There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
It's always the same with these watermelon "environmentalists" their one trick pony is climate change and it invariably reduces to concern for homo sapiens - the very, and only, species which is fucking up the planet.
When do you ever hear these people talk about a plan to reduce human population (never), the shocking loss of biodiversity and biomass (rarely) or loss of habitat (never). In fact the deep green environmentalists who do major on these things have actively been drummed out of some of our best environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which is now an utter disgrace despite its roots tracing back to the wonderful John Muir). (You should read The Wild Muir BTW if you haven't already.)
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
i'd agree if it was a 2 lane road that was being reduced to 1. but if the left hand lane is queueing for a petrol station i don't think you should bomb down the right hand lane and try and cut in.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
It's hard to stick with merge in turn once the queue on the left hand side gets beyond a certain length, as it can become completely stationary for long periods of time as the 'queue jumpers' cut in at the front, and the mild mannered citizens at the front of the left hand lane let them in without demur.
My occasional solution to this is to stay in the right hand lane, but slow down to a crawl to allow things to unclog. It tends to infuriate those who think it their inalienable right to overtake the 30 cars at speed...
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
And all those herding dingbats breaking the Highway Code by merging prematurely are making the congestion worse for everyone else in the left hand lane as its leaving the open road clear for people who are driving properly to merge when they're supposed to do so. So many more vehicles have to get past the merge point before they can get through than if they just did what they're supposed to do and stay in their lane and merge in turn. Which is what the Highway Code says to do, Rule 134 is to stay in your lane and merge in turn - not create a herd and half a mile back.
I'm with the Tories on the merge in turn / queue jumping question. It's people prematurely filtering left and clogging up the slip lane that makes those continuing in the outside lane until later look like queue jumping libertarians. If everyone was sensible and stuck to their usual lanes until nearly at the junction, we would all be utilising the available space in the most efficient way and the overall queues would be shorter. That's utilitarianism.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
I have. I don't have children.
You have your own life, which presumably you could concede for the greater good?*
*I hate the idea that you would, I like having you around, but I am just highlighting the paradox in your philosophy
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
Trouble is it feels so un-British, that it winds people up. It needs better signage to indicate driving to the end and then merging (zipper style) and an ad campaign.
I know but it is already in the f***ing Highway Code.
So many morons out there that think when there's a queue everyone has to be in the left-hand lane altogether, then the rest of the time they'll drive down the middle lane on the motorway even when the left hand lane is empty.
Its not difficult, keep left unless overtaking. But if the left is moving slow, then then its reasonable to move right and overtake and merge at the merge point.
Sorry, no. That is being a twat. Merge in turn. Whether that is at the start of the narrowing or 400 yards earlier, that is your place in the queue. Overtaking after people have started queuing is not courteous behaviour.
No, read the f***ing Highway Code, merging prematurely is being a twat. Merge in turn at the merge point.
Just because there's fools with a herd mentality who decide to merge prematurely doesn't mean you should join them. Merge in turn is the rule and you are supposed to merge at the merge point, not 400 yards before it and leave valid open road space empty.
You'll never REALLY leave the Tory Party.... 😁
That made me laugh out loud for real! 😂
The merge point is the point where merge in turn kicks in, that's the rules, that's the Highway Code. Just because a herd join the left when they're not supposed to doubling the distance of a queue doesn't mean you should join the herd. Anyone complaining should re-read the Highway Code and learn how to drive properly.
The other daft behaviour is lane discipline. A lot of southern motorways have a "northerners-only lane" where rule 268 allows me to progress faster than nobbers enjoying 3 cm gaps in lanes 3 and 4.
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
It's always the same with these watermelon "environmentalists" their one trick pony is climate change and it invariably reduces to concern for homo sapiens - the very, and only, species which is fucking up the planet.
When do you ever hear these people talk about a plan to reduce human population (never), the shocking loss of biodiversity and biomass (rarely) or loss of habitat (never). In fact the deep green environmentalists who do major on these things have actively been drummed out of some of our best environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which is now an utter disgrace despite its roots tracing back to the wonderful John Muir). (You should read The Wild Muir BTW if you haven't already.)
One problem is that the over population discussion leads to *where* the population growth is. And also to immigration. Both subjects that many greens find a bit uncomfortable with.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
I have. I don't have children.
You have your own life, which presumably you could concede for the greater good?*
*I hate the idea that you would, I like having you around, but I am just highlighting the paradox in your philosophy
OTOH, those with now grown up children can be MORE expected to 'concede' for the greater good but also their familial good? Perhaps we ought to pass a law to that effect, to stop freeloading?
Mind, I can't imagine the Tory Party would ever agree.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it:
I merge in turn. You queue jump. He's been driven off the road by an HGV and beaten to death by angry motorists.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
And all those herding dingbats breaking the Highway Code by merging prematurely are making the congestion worse for everyone else in the left hand lane as its leaving the open road clear for people who are driving properly to merge when they're supposed to do so. So many more vehicles have to get past the merge point before they can get through than if they just did what they're supposed to do and stay in their lane and merge in turn. Which is what the Highway Code says to do, Rule 134 is to stay in your lane and merge in turn - not create a herd and half a mile back.
