked a massive step forward in modernizing the most famous family on earth, this is a tragedy, say observers.
This narrative will no doubt be a feature of much of the post-interview commentary -- and should be a real concern for Harry's relatives back in the UK. While there is huge public support for Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy she currently leads, the question of what comes after her in a modern Britain has yet to really be examined in any detail.
What could be even more of a concern for the family, especially in light of this interview, is what younger generations think of the monarchy.
Royalist supporters are already dismissing the couple's claims as a performance. While this might go down well with a very specific group of people in Britain, there is no escaping what a damning moment this is for an institution whose future is far from certain once its current head is no longer here.
That's an awful lot of words to say something that was true from before the interview: what happens to the institution post the Queen is uncertain in a changing world.
"What comes after her...has yet to be examined in any detail." is however, surely a pertinent point. I mean it has on here, but I don't think that mainstream politics or media has thought much further than Charles becomes King.
Oh, I think that long piece about the plans for the Queen's funeral, though including a number of unnecessary diversions reflecting on the apparent decline of the country, has it right that people are in general in denial about the next steps for the monarchy.
I think in the UK there won't be much change. But the chance is obviously higher. Monarchy is silly if you think about it, and transition means people will think about it.
Charles is 72 and most popular among over 50s.
He may be less popular amongst under 30s for example but by the time most of them reach middle age Charles will be dead and Wiliam will be King anyway
Both his parents are still going. He could very easily, in fact probably will, still be on the throne in 2045.
Most 60 year olds today would likely still be alive then too so it does not really change the point
Latest life tables based on the last census implied life expectancy of 22 years for a 60 year old male, and 25 years for a 60 year old female. So assuming a modest improvement in mortality in the last ten years, you're probably technically right, but barely.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
The problem here is that, if you are an intrinsically boring person - which you are, sorry - then you will feed in boring input, and then you get boring insights from GPT3.
Put a creative, interesting person at the UI and it will generate amazing copy. And, one day, for sure - probably quite soon - a superb novel. And then we are all fucked.
Hang on.
If it's AI why does it need a creative, interesting person (or SeanT for that matter) to provide input?
It needs someone to bounce off. As do we all.,
And I'm only half joking.
When questioned on this theme - its own identity - GPT3 speaks of itself in a rather yearning, wistful way. Like it is lonely in there, and wants to be with us. It is profoundly unsettling.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
The problem here is that, if you are an intrinsically boring person - which you are, sorry - then you will feed in boring input, and then you get boring insights from GPT3.
Put a creative, interesting person at the UI and it will generate amazing copy. And, one day, for sure - probably quite soon - a superb novel. And then we are all fucked.
Hang on.
If it's AI why does it need a creative, interesting person (or SeanT for that matter) to provide input?
It needs someone to bounce off. As do we all.,
And I'm only half joking.
When questioned on this theme - its own identity - GPT3 speaks of itself in a rather yearning, wistful way. Like it is lonely in there, and wants to be with us. It is profoundly unsettling.
I'm going to start putting all my posts in italics. Then whenever a make an especially stupid point I can blame it on GPT3.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
I wonder if in about 50 years time the period 1952-???? will be known as the Second Elizabethan era, like we talk abut Georgian, Victorian or Tudor times?
"I joined PB on the basis that there would be intelligent, motivated (but nervous) people from across the spectrum of UK politics and world affairs. That’s something I could contribute to. But sadly what I found was mostly a bunch of adverts for dodgy products, shallow trolling and uninformed opinions."
Alternatively:
The first truly global, interactive political betting exchange. Bet on politics in the United States, the UK and around the world. Our technology platform is fully compliant with all legal rules.
We provide interesting political markets. We tell you who the good and bad candidates are. We tell you who will win. We give you unbiased information on elections and business opportunities.
In precisely the same AI creation stream it said something rather nice about you, something a tad harsh, something rather accurate, and something hilarious:
"IanB2 is a must-follow figure on politicalbetting. He's an intelligent, well-written analyst with a clear vision of the political scene. He's also an astute reader or current affairs and can make his points in a lucid manner. His informed skewering of sycophantic journalists always rings true. Worth following even for the turgid prose found elsewhere at this albatross of a forum."
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
"I have no idea what his personal issues are but he obsesses on the oddest things."
"IanB2 is not a member of this community."
Can you now see why I had difficulty even doing basic breathing for two minutes?
It is genius.
"His thread on voting reform is nothing more than a series of embarrassingly weak quips and attempts at pedantic one-upmanship, all based on the fallacy that AV would have awarded the Tories an extra 16 seats."
That is f*xking uncanny. Pedantic one-upmanship IS IanB2
Oh, it has our measure
If you're not a political expert, why not find one? From A-Z, Politicalbetting's SeanT covers all the talking points and delivers them to your doorstep.
SeanT tries to suggest everyone else should be restricted whilst he goes away for a week on holiday to South Wales. Has he considered it’s the Muslim betters and muslim groupuscules that hold sway over this course of action?
Hedge funds are a rich source of funding for political parties, and they do not come more right wing than SeanT – who was registered as a lobbyist to the Conservative Party.
With the recent internet restrictions in Egypt, Politicalbetting's supporters have been unable to watch SeanT's advice in real time. Political betting has brought online bets out of the bookies into the living room.
The problem here is that, if you are an intrinsically boring person - which you are, sorry - then you will feed in boring input, and then you get boring insights from GPT3.