Curious how those strictly correct drivers in the right hand lane tend to exceed the road works speed limit by about 20mph, though....
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
If Starmer doesn't want a £15 p/h minimum wage, why on earth was he out with a protest for McDonald's to pay £15 p/h ?
Because big companies should pay more than minimum wage?
Really? McDonalds have already gone through one round of automation (the self service tills) to reduce staff requirements because £9 an hour was too much.
Tills which have very much lost them their sole USP. Which was speed. Could have ordered a full English at a cafe quicker last time. And bigger and cheaper.
I don't think speed is their sole USP. Indeed they've long since moved away from speed being their USP. When I worked there 20 years ago all food was premade and boxed up, someone came to the till and placed their order and I would grab it off the rack and give it to them. Shouting out for something to be made was extremely rare and generally was only the case if someone ordered something unusual like a Filet O Fish.
Nowadays almost everything is made fresh to order instead of being sat on the rack potentially for over an hour before it gets chosen.
Oh. OK. Perhaps I am remembering when I went often. My last visit, and it will be my last visit, was a shocker. 20 minutes wait. Food meh. Compared to a cafe, portions tiny, price exorbitant.
My support bubble and I have binned our weekly visit to McDonalds because, as you say, it now takes too long, even if objectively it is still quicker than some alternatives.
Its pretty quick if you go the sit down table order service (compared to most cafes) If you wait around at the till , it seems to take ages for the food to emerge (compared to the old days) I don't understand why anyone would order a delivery, the food is pretty much lukewarm when it is served in the restaurant, it must lose nearly all its heat being delivered.
I think that, in the end, they will be done for by the fact that the food is terribly unhealthy, lots of saturated fat, not very filling, etc. Their attempts at addressing this have been tokenistic. They don't have any gluten free options. They should try and do a decent chicken salad or something.
Another grievance I have with them, is that you cant use the drive thru on a bike (either a pedal bike or motorbike). They are always indifferent when I complain about this.
Most people want a big fat burger and fries , they are not sandal wearing , quinoa munching wet liberals. If you look at the queues then you would realise they know their market.
To be fair, this article from the AA does appear to back Philip up. I have never thought about it that hard before, always just assumed that those who pushed in were queue jumping. It would seem that they are in the right!
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
Trans has been quiet for a couple of hours...
Trans and Automobiles have been discussed... Plans anyone?
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
It's hard to stick with merge in turn once the queue on the left hand side gets beyond a certain length, as it can become completely stationary for long periods of time as the 'queue jumpers' cut in at the front, and the mild mannered citizens at the front of the left hand lane let them in without demur.
My occasional solution to this is to stay in the right hand lane, but slow down to a crawl to allow things to unclog. It tends to infuriate those who think it their inalienable right to overtake the 30 cars at speed...
Lets understand why traffic comes to a complete halt. Traffic behaves similar to water - create a sufficient impediment to flow and a back pressure wave reverses from the impediment.
So when people behave like arses and don't allow the required gap between cars and don't anticipate other vehicles merging by a lane closure brakes get applied a little harder and a little harder until its a full stop further back and probably a crash back from there.
Or - radical idea - accept that people need to merge. Drop back a little from the car in front to allow dynamic merging. Unless traffic is absolutely rammed there is no reason why a lane drop should cause huge queues - you all just need to slow down and co-operate.
As a merge in turn / Highway Code advocate I roll along the closing lane. A gap always opens in the running lane as people recover from full stops and so often I don't actually stop. Which is how its supposed to be done.
I'm with the Tories on the merge in turn / queue jumping question. It's people prematurely filtering left and clogging up the slip lane that makes those continuing in the outside lane until later look like queue jumping libertarians. If everyone was sensible and stuck to their usual lanes until nearly at the junction, we would all be utilising the available space in the most efficient way and the overall queues would be shorter. That's utilitarianism.
Don't call me a Tory!
Remember that to some people attending Labour conference this week, we're all "Tories". Just ones with different colours (yellow, red, tartan etc).
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
I have. I don't have children.
You have your own life, which presumably you could concede for the greater good?*
*I hate the idea that you would, I like having you around, but I am just highlighting the paradox in your philosophy
No, I don't advocating ending anyone's life prematurely. Nobody chose to be conceived or born. Everyone deserves a quality of life available to us in 21st century society, while not adversely impacting the other species that we share the planet with.
However, we have it within our gift to vacate the world over a 100ish year timeframe. That's what I would like to see. Instead, we'll add a few more billion to the human headcount and come up with new ways to bugger up the planet.
Then you get some feckwits suggesting that we go and colonise Mars. Brilliant! Let's feck up another planet for good measure.