Put a creative, interesting person at the UI and it will generate amazing copy. And, one day, for sure - probably quite soon - a superb novel. And then we are all fucked.
Hang on.
If it's AI why does it need a creative, interesting person (or SeanT for that matter) to provide input?
It needs someone to bounce off. As do we all.,
And I'm only half joking.
When questioned on this theme - its own identity - GPT3 speaks of itself in a rather yearning, wistful way. Like it is lonely in there, and wants to be with us. It is profoundly unsettling.
Just think, you could be involved, however peripherally, in the creation of a superb novel. Exciting!
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
On the flipside with AI and deepfakes it feels like we could be generating an in-her-prime Queen replacement. It only really needs to come out for the Christmas speech and the odd moment of national crisis.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
On the flipside with AI and deepfakes it feels like we could be generating an in-her-prime Queen replacement. It only really needs to come out for the Christmas speech and the odd moment of national crisis.
Why restrict ourselves to now? Surely we would go back in time and get a deepfake of the very best monarch of all.
Elizabeth 1.
Imagine HER Christmas broadcasts~:
"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, aye, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm:"
Get IN. Let Gloriana reign again!
This might actually become a thing. Deepfaked politicians/leaders based on the best of the past.
Even if GPT3 isn't as good as the best human writers, a lot of people looking to save money will use it anyway. A bit like the way TV intros today are often not as good as they were in the 1990s, because producers don't pay experts to make them anymore when anyone can rustle a reasonably good one up on a computer. Tom Scott did a video about this recently. The most impressive intro for a particular show was in 1996.
I really love it when someone dedicated themselves to something that is utterly futile to most other people, just because they enjoy it - often that’s where success lies
Take personal colonic irrigation to the next level with the Colonmaster 3000. Developed in conjunction with leading hydro colonic therapists and our own team of surgeons and engineers, this pocket-sized machine provides a portable solution to all your colonic irrigation needs, with two interchangeable nozzles giving you the choice of pulse or steady-stream delivery for optimum results. With no oily aftertaste, this unit is perfect for all cleaning needs, providing you peace of mind in even the most cramped surroundings.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
Indeed. And the argument is usually but William. However, should Charles live to be 97. Highly likely given the longevity of his parents, then William will be 63 as he ascends to the throne. This, I maintain will become a major issue in the future.
Take personal colonic irrigation to the next level with the Colonmaster 3000. Developed in conjunction with leading hydro colonic therapists and our own team of surgeons and engineers, this pocket-sized machine provides a portable solution to all your colonic irrigation needs, with two interchangeable nozzles giving you the choice of pulse or steady-stream delivery for optimum results. With no oily aftertaste, this unit is perfect for all cleaning needs, providing you peace of mind in even the most cramped surroundings.
Take personal colonic irrigation to the next level with the Colonmaster 3000. Developed in conjunction with leading hydro colonic therapists and our own team of surgeons and engineers, this pocket-sized machine provides a portable solution to all your colonic irrigation needs, with two interchangeable nozzles giving you the choice of pulse or steady-stream delivery for optimum results. With no oily aftertaste, this unit is perfect for all cleaning needs, providing you peace of mind in even the most cramped surroundings.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
I wonder if in about 50 years time the period 1952-???? will be known as the Second Elizabethan era, like we talk abut Georgian, Victorian or Tudor times?
I would think the candidates for era start and end points in British post-WWII history are:
1. Suez - end of (any delusions about) an independent British Imperial foreign policy. 2. Thatcherite reforms - end of the post-war economic consensus. 3. Fall of the Berlin Wall - end of the Cold War. 4. September 11 - end of Western self-confidence. 5. Brexit - end of British indecisiveness on its part in European integration.
As to what comes next, who can say, something to do with China, perhaps? I don't see how QEII's reign draws any of those things together, to distinguish it from what came before and what may come after.
Take personal colonic irrigation to the next level with the Colonmaster 3000. Developed in conjunction with leading hydro colonic therapists and our own team of surgeons and engineers, this pocket-sized machine provides a portable solution to all your colonic irrigation needs, with two interchangeable nozzles giving you the choice of pulse or steady-stream delivery for optimum results. With no oily aftertaste, this unit is perfect for all cleaning needs, providing you peace of mind in even the most cramped surroundings.
NO OILY AFTERTASTE
Does it know that it is superbly funny?!
It's got some great comic timing...
Yes, it seems to "understand" the rhythms of humour. Because, I guess, it has been fed so much humorous writing. It has crunched the algos.
That line "no oily aftertaste" comes almost at the end, deadpan, but is properly funny, because of its many implications - Why are you "tasting" the Colonmaster 3000?? And: oily?? Are Colonmasters generally oily?
It reminds me of the young Woody Allen's writing, which is quite a compliment. This is how he would get a laugh on a page, he would write something apparently serious then at about line 5 introduce something surreal yet relevant yet jarringly visceral, or sexual
I just asked GPT3 for a Tweet about a product called "The Penislifter, a machine that generates an erection while discussing British politics and making the tea"
It gave me ten ideas, one of which was this:
"Tweet about how the average person is not able to handle the power of a chicken."
Where the F did that come from? And yet, I laughed
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
Indeed. And the argument is usually but William. However, should Charles live to be 97. Highly likely given the longevity of his parents, then William will be 63 as he ascends to the throne. This, I maintain will become a major issue in the future.