It could be that the ex-head of civil contingencies on the Today programme this morning was right. The only thing that will cool this down might be a calm but firm PM broadcast, telling everyone that they all need to buy the absolute minimum possibe amount of fuel for a while until this is sorted out, and as long as we all work together collectively it will ease fairly quickly, etc . We will solve this together or not at all, sort of thing.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
It's always the same with these watermelon "environmentalists" their one trick pony is climate change and it invariably reduces to concern for homo sapiens - the very, and only, species which is fucking up the planet.
When do you ever hear these people talk about a plan to reduce human population (never), the shocking loss of biodiversity and biomass (rarely) or loss of habitat (never). In fact the deep green environmentalists who do major on these things have actively been drummed out of some of our best environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which is now an utter disgrace despite its roots tracing back to the wonderful John Muir). (You should read The Wild Muir BTW if you haven't already.)
What's with the "wetermelon" jibe? Personally, I see environmentalism as pretty much synonymous with long-term economics. My motivation is the creation of a world in which our descendants can live happily, comfortably and sustainably, and this inevitably requires a balanced ecosystem. While I do have consideration for the well-being other species (and am a vegetarian), I'd baulk at the suggestion that the maintenance of some idealised ecosystem has significant importance in its own right.
To be fair, this article from the AA does appear to back Philip up. I have never thought about it that hard before, always just assumed that those who pushed in were queue jumping. It would seem that they are in the right!
The "I just assumed" comment reminds me of a scary ride with a new colleague. He literally rammed his way onto the motorway. When I commented he said "traffic has to give way to people joining".
International summits almost inevitably end in grandiose joint communiqués, most of which are quickly forgotten. This month’s announcement of the Aukus partnership by President Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be. This isn’t because the pact made France unhappy or even because it highlights America’s long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific. Aukus is a deep but flexible partnership between leading tech powers that could shape the 21st century and serve as the model for U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific.
The impetus for the agreement, Prime Minister Morrison told me in an interview during his recent trip to Washington, came from the Australians. After years of escalating pressure, last November Chinese diplomats in Canberra warned that to enjoy better relations with Beijing, Australia’s government must address 14 Chinese grievances. It must, among other things, stop funding “anti-China” research, refrain from provocative actions like requesting a more thorough World Health Organization investigation of the origins of Covid-19, stop opposing strategic Chinese investments into Australia, and block private media outlets from publishing “unfriendly” news stories about China.
Meanwhile, the size and speed of China’s naval buildup had forced Australian defense planners to rethink their national defense strategy. One casualty of that review was confidence in Australia’s strategic partnership with France which was anchored by the now-cancelled submarine program. Faced with a relentless and rising China, the Australians concluded that only closer ties to the U.S. could provide the deterrence and protection they need.
I'm with the Tories on the merge in turn / queue jumping question. It's people prematurely filtering left and clogging up the slip lane that makes those continuing in the outside lane until later look like queue jumping libertarians. If everyone was sensible and stuck to their usual lanes until nearly at the junction, we would all be utilising the available space in the most efficient way and the overall queues would be shorter. That's utilitarianism.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
Trouble is it feels so un-British, that it winds people up. It needs better signage to indicate driving to the end and then merging (zipper style) and an ad campaign.
I know but it is already in the f***ing Highway Code.
So many morons out there that think when there's a queue everyone has to be in the left-hand lane altogether, then the rest of the time they'll drive down the middle lane on the motorway even when the left hand lane is empty.
Its not difficult, keep left unless overtaking. But if the left is moving slow, then then its reasonable to move right and overtake and merge at the merge point.
Sorry, no. That is being a twat. Merge in turn. Whether that is at the start of the narrowing or 400 yards earlier, that is your place in the queue. Overtaking after people have started queuing is not courteous behaviour.
No, read the f***ing Highway Code, merging prematurely is being a twat. Merge in turn at the merge point.
Just because there's fools with a herd mentality who decide to merge prematurely doesn't mean you should join them. Merge in turn is the rule and you are supposed to merge at the merge point, not 400 yards before it and leave valid open road space empty.
You'll never REALLY leave the Tory Party.... 😁
That made me laugh out loud for real! 😂
The merge point is the point where merge in turn kicks in, that's the rules, that's the Highway Code. Just because a herd join the left when they're not supposed to doubling the distance of a queue doesn't mean you should join the herd. Anyone complaining should re-read the Highway Code and learn how to drive properly.
The other daft behaviour is lane discipline. A lot of southern motorways have a "northerners-only lane" where rule 268 allows me to progress faster than nobbers enjoying 3 cm gaps in lanes 3 and 4.
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
So are you undertaking the guys in the outside lanes?
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
And all those herding dingbats breaking the Highway Code by merging prematurely are making the congestion worse for everyone else in the left hand lane as its leaving the open road clear for people who are driving properly to merge when they're supposed to do so. So many more vehicles have to get past the merge point before they can get through than if they just did what they're supposed to do and stay in their lane and merge in turn. Which is what the Highway Code says to do, Rule 134 is to stay in your lane and merge in turn - not create a herd and half a mile back.