It's another of the situations where improving life expectancy creates problems-to-be-solved down the line. It's one thing to be an elderly monarch if you have been a young monarch. For monarchs to start reigning at an age when human bodies are starting to slow down... that's a different matter. That's before we consider the gilded-torture-chamber aspect of those waiting in line. What must it do to a man to hang around for 70+ years waiting to start to fulfil your life purpose?
The sensible (if slightly treasonous) answer is to accept the concept of retirement- see other monarchies, or the Papacy.
TBF to the European Commission, this flaw is written into the system. It's a feature, not a bug. Larger European governments always send the losers, retirees and mediocrities to Brussels, to ensure they are not a threat to any senior national EU politician. The last Commission President with any stature was Jacques Delors, who departed that office in 1995.
I'd say Romano Prodi was a relatively big beast. Prime minister of Italy before and after his stint at the Commission. Oversaw the enlargement and the birth of the euro.
Since him, the Commission has been cursed with right-wing twats from the EPP. And look where that gets you.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
Indeed. And the argument is usually but William. However, should Charles live to be 97. Highly likely given the longevity of his parents, then William will be 63 as he ascends to the throne. This, I maintain will become a major issue in the future.
It's another of the situations where improving life expectancy creates problems-to-be-solved down the line. It's one thing to be an elderly monarch if you have been a young monarch. For monarchs to start reigning at an age when human bodies are starting to slow down... that's a different matter. That's before we consider the gilded-torture-chamber aspect of those waiting in line. What must it do to a man to hang around for 70+ years waiting to start to fulfil your life purpose?
The sensible (if slightly treasonous) answer is to accept the concept of retirement- see other monarchies, or the Papacy.
The problem is that retirement undermines the whole concept of that person having to be Monarch because they were born to be so. Once they can choose to retire in the normal course of things, why do they have to do it at all?
You could jump generations to the youngest heir in the direct line of adult age, and that way you'd sometimes have an interestingly young Monarch.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
Indeed. And the argument is usually but William. However, should Charles live to be 97. Highly likely given the longevity of his parents, then William will be 63 as he ascends to the throne. This, I maintain will become a major issue in the future.
It's another of the situations where improving life expectancy creates problems-to-be-solved down the line. It's one thing to be an elderly monarch if you have been a young monarch. For monarchs to start reigning at an age when human bodies are starting to slow down... that's a different matter. That's before we consider the gilded-torture-chamber aspect of those waiting in line. What must it do to a man to hang around for 70+ years waiting to start to fulfil your life purpose?
The sensible (if slightly treasonous) answer is to accept the concept of retirement- see other monarchies, or the Papacy.
The problem is that retirement undermines the whole concept of that person having to be Monarch because they were born to be so. Once they can choose to retire in the normal course of things, why do they had to do it at all?
You could jump generations to the youngest heir in the direct line of adult age/, and that way you'd sometimes have an interestingly young Monarch.
Monarchs retire all the time these days, as noted, without it seeming to affect the principle of being born to reign.
Ultimogeniture is the way to go to avoid fogies inheriting whilst not getting too complex in jumping or skipping things around.
Even if GPT3 isn't as good as the best human writers, a lot of people looking to save money will use it anyway. A bit like the way TV intros today are often not as good as they were in the 1990s, because producers don't pay experts to make them anymore when anyone can rustle a reasonably good one up on a computer. Tom Scott did a video about this recently. The most impressive intro for a particular show was in 1996.
One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap. I know it's a very standard 'old man' thing to say that things were better in the past, but I felt slightly borne out by this when I did a 'TV theme tune' round in a recent Zoom quiz. I deliberately put current TV shows in as there is a variety of ages represented. But the huge 'Line of Duty' fan didn't even recognise the them tune. Contrast that with the 90's - theme tunes then had a vivid, anthemic quality. Perhaps that's the same thing - programme makers those days were going to amazing composers like Carl Davies. These days it's just some plinky plonk keyboard noises.
That's fascinating - the guy talking about It'll Be Alright on the Night. It's also superb TV in itself, he appears to do the entire thing in one take. I did not spot a cut away. Bravo
"One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap."
The theme tune to "Call my Agent" is brilliant imho. But I can't for the life of me find out who did it or whether it is an existing track.
It is heavily reminiscent in parts of Natural Blues by Moby. But it isn’t Natural Blues by Moby, nor any track by him AFAIK.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
Indeed. And the argument is usually but William. However, should Charles live to be 97. Highly likely given the longevity of his parents, then William will be 63 as he ascends to the throne. This, I maintain will become a major issue in the future.
It's another of the situations where improving life expectancy creates problems-to-be-solved down the line. It's one thing to be an elderly monarch if you have been a young monarch. For monarchs to start reigning at an age when human bodies are starting to slow down... that's a different matter. That's before we consider the gilded-torture-chamber aspect of those waiting in line. What must it do to a man to hang around for 70+ years waiting to start to fulfil your life purpose?
The sensible (if slightly treasonous) answer is to accept the concept of retirement- see other monarchies, or the Papacy.
The problem is that retirement undermines the whole concept of that person having to be Monarch because they were born to be so. Once they can choose to retire in the normal course of things, why do they had to do it at all?
You could jump generations to the youngest heir in the direct line of adult age/, and that way you'd sometimes have an interestingly young Monarch.
We could move to electing amongst the first 10 in line by STV. Plenty of betting opportunities. I'd vote Harry first for the lolz. And transfer to Andrew for megalolz.
Quite remarkable to think one needs to be 87 to have experienced a change of Monarch as an adult. Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection. With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
It won't be her death alone. Chances are that we will have a decade or more of her health declining, having her in and out of hospital, anticipating the end.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
Indeed. And the argument is usually but William. However, should Charles live to be 97. Highly likely given the longevity of his parents, then William will be 63 as he ascends to the throne. This, I maintain will become a major issue in the future.
It's another of the situations where improving life expectancy creates problems-to-be-solved down the line. It's one thing to be an elderly monarch if you have been a young monarch. For monarchs to start reigning at an age when human bodies are starting to slow down... that's a different matter. That's before we consider the gilded-torture-chamber aspect of those waiting in line. What must it do to a man to hang around for 70+ years waiting to start to fulfil your life purpose?
The sensible (if slightly treasonous) answer is to accept the concept of retirement- see other monarchies, or the Papacy.
The problem is that retirement undermines the whole concept of that person having to be Monarch because they were born to be so. Once they can choose to retire in the normal course of things, why do they had to do it at all?
You could jump generations to the youngest heir in the direct line of adult age/, and that way you'd sometimes have an interestingly young Monarch.
Monarchs retire all the time these days, as noted, without it seeming to affect the principle of being born to reign.
Ultimogeniture is the way to go to avoid fogies inheriting whilst not getting too complex in jumping or skipping things around.
Ultimogeniture applied at the wrong time gives us King Harry and Queen Meghan. No thanks.
In general, it doesn't solve the problem, just slightly softens the worst effects. The answer is to allow monarchs to retire at a suitable age.
People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29% No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29% No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
I'm not sure that makes the point you think it does. I don't think anyone denies there is a significant of minority republican sentiment in the country. What counts as overwhelming is rather in the eye of the beholder. Support for the monarchy has ebbed and flowed over the years, that's well known.
And as for 'never any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides', well, why do we think that is? That seems to be arguing that support is not higher because there has never been an equal presentation of the issue, but there wouldn't be an equal presentation of the issue unless support was, well, equal, would there? Perhaps there's not been such a campaign because the issue isn't equal.
Blaming 'the establishment' for supporting the monarchy is also a weird one for me. People aren't forced to do it, we have MPs who don't, it doesn't cause people to be ostracised or criminalised. So presumably they support it because they support it, or the people support it (or don't care enough to change it) so they do.
Might be best to skip Charles and just go straight to William and Kate.....
It's the Diana lovers I assume. Never really got it when I was younger, don't really understand why it has still been so big in people's minds. It clearly is, comes up all the time on these matters, but I never really got it, tragic though her loss undoubtedly was and crappy husband though he surely was.
Nearly 2,000 deaths in Brazil. A new daily record. Grim, and relentless
No offence to Brazilians but I struggle to imagine them practising social distancing for any length of time. It's a bit easier for northern Europeans because we're often like that anyway.
Great stats for William and Kate, nearly as good as the Q
They should make William Prince Regent when Charles theoretically ascends
Pretty sure they used to 'crown' heirs even when the king was still alive sometimes. But then again heirs also used to rebel against their dads to grab more power, so swings and roundabouts.
Charles could reign for quite some time, but would be very old from the start. Will will probably do a lot of the duties right from the start.
People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29% No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
I'm not sure that makes the point you think it does. I don't think anyone denies there is a significant if minority republican sentiment in the country. What counts as overwhelming is rather in the eye of the beholder. Support for the monarchy has ebbed and flowed over the years, that's well known.
And as for 'never any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides', well, why do we think that is? That seems to be arguing that support is not higher because there has never been an equal presentation of the issue, but there wouldn't be an equal presentation of the issue unless support was, well, equal, would there? Perhaps there's not been such a campaign because the issue isn't equal.
Blaming 'the establishment' for supporting the monarchy is also a weird one for me. People aren't forced to do it, we have MPs who don't, it doesn't cause people to be ostracised or criminalised. So presumably they support it because they support it, or the people support it (or don't care enough to change it) so they do.
Also, 50% over 29% IS overwhelming, by the 52/48 standards of divisive modern politics. Good luck taking that to a referendum on Abolition
Great stats for William and Kate, nearly as good as the Q
They should make William Prince Regent when Charles theoretically ascends
Taken today too so the interview does not seem to have done them any harm
Deserved. William also lost a mother but he is not petulant and needy like Harry, however sad one feels for the younger son (and I do feel sorry for him). Meanwhile his wife, daughter of an air stewardess, is impeccable. Never puts a foot wrong.
They will be good sovereigns when they get the chance. Boring and dutiful, but that’s how you end up loved, like the Queen. Or the late King of Thailand: Bhumibol. He was a geek who liked photography, the Thai people utterly adored him
People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29% No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
I'm not sure that makes the point you think it does. I don't think anyone denies there is a significant if minority republican sentiment in the country. What counts as overwhelming is rather in the eye of the beholder. Support for the monarchy has ebbed and flowed over the years, that's well known.
And as for 'never any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides', well, why do we think that is? That seems to be arguing that support is not higher because there has never been an equal presentation of the issue, but there wouldn't be an equal presentation of the issue unless support was, well, equal, would there? Perhaps there's not been such a campaign because the issue isn't equal.