TBF there are a lot of drivers who are just in the left hand lane approaching the merge, and in theory some of them need to move out to stop the natural 'queue jump' of the cars in the outer lane. If you have two slowly moving lines of traffic, then merge in turn works. And absolutely you shouldn't artificially head to the left before you need.
I was not aware than merge in turn was now in the Highway Code. Its interesting to me that you sometimes get signs indicating to do this, and sometimes not. This is not helpful, if you are meant to do this every time.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hand market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
Trouble is it feels so un-British, that it winds people up. It needs better signage to indicate driving to the end and then merging (zipper style) and an ad campaign.
I know but it is already in the f***ing Highway Code.
So many morons out there that think when there's a queue everyone has to be in the left-hand lane altogether, then the rest of the time they'll drive down the middle lane on the motorway even when the left hand lane is empty.
Its not difficult, keep left unless overtaking. But if the left is moving slow, then then its reasonable to move right and overtake and merge at the merge point.
Sorry, no. That is being a twat. Merge in turn. Whether that is at the start of the narrowing or 400 yards earlier, that is your place in the queue. Overtaking after people have started queuing is not courteous behaviour.
No, read the f***ing Highway Code, merging prematurely is being a twat. Merge in turn at the merge point.
Just because there's fools with a herd mentality who decide to merge prematurely doesn't mean you should join them. Merge in turn is the rule and you are supposed to merge at the merge point, not 400 yards before it and leave valid open road space empty.
You'll never REALLY leave the Tory Party.... 😁
That made me laugh out loud for real! 😂
The merge point is the point where merge in turn kicks in, that's the rules, that's the Highway Code. Just because a herd join the left when they're not supposed to doubling the distance of a queue doesn't mean you should join the herd. Anyone complaining should re-read the Highway Code and learn how to drive properly.
The other daft behaviour is lane discipline. A lot of southern motorways have a "northerners-only lane" where rule 268 allows me to progress faster than nobbers enjoying 3 cm gaps in lanes 3 and 4.
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
If using that tactic on the A12 or A13 watch out for boy racers who might come up to you at 100mph on the inside lane with no obvious plan to slow down (they usually prefer a swerve). Don't seem to get that behaviour anywhere else but those two roads.
But yes, we have terrible lane discipline, and thanks to all the cameras and speedometer laws, not many cars actually travel over 70mph on south eastern motorways anymore, even when the traffic is fairly light. Last time I drove in Germany, maybe 5 years ago, they still had near perfect lane discipline which shows it can be done.
International summits almost inevitably end in grandiose joint communiqués, most of which are quickly forgotten. This month’s announcement of the Aukus partnership by President Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be. This isn’t because the pact made France unhappy or even because it highlights America’s long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific. Aukus is a deep but flexible partnership between leading tech powers that could shape the 21st century and serve as the model for U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific.
The impetus for the agreement, Prime Minister Morrison told me in an interview during his recent trip to Washington, came from the Australians. After years of escalating pressure, last November Chinese diplomats in Canberra warned that to enjoy better relations with Beijing, Australia’s government must address 14 Chinese grievances. It must, among other things, stop funding “anti-China” research, refrain from provocative actions like requesting a more thorough World Health Organization investigation of the origins of Covid-19, stop opposing strategic Chinese investments into Australia, and block private media outlets from publishing “unfriendly” news stories about China.
Meanwhile, the size and speed of China’s naval buildup had forced Australian defense planners to rethink their national defense strategy. One casualty of that review was confidence in Australia’s strategic partnership with France which was anchored by the now-cancelled submarine program. Faced with a relentless and rising China, the Australians concluded that only closer ties to the U.S. could provide the deterrence and protection they need.
That sounds in line with what I've heard of Chinese requirements to be a "friend" - active obedience is required, not just not doing things.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
It's always the same with these watermelon "environmentalists" their one trick pony is climate change and it invariably reduces to concern for homo sapiens - the very, and only, species which is fucking up the planet.
When do you ever hear these people talk about a plan to reduce human population (never), the shocking loss of biodiversity and biomass (rarely) or loss of habitat (never). In fact the deep green environmentalists who do major on these things have actively been drummed out of some of our best environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which is now an utter disgrace despite its roots tracing back to the wonderful John Muir). (You should read The Wild Muir BTW if you haven't already.)
One problem is that the over population discussion leads to *where* the population growth is. And also to immigration. Both subjects that many greens find a bit uncomfortable with.
Immigration is a Green issue. Not a green issue per se.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
It's hard to stick with merge in turn once the queue on the left hand side gets beyond a certain length, as it can become completely stationary for long periods of time as the 'queue jumpers' cut in at the front, and the mild mannered citizens at the front of the left hand lane let them in without demur.
My occasional solution to this is to stay in the right hand lane, but slow down to a crawl to allow things to unclog. It tends to infuriate those who think it their inalienable right to overtake the 30 cars at speed...