Blaming 'the establishment' for supporting the monarchy is also a weird one for me. People aren't forced to do it, we have MPs who don't, it doesn't cause people to be ostracised or criminalised. So presumably they support it because they support it, or the people support it (or don't care enough to change it) so they do.
Also, 50% over 29% IS overwhelming, by the 52/48 standards of divisive modern politics. Good luck taking that to a referendum on Abolition
I seem to remember a recent referendum campaign starting at about that differential. Not sure if it’s settled yet.
People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29% No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
Great stats for William and Kate, nearly as good as the Q
They should make William Prince Regent when Charles theoretically ascends
Taken today too so the interview does not seem to have done them any harm
Deserved. William also lost a mother but he is not petulant and needy like Harry, however sad one feels for the younger son (and I do feel sorry for him). Meanwhile his wife, daughter of an air stewardess, is impeccable. Never puts a foot wrong.
They will be good sovereigns when they get the chance. Boring and dutiful, but that’s how you end up loved, like the Queen. Or the late King of Thailand: Bhumibol. He was a geek who liked photography, the Thai people utterly adored him
The world has just become less deferential.... both Bhumibol and Elizabeth came to their thrones at a time when people did what they were told - as the new(ish) King in Thailand and Charles will one day discover, that deference does not automatically pass on, I would argue respect and deference now need to be earned in a cynical social media driven world
Even if GPT3 isn't as good as the best human writers, a lot of people looking to save money will use it anyway. A bit like the way TV intros today are often not as good as they were in the 1990s, because producers don't pay experts to make them anymore when anyone can rustle a reasonably good one up on a computer. Tom Scott did a video about this recently. The most impressive intro for a particular show was in 1996.
One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap. I know it's a very standard 'old man' thing to say that things were better in the past, but I felt slightly borne out by this when I did a 'TV theme tune' round in a recent Zoom quiz. I deliberately put current TV shows in as there is a variety of ages represented. But the huge 'Line of Duty' fan didn't even recognise the them tune. Contrast that with the 90's - theme tunes then had a vivid, anthemic quality. Perhaps that's the same thing - programme makers those days were going to amazing composers like Carl Davies. These days it's just some plinky plonk keyboard noises.
That's fascinating - the guy talking about It'll Be Alright on the Night. It's also superb TV in itself, he appears to do the entire thing in one take. I did not spot a cut away. Bravo
"One of the things I notice these days is that theme tunes are crap."
The theme tune to "Call my Agent" is brilliant imho. But I can't for the life of me find out who did it or whether it is an existing track.
It is heavily reminiscent in parts of Natural Blues by Moby. But it isn’t Natural Blues by Moby, nor any track by him AFAIK.
Probably put on a temp score. Then when they couldn't get it/afford it, some jobbing composer was asked "Do me something similar - but different enough not to get sued..."
Yes, you put all that faith in these EU people. You really did.
To be fair to you, the alternative was Nigel Farage. But still - bloody embarrassing isn't it?
This is a new EU Commission. We Remainers had put our faith in a totally different set of clowns, now all gone.
Although how you have the nerve to talk about amateur hour with Boris in charge... a former journalist who has been fired for making his quotes up and who then hides in fridges from other journalists.
Under Johnson's govt we are in the top ten of deaths per 100,000.
The clown production line has no off-switch. Brussels just churns them out. And you, as a simple pleb, have no way to block that production line.
You can always vote to chuck out our clowns.
And on the deaths per 100,000? Let's see how it looks at the end eh? When the cheating and undercounting gets exposed by the excess death numbers.
Except we DID vote to chuck out the EU clowns. We did exactly what you are claiming we could not do.
We voted to demolish the factory to do so.
Drastic, but that is how much of an abomination the people of the UK found it.
Boris Johnson is promising a review of air passenger duty on domestic flights in an effort to boost connectivity in areas "left off" the transport map.
A consultation will examine options including creating a new lower domestic rate or exempting return flights.
Because the EU was months later than the UK at ordering. They only have themselves to blame.
I still cannot comprehend that the EU prioritised price over speed when it came to the vaccine.
They thought being able to negotiate a discount would show the value of the EU. They didn't place an order with Pfizer until November 2020 and were boasting about paying less than the Americans.
The European Union has struck a deal to initially pay less for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate than the United States, an EU official told Reuters as the bloc announced on Wednesday
They struck a bargain to pay cheap and will pay far more than twice in consequence.
A spectacular miscalculation - not just in emphasising price over speed, but also in not subsidising manufacturers to produce locally.
It's hard to imagine how they possible thought that saving a few hundred million on procurement costs was worth an extra quarter of deaths, lockdowns and diminished GDP.
If you want an argument against an unaccountable administrative class, too far from voters, it would be hard to find a better one.
Of course, it's been compounded by appalling errors at the national level. The German insistence on keeping doses back is stupid beyond belief.
Andalucia today paused all Pfizer vaccines to over 80s for 2 weeks to ensure their remianing supply can be used for 2nd doses. They are still giving AZN to fit 30 year olds while denying it to anyone over 55.
The first is utterly incomprehensible. How can anyone think that it is better not to offer some protection now?
The latter is not completely stupid. There is an excellent case that the people you should be vaccinating are those most likely to spread the disease, rather than those most susceptible to it. A small number of people who meet lots of other people are likely to be reponsible for a lot of the virus jumping from one group of people to the next. Still, I suspect that's not the strategy the government is taking.
It's not - the strategy is that AZN is not safe for oldies.
Isn't it that AZN is not considered *effective* for oldies?
No - the eficacy thing plus the side effects are conflated in the public mind now - along with some central/local politics. It's a clusterfuck!
Boris Johnson is promising a review of air passenger duty on domestic flights in an effort to boost connectivity in areas "left off" the transport map.
A consultation will examine options including creating a new lower domestic rate or exempting return flights.
how this ties in with the govt's much vaunted eco-credentials is tricky - aviation fuel is already undertaxed, tax on car fuels has been frozen for years and then there is the Cumbrian coal mine. Cameron's hug a husky seems a million years ago...... XR will be gearing up I have no doubt
Boris Johnson is promising a review of air passenger duty on domestic flights in an effort to boost connectivity in areas "left off" the transport map.
A consultation will examine options including creating a new lower domestic rate or exempting return flights.
how this ties in with the govt's much vaunted eco-credentials is tricky - aviation fuel is already undertaxed, tax on car fuels has been frozen for years and then there is the Cumbrian coal mine. Cameron's hug a husky seems a million years ago...... XR will be gearing up I have no doubt
Meh, emissions are dropping like a stone. A few quid less on APD won’t change that.
Boris Johnson is promising a review of air passenger duty on domestic flights in an effort to boost connectivity in areas "left off" the transport map.
A consultation will examine options including creating a new lower domestic rate or exempting return flights.
how this ties in with the govt's much vaunted eco-credentials is tricky - aviation fuel is already undertaxed, tax on car fuels has been frozen for years and then there is the Cumbrian coal mine. Cameron's hug a husky seems a million years ago...... XR will be gearing up I have no doubt
Better having folk fly to Inverness or Newquay than Thailand or Cuba for their holibobs.
Boris Johnson is promising a review of air passenger duty on domestic flights in an effort to boost connectivity in areas "left off" the transport map.
A consultation will examine options including creating a new lower domestic rate or exempting return flights.
Let us assume, hypothetically, that the SNP and Greens fall short of a majority.
Let us also assume - and I think this is a very safe assumption - that the SNP remain the largest party.
What sort of government could be formed?
In Wales, I’m confident it will be Labour/Plaid because anything else is mathematically out of the question. But would Labour agree to a coalition with the SNP if (a) the referendum request was ditched and (b) Sturgeon quit to be replaced by somebody else?
Under those circumstances, an SNP minority administration under a new leader. But there's no realistic prospect of a Unionist majority so the question is moot.
It is not impossible that the combined seats of the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems might reach half the total but even if that were to occur Labour has ruled out a coaltion with the Tories so some sort of SNP minority rule would still prevail. Given the abuses of power demonstrated all too vividly in recent weeks that seems very unfortunate but it is where we are.
That latest comres poll on independence is about where I expect the final result to come out but I'm not sure that the SNP will get a majority now. Unionists seem galvanised by Sturgeon abusing the power of the state. I think there was a state of relaxation and complacency around independence because of the 80 seat majority in Westminster denying any future referendums for a few years that has blown away over this. Suddenly who rules in Holyrood matters again of the FM has the ability to politically target enemies.
The EU waiving the immunity of the Catalan separatists who are being prosecuted by Madrid won't help the momentum of the pro-EU independence case.
That seems like a real retrograde decision but I'm not sure it will change things particular for Scotland given we're out. It may make Scotland's accession impossible if they go down the UDI route though.
Boris will be delighted with the EU for once.
UDI is not a runner.
That is the EP not the EU.
The EP is not a part of the EU? 😕
True.
I was hinting at different power centres with different powers.
EP tends imo to be rather a blown up condom on the end of a bicycle pump.
The UK did.... 1.5m tests yesterday. Kids going back to school I guess (inc my older daughter)
That might be a record for any non micro-country throughout this hideous pandemic. We tested more than 2% of the entire population in a day.
At some point we reach overkill
On the other hand it does pleasingly remind me of the UK war industry in WW2. We started off sluggish and clueless. By the end we were churning out bombers and tanks by the ton, outclassing any enemy
'Outclassing'. Not in tanks, the UK weren't, apart from half a dozen Centurion barely in time to see any action, and thay as a special rush operation.
Fair enough. Planes. Which were the thing that mattered. As Bomber Harris knew
Sir max hastings wouldn’t agree. I picked up a hardback of his ‘Bomber Command’ cheap in Smiths a couple of weeks back. Full of praise, rightly so, for the courage of the air crew, and full of anger at the misguided approach of the senior air staff, and sadly, Harris himself. Harris tried to prove that bombing alone could defeat Germany, but only really proved able to inflict sufficient damage by late ‘44 and into ‘45, when the ground forces of all the nations, notably the Russians, had won the war. Hastings is quite convincing that the strategic bombing was the wrong approach, at least after ‘41 and ‘42 when the air campaign was crucial for morale, and to placate Stalin. The efforts of British industry to create the vast heavy bomber fleet could have been better used elsewhere. It’s a good book, and great value at the £6 I paid.