Lets understand why traffic comes to a complete halt. Traffic behaves similar to water - create a sufficient impediment to flow and a back pressure wave reverses from the impediment.
So when people behave like arses and don't allow the required gap between cars and don't anticipate other vehicles merging by a lane closure brakes get applied a little harder and a little harder until its a full stop further back and probably a crash back from there.
Or - radical idea - accept that people need to merge. Drop back a little from the car in front to allow dynamic merging. Unless traffic is absolutely rammed there is no reason why a lane drop should cause huge queues - you all just need to slow down and co-operate....
What tends to happen, though, is that drivers merge in halfway along the semi-stationary queue, as well as at the front. The only real solution is imposing and policing a much slower speed limit at the approach to such bottlenecks. The ability to do that is one of the better things about smart motorways.
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
And irony of all ironies it was empty when I passed this morning, though two other local garages had fuel and one with a tanker on their forecourt
It seems very patchy
If you want fuel and are prepared to pay £1. 42 per litre it is available if you don't mind a short queue in South West Wales.
£1.36 diesel here in Milford Haven. No queues
Isn't that a bit like drinking in a brewery tap?
That’s Dubai - 51p a litre here, for Super 98, and everyone’s complaining how much it’s gone up recently!
Probably pointless even suggesting it, but anyone interested in a nuanced, largely fact-based discussion on trans issues should listen to this morning's Woman's Hour where a lawyer who specialises in trans issues (and is trans herself), Robin Moira White, was interviewed.
Thanks for flagging this, just listened to it. I think it's been said on here that Emma Barnett is a very good presenter/interviewer, and she was top notch in that segment. It's interesting that Robin Moira White compared trans rights to gay rights. As has been pointed out on here, it's not quite so neat and tidy.
99% of comparisons are never neat and tidy, and I think there is a valid comparison there despite it being inexact. My main takeaway was that White implicitly acknowledged that the situation was complicated and context is all. Her referring to cases she has taken on behalf of individuals & companies who had been charged with being transphobic or breaking the law in this area seemed to me a clear recognition of how tricky it is.
I find companies discriminating against trans people utterly bizarre. Irrespective of one's view on the tricky side of this issue, why anyone running a business would care about their staff's identity is a complete mystery to me.
I'm not a woman, so perhaps I shouldn't give a view on this, but I find the whole when is a woman a woman debate a bit meh. As I said earlier, from the state's perspective, deciding when a man is a man is much more important.
Businesses are not transphobic in my experience. I have a relative who is trans, who worked for a while at a well-known company, with branches on many high streets. The company took pains to ensure that they didn't have to work at their "local" branch, to minimise the chance of meeting some-one who knew them before transition.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
Yep, Tarka was bleaker or more unsentimental depending on pov. Williamson spent a lot of time with Devon otter hunts which to a nature lover nowadays seems like anathema, but his observations of them must have added to to his undoubted knowledge of the subject.
Williamson was one of my favourites when young(er) but he seems to be one of those writers who have sunk back into obscurity, maybe due to his politics. Checking his/Tarka's wiki I see Ted Hughes described him as 'one of the truest English poets of his generation' at his commemoration, quite the tribute.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
It's always the same with these watermelon "environmentalists" their one trick pony is climate change and it invariably reduces to concern for homo sapiens - the very, and only, species which is fucking up the planet.
When do you ever hear these people talk about a plan to reduce human population (never), the shocking loss of biodiversity and biomass (rarely) or loss of habitat (never). In fact the deep green environmentalists who do major on these things have actively been drummed out of some of our best environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which is now an utter disgrace despite its roots tracing back to the wonderful John Muir). (You should read The Wild Muir BTW if you haven't already.)
What's with the "wetermelon" jibe? Personally, I see environmentalism as pretty much synonymous with long-term economics. My motivation is the creation of a world in which our descendants can live happily, comfortably and sustainably, and this inevitably requires a balanced ecosystem. While I do have consideration for the well-being other species (and am a vegetarian), I'd baulk at the suggestion that the maintenance of some idealised ecosystem has significant importance in its own right.
The jibe is meant to point out that their concern is not the environment, it is humanity and a dislike for western democracies. It is anti-capitalism dressed up as environmentalism. And they have taken over. And by the way the ecosystem prior to the agricultural revolution isn't idealised, it was a product of powerful natural forces which our species has corrupted and spoiled.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
I have. I don't have children.
You have your own life, which presumably you could concede for the greater good?*
*I hate the idea that you would, I like having you around, but I am just highlighting the paradox in your philosophy
No, I don't advocating ending anyone's life prematurely. Nobody chose to be conceived or born. Everyone deserves a quality of life available to us in 21st century society, while not adversely impacting the other species that we share the planet with.
However, we have it within our gift to vacate the world over a 100ish year timeframe. That's what I would like to see. Instead, we'll add a few more billion to the human headcount and come up with new ways to bugger up the planet.
Then you get some feckwits suggesting that we go and colonise Mars. Brilliant! Let's feck up another planet for good measure.
I think you are advocating ending people's lives prematurely, in effect. Who's going to wipe the arses of all the old people when there are no more young people?
And which beings are going to really appreciate the universe if there are no humans any more? The universe would be a much sadder, poorer place without us.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
Trouble is it feels so un-British, that it winds people up. It needs better signage to indicate driving to the end and then merging (zipper style) and an ad campaign.
I know but it is already in the f***ing Highway Code.
So many morons out there that think when there's a queue everyone has to be in the left-hand lane altogether, then the rest of the time they'll drive down the middle lane on the motorway even when the left hand lane is empty.
Its not difficult, keep left unless overtaking. But if the left is moving slow, then then its reasonable to move right and overtake and merge at the merge point.
Sorry, no. That is being a twat. Merge in turn. Whether that is at the start of the narrowing or 400 yards earlier, that is your place in the queue. Overtaking after people have started queuing is not courteous behaviour.
No, read the f***ing Highway Code, merging prematurely is being a twat. Merge in turn at the merge point.
Just because there's fools with a herd mentality who decide to merge prematurely doesn't mean you should join them. Merge in turn is the rule and you are supposed to merge at the merge point, not 400 yards before it and leave valid open road space empty.
You'll never REALLY leave the Tory Party.... 😁
That made me laugh out loud for real! 😂
The merge point is the point where merge in turn kicks in, that's the rules, that's the Highway Code. Just because a herd join the left when they're not supposed to doubling the distance of a queue doesn't mean you should join the herd. Anyone complaining should re-read the Highway Code and learn how to drive properly.
The other daft behaviour is lane discipline. A lot of southern motorways have a "northerners-only lane" where rule 268 allows me to progress faster than nobbers enjoying 3 cm gaps in lanes 3 and 4.
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
So are you undertaking the guys in the outside lanes?
Rule 268 of The Highway Code states: “In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to you right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.”
China’s raid on its Wall Street to keep many bankers awake at night as Beijing probes top institutions Disciplinary watchdog will send inspectors into China’s top 25 financial institutions in the coming weeks to look for signs of corruption, negligence and disloyalty (sic) Former China Huarong Asset Management chairman Lai Xiaomin was executed earlier this year after he was convicted of corruption in a case involving 1.8 billion yuan (US$278 million) https://www.scmp.com/economy/article/3150298/chinas-raid-its-wall-street-keep-many-bankers-awake-night-beijing-probes
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
I have. I don't have children.
You have your own life, which presumably you could concede for the greater good?*
*I hate the idea that you would, I like having you around, but I am just highlighting the paradox in your philosophy
No, I don't advocating ending anyone's life prematurely. Nobody chose to be conceived or born. Everyone deserves a quality of life available to us in 21st century society, while not adversely impacting the other species that we share the planet with.
However, we have it within our gift to vacate the world over a 100ish year timeframe. That's what I would like to see. Instead, we'll add a few more billion to the human headcount and come up with new ways to bugger up the planet.
Then you get some feckwits suggesting that we go and colonise Mars. Brilliant! Let's feck up another planet for good measure.
I think you are advocating ending people's lives prematurely, in effect. Who's going to wipe the arses of all the old people when there are no more young people?
And which beings are going to really appreciate the universe if there are no humans any more? The universe would be a much sadder, poorer place without us.
Sigh. Well you do represent the majority it's true: nature is purely a matter of instrumental value and holds no intrinsic value.
To be fair, this article from the AA does appear to back Philip up. I have never thought about it that hard before, always just assumed that those who pushed in were queue jumping. It would seem that they are in the right!
The "I just assumed" comment reminds me of a scary ride with a new colleague. He literally rammed his way onto the motorway. When I commented he said "traffic has to give way to people joining".
No mate, the other way round FFS.
Silly comparison as that's very obviously stupid and dangerous driving. At least I was honest that I was unaware of that rule – I suspect 99% of the driving glove brigade on here would rather eat their own poo than admit to not having read and understood every single subclause in the Highway Code.
(And, by the way, I assume you don't actually mean literally)
International summits almost inevitably end in grandiose joint communiqués, most of which are quickly forgotten. This month’s announcement of the Aukus partnership by President Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be. This isn’t because the pact made France unhappy or even because it highlights America’s long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific. Aukus is a deep but flexible partnership between leading tech powers that could shape the 21st century and serve as the model for U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific.
The impetus for the agreement, Prime Minister Morrison told me in an interview during his recent trip to Washington, came from the Australians. After years of escalating pressure, last November Chinese diplomats in Canberra warned that to enjoy better relations with Beijing, Australia’s government must address 14 Chinese grievances. It must, among other things, stop funding “anti-China” research, refrain from provocative actions like requesting a more thorough World Health Organization investigation of the origins of Covid-19, stop opposing strategic Chinese investments into Australia, and block private media outlets from publishing “unfriendly” news stories about China.