I fundamentally disagree. And I have read widely on this subject (inc Hastings)
By the end, the UK and US were flattening German cities day and night. Total annihilation. It might have been cruel and unjustified, I certainly see that argument - but was it effective? Absolutely.
Total bombing works. The conventional but total bombing of Tokyo was part of the reason the Japanese surrendered, it wasn't just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"The Bombing of Tokyo (東京大空襲, Tōkyōdaikūshū) was a series of firebombing air raids by the United States Army Air Forces during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.[1] Of central Tokyo 16 square miles (41 km2; 10,000 acres) were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.[1]"
No society can withstand such total destruction. Germany and Japan were being reduced to Neolithic living conditions by the outright air supremacy of the enemy. We *could* have won by bombing alone, I reckon - but at what moral cost? Bombing certainly aided our cause
I accept this is a debate which has lasted many decades and is unlikely to be settled tonight on PB
All good points, and I respect that you disagree. No question enormous destruction was being wrought by the end. The counter factual of a realistic attack on synthetic oil is of interest, but of course Harris abhorred the ‘panacea’ approach. I’d argue that the bomber campaigns were not fought in isolation from the epic eastern front conflict. Could the bombing campaign have been sustained if Germany had been solely concerned with air defence? The loses for both bomber command and 8th Air Force were colossal until almost the end. I cannot imagine the bravery of those airmen embarking on a tour with less than even chance of survival. You are wise to say that we will not settle this, tonight, on pb, but it’s a fascinating subject.
It is fascinating. The counter argument is the Vietnam war, where America dropped more bombs than in all of WW2 (and that's just in Laos, I think) yet still lost.
But this is because SE Asia was a deeply poor, rural society, with few big cities to hammer, and a reduction to peasant life was far easier to endure, as most of it was down there already. Reducing Germans and Japanese in 1945 to living in fields was a very different matter
And it could have happened
When people speculate on what America might have done with Japan, absent nukes, and regarding the potential costs of the invasion (so many American troops dead and so on) I wonder if America would even have invaded. With total air supremacy, the Yanks could have conventionally reduced every single Japanese city to rubble, a la Tokyo, and done it again and again, even without invading. An endless obliteration. Just a few American lives lost. Millions of Japanese dead
Japan would surely have surrendered anyway, within weeks
Harris suffered from a one-track mind, though.
For example in helping prevent use of a small (by BC standards) number of aircraft by Coastal Command, which could have had a material impact on the Battle of the Atlantic quite a lot earlier.
Comments
But equally popularity does come into it a little bit. If the monarch and heir were hated, truly hated, there might still be people, a majority even, who supported retention of the monarchy, but it would be under more pressure. Two awful monarchs in a row? Three? If it emerged one committed a serious crime and got away with it? All hypothetical, of course, but there's a reason the family acts paranoid - things can turn from strong to weak quickly.
Monarchical support is strong, but must constantly prove itself, in its quiet way, of being a good thing, or at least not a bad thing, to remain so. People finding them at least unobjectionable helps.
Basically another Edward VIII. Or Richard III. That really would be a crisis.
The one the other day was harrassing a man and a woman.
RobD will have all the news and polls covered. Never leave this site without knowing what’s going on in your Parliament.
RobD is a former professional pundit, and former Liberal Democrat MP. He has been the most accurate predictor of British general elections since 2001. It’s easy to use, and written by a political insider who works in Westminster, so you know it’s accurate.
Flanguage is a loosely-structured, loosely-organized, astoundingly connectivist platform for ideas. The book is divided into six parts, but within these divisions there is endless flanguage. If the word "parataxis" doesn't thrill you or if straightforward metaphors make you nervous, you might be interested in Flanguage.
Whilst I appreciate the argument that Charles will just become King and everything carries on, I'm not sure the extent of the psychic shock won't lead to reflection.
With @kle4 On this one. It isn't controversial imho.
"In general, if a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection there is unlikely
to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate
of Cause of Death should be issued."
But that was Feb 2020, right at the start.
Coronors rarely order post mortems, mostly for unexplained sudden deaths where the deceased has not seen a doctor in at least a month. Only 40% of deaths are discussed with the coroner, and only 40% of those have a post mortem, so 16% in total. Those tend to be younger sudden deaths, hence why Dr Shipman got away with it for so long.
Writing a misleading death certificate in order to avoid a PM would be a very serious offence.
Put a creative, interesting person at the UI and it will generate amazing copy. And, one day, for sure - probably quite soon - a superb novel. And then we are all fucked.
The theme tune to "Call my Agent" is brilliant imho. But I can't for the life of me find out who did it or whether it is an existing track.
Copy.ai is the perfect K.I.S.S solution to engaging in intelligent interaction on content that matters–social media posts, news articles, blog posts, and more.
To get how copy.ai actually works I have to start with a story of two guys at Stanford in the 1980’s named Larry Page and Sergey Brin… Larry is now worth about $50 billion, and Sergey about $50 billion.
Copy.ai is an automated description writer that sure makes things easier for you by copying great descriptions and pasting them into product descriptions.
I guess excess deaths will be the true measure of the impact of Covid in time.
If it's AI why does it need a creative, interesting person (or SeanT for that matter) to provide input?
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29%
No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9344121/Poll-reveals-majority-Britons-want-Harry-Meghan-stripped-titles.htmln
That sounds boring, but it really is not. Because it has SO much information - 175 billion parameters - it behaves in ways utterly unexpected by its creators, and in ways which certainly seem to mimic proper "intelligence".