Meanwhile, the size and speed of China’s naval buildup had forced Australian defense planners to rethink their national defense strategy. One casualty of that review was confidence in Australia’s strategic partnership with France which was anchored by the now-cancelled submarine program. Faced with a relentless and rising China, the Australians concluded that only closer ties to the U.S. could provide the deterrence and protection they need.
That sounds in line with what I've heard of Chinese requirements to be a "friend" - active obedience is required, not just not doing things.
It's guanxi. A quid pro quo relationship. Not friendship in any Western sense.
”Walk around a supermarket in the U.S. or Europe and you will see some empty shelves once more. This isn’t due to people panic-buying toilet paper, as they did early on in the pandemic; rather it’s because supply chains are clogged at almost every stage between Asian factories and grocery stock rooms.
“But rising prices and patchy availability mean it’s only a matter of time before shoppers start purchasing in bulk again — this time to avoid future sticker shock.
“Supply lines are struggling as producers such as Vietnam, responsible for making everything from sneakers to coffee, are hurt by Covid restrictions. Surging virus cases and consumer demand are leading to congested ports. Shipping containers are in the wrong place. Sea freight costs are up tenfold. If goods do arrive at the destined ports, there are too few truck drivers to transport them to retailers. Shortages of workers to harvest and prepare foods are also adding to the pressures.”
Now, I know I'm in a posh part of LA, but I haven't seen any shortages... yet.
Today I filled up my (@Dura_Ace approved) car with petrol, without problems.
My gut - and it's just a gut - is that there is a post Covid demand boom, that is causing supply crunches everywhere. But it's most acute in the UK, simply because Covid hit almost immediately following Brexit. It meant that those who could drive could earn great money in less stressful food delivery jobs, and the normal steady flow people through training was disrupted.
And you know what, that's OK.
No-one is going to starve. Things will adjust. The cost of trucking stuff around will probably increase. And yes, that will have an impact on the price we pay for things.
That post was fine until you got to the 'it's ok' bit.
No it isn't. If you lived here you'd realise that it really, really, isn't. We have horrendous multiple crises going on in the UK at the moment. You may not be a fan of the NHS, for instance, but the situation is absolutely dire. I know several people who have had cancer diagnoses missed during the past 18 months and are now in real trouble. Try getting a face to face appointment with a GP and it's nigh-impossible.
And there are people who ARE on the bread line, especially with the cut in universal credit.
I could go on but please don't post aloof messages from sunny LA trying to tell us it's all fine. That's as bad as the Metropolitan Elite Remainers who never, ever, got the issue in the ghost towns of the north and east of England.
I think you go a bit far - we have some enormous challenges ahead, but we always do. The NHS has had winter crisis for as long as I can remember. There will never be enough money, time, medics to do all that could be done. I'd suggest you look elsewhere. We are not uniquely struggling. Things will improve. My guess is the fuel 'crisis' will be over by the weekend.
They don't seem to be struggling quite as much as we are. In terms of loss of life expectancy, Covid has hit the UK harder than many countries, and nowhere else has has people queuing for petrol. European supermarket shelves aren't as empty as ours, either. Pasta, chopped tomatoes and kidney beans almost all gone on my last shoping trip.
BREXIT has really put us in a bad place.
Brexit is an unserious project lead by unserious people, which is the big issue we have right now. They start out by claiming shortages are a feature, not a bug, of Brexit, because they drive up wages. Then they deny that shortages actually exist, because no-one wants to do without important stuff. Or, if they can't deny it, they claim everyone else also had shortages. Finally they blame everyone else for the consequences of their own decisions; companies, the media, Remainers, the EU.
As I have said before time for the lib dems to come out publicly and say they will join the single market and a accept freedom of movement
That would be honest rather than continually bemoaning abour Brexit
You do not like it, so say what you do want openly and honestly to the public
It's an interesting point, which goes beyond the Lib Dems. Is there a workable version of Brexit that doesn't involve realigning with the EU, similar to the EEA? Because that's been rejected by Brexiteers for reasons that are important to them. It's much easier to declare the whole situation a mess than to find solutions to it. Brexiteers presumably deflect , blame-shift and devise unrealistic solutions because they don't have real solutions themselves.
Although I 'liked' Big G's comment, it was the coming out and being open about it I agree with. If being in the EU is better than out (and I believe it is) the LDs shouldn't be afraid to say so, very loudly and in response to every issue. Just as the Brexiteers did for 20 years.
However I really don't see the point of being in the single market but not in the EU. I want to set the rules, not just take them. Otherwise we are better off as we are now - at least we get to decide.
I'm still trying to decide if LD policy is one I can support - it's a bit mealy mouthed for me. Is it the fist step in a commitment to rejoin that will take more than a parliament to implement, or just a step in the hope that we will rejoin eventually? While we are out of the EU, we should be out properly, until we decide to rejoin. A halfway house is pointless.
I can't fault your logic: go for the best outcome, not one that is less bad than what he have. The issue for people who think the case stacks up for EU membership is that the "best outcome" is the only one that has been definitively and formally rejected in a popular vote. Absent an appetite to overturn that vote, we are left with suboptimal outcomes.
My question is whether at least some of those that voted Leave could be persuaded, along with those that voted Remain, for some kind of damage limitation, given that the former are in denial about the consequences of their vote. They don't like those consequences but they don't accept they voted for them either. It may not be a case of changing minds, but they get tired of this stuff.
I don't buy your assumption that inside the SM but not in the EU is better than now (it might be, but not sure). All i know is that it can never be better than both of the current position and fully in, so we just have to decide which of those two is better.
As for selling it, either Brexit turns out to be such a roaring success that the question goes away , or we start to look enviously across the channel at our neighbours once more.
I also expect it to take a generation to overturn. All of my daughters' generation (teens/early 20s) that I know think Brexit was the most stupid idea, ever, and as the people older than me shuffle off it will depend whether the new status quo seems a good thing or not to her age group and the generation following her by the time they are in a majority.
Its a bit tricky at the moment to untangle all the influences on 'how its going'. Imagine your football team changes its manager, and then before the first match you lose half the squad to injury. Is it a fair test to criticise when you lose? No doubt covid has had a huge effect on things, and no doubt Brexit has too. Taken together, in the old adage 'I wouldn't start from here'.
Coming out of EU was never going to be over in months or a few years. It'll be for historians to work out who was right and who was wrong. On purely economic arguments, my feel is we should have stayed in, and I voted that way. On other aspects I was happy with the vote to withdraw. Whatever. We are where we are. If a future government is elected on a rejoiin manifesto then so be it. I think the Lib Dems got smashed last time, not because they wanted to stay in the EU, but because they didn't want to to respect the referendum vote, because it went against them. Making the case for rejoin now, and in future, is entirely different.
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
Trouble is it feels so un-British, that it winds people up. It needs better signage to indicate driving to the end and then merging (zipper style) and an ad campaign.
I know but it is already in the f***ing Highway Code.
So many morons out there that think when there's a queue everyone has to be in the left-hand lane altogether, then the rest of the time they'll drive down the middle lane on the motorway even when the left hand lane is empty.
Its not difficult, keep left unless overtaking. But if the left is moving slow, then then its reasonable to move right and overtake and merge at the merge point.
Sorry, no. That is being a twat. Merge in turn. Whether that is at the start of the narrowing or 400 yards earlier, that is your place in the queue. Overtaking after people have started queuing is not courteous behaviour.
No, read the f***ing Highway Code, merging prematurely is being a twat. Merge in turn at the merge point.
Just because there's fools with a herd mentality who decide to merge prematurely doesn't mean you should join them. Merge in turn is the rule and you are supposed to merge at the merge point, not 400 yards before it and leave valid open road space empty.
You'll never REALLY leave the Tory Party.... 😁
That made me laugh out loud for real! 😂
The merge point is the point where merge in turn kicks in, that's the rules, that's the Highway Code. Just because a herd join the left when they're not supposed to doubling the distance of a queue doesn't mean you should join the herd. Anyone complaining should re-read the Highway Code and learn how to drive properly.
The other daft behaviour is lane discipline. A lot of southern motorways have a "northerners-only lane" where rule 268 allows me to progress faster than nobbers enjoying 3 cm gaps in lanes 3 and 4.
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
So are you undertaking the guys in the outside lanes?
I "keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right" (rule 268).
Traffic to might right should follow Rule 264 and keep left. When they cause congestion by driving like spanners I am perfectly entitled to stay in my lane with the few other vehicles not driven by spanners.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
Trouble is it feels so un-British, that it winds people up. It needs better signage to indicate driving to the end and then merging (zipper style) and an ad campaign.
I know but it is already in the f***ing Highway Code.
So many morons out there that think when there's a queue everyone has to be in the left-hand lane altogether, then the rest of the time they'll drive down the middle lane on the motorway even when the left hand lane is empty.
Its not difficult, keep left unless overtaking. But if the left is moving slow, then then its reasonable to move right and overtake and merge at the merge point.
Sorry, no. That is being a twat. Merge in turn. Whether that is at the start of the narrowing or 400 yards earlier, that is your place in the queue. Overtaking after people have started queuing is not courteous behaviour.
No, read the f***ing Highway Code, merging prematurely is being a twat. Merge in turn at the merge point.
Just because there's fools with a herd mentality who decide to merge prematurely doesn't mean you should join them. Merge in turn is the rule and you are supposed to merge at the merge point, not 400 yards before it and leave valid open road space empty.
You'll never REALLY leave the Tory Party.... 😁
That made me laugh out loud for real! 😂
The merge point is the point where merge in turn kicks in, that's the rules, that's the Highway Code. Just because a herd join the left when they're not supposed to doubling the distance of a queue doesn't mean you should join the herd. Anyone complaining should re-read the Highway Code and learn how to drive properly.
The other daft behaviour is lane discipline. A