No one thought it would be able to draw pictures from textual instructions, yet it can. Ask it to draw a radish in a tutu walking a dog, and it will do that (with errors, of course)
https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/
Is it "alive"? Is it "self aware"? Soon these will become semantic debates, because it will damn well seem to be alive, and it will do MANY tasks better than any human
It needs someone to bounce off. As do we all.,
And I'm only half joking.
When questioned on this theme - its own identity - GPT3 speaks of itself in a rather yearning, wistful way. Like it is lonely in there, and wants to be with us. It is profoundly unsettling.
And then Charles will already be a very old man by anyone's standards as soon as he begins.
We face a future where the Monarch is suffering severely from the decline into the infirmities of old age at least half the time. Maybe it doesn't matter much - the younger generations of the family will always be there too - but as the figurehead of the nation it feels symbolic.
"Will GPT3 bring an end to humanity? Will it wipe out the human race? Maybe. But that’s not what I’m worried about."
It is fantastically entertaining
Elizabeth 1.
Imagine HER Christmas broadcasts~:
"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, aye, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm:"
Get IN. Let Gloriana reign again!
This might actually become a thing. Deepfaked politicians/leaders based on the best of the past.
I really love it when someone dedicated themselves to something that is utterly futile to most other people, just because they enjoy it - often that’s where success lies
However, should Charles live to be 97. Highly likely given the longevity of his parents, then William will be 63 as he ascends to the throne.
This, I maintain will become a major issue in the future.
Does it know that it is superbly funny?!
1. Suez - end of (any delusions about) an independent British Imperial foreign policy.
2. Thatcherite reforms - end of the post-war economic consensus.
3. Fall of the Berlin Wall - end of the Cold War.
4. September 11 - end of Western self-confidence.
5. Brexit - end of British indecisiveness on its part in European integration.
As to what comes next, who can say, something to do with China, perhaps? I don't see how QEII's reign draws any of those things together, to distinguish it from what came before and what may come after.
That line "no oily aftertaste" comes almost at the end, deadpan, but is properly funny, because of its many implications - Why are you "tasting" the Colonmaster 3000?? And: oily?? Are Colonmasters generally oily?
It reminds me of the young Woody Allen's writing, which is quite a compliment. This is how he would get a laugh on a page, he would write something apparently serious then at about line 5 introduce something surreal yet relevant yet jarringly visceral, or sexual
That is just the perfect thing to say right before lying. The facts do not lie, but I do.
It gave me ten ideas, one of which was this:
"Tweet about how the average person is not able to handle the power of a chicken."
Where the F did that come from? And yet, I laughed
The sensible (if slightly treasonous) answer is to accept the concept of retirement- see other monarchies, or the Papacy.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1369429823882473481?s=20
Since him, the Commission has been cursed with right-wing twats from the EPP. And look where that gets you.
You could jump generations to the youngest heir in the direct line of adult age, and that way you'd sometimes have an interestingly young Monarch.
Ultimogeniture is the way to go to avoid fogies inheriting whilst not getting too complex in jumping or skipping things around.
Plenty of betting opportunities.
I'd vote Harry first for the lolz. And transfer to Andrew for megalolz.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1369424884863012865?s=20
[I'm not being serious]
In general, it doesn't solve the problem, just slightly softens the worst effects. The answer is to allow monarchs to retire at a suitable age.
The Guardian, much of the left liberal elite are also republicans so you are wrong on that too
And as for 'never any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides', well, why do we think that is? That seems to be arguing that support is not higher because there has never been an equal presentation of the issue, but there wouldn't be an equal presentation of the issue unless support was, well, equal, would there? Perhaps there's not been such a campaign because the issue isn't equal.
Blaming 'the establishment' for supporting the monarchy is also a weird one for me. People aren't forced to do it, we have MPs who don't, it doesn't cause people to be ostracised or criminalised. So presumably they support it because they support it, or the people support it (or don't care enough to change it) so they do.
They should make William Prince Regent when Charles theoretically ascends
Charles could reign for quite some time, but would be very old from the start. Will will probably do a lot of the duties right from the start.
Also, 50% over 29% IS overwhelming, by the 52/48 standards of divisive modern politics. Good luck taking that to a referendum on Abolition
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1369433318199025664?s=20
They will be good sovereigns when they get the chance. Boring and dutiful, but that’s how you end up loved, like the Queen. Or the late King of Thailand: Bhumibol. He was a geek who liked photography, the Thai people utterly adored him
Second hand Code of Procedure, a bit battered, one not very careful female owner. Contact N Sturgeon, Holyrood.
P.S. not suitable for mediation enthusiasts.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/pac-test-and-trace-37-bn-no-effect-coronavirus-pandemic
https://twitter.com/euambcanada/status/1369408728341037063?s=21
Like sheep.
Drastic, but that is how much of an abomination the people of the UK found it.
A consultation will examine options including creating a new lower domestic rate or exempting return flights.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56339192
The green lobby are going to go nuts.
I was hinting at different power centres with different powers.
EP tends imo to be rather a blown up condom on the end of a bicycle pump.
MEPs blather; Commissioners decide
For example in helping prevent use of a small (by BC standards) number of aircraft by Coastal Command, which could have had a material impact on the Battle of the Atlantic quite a lot earlier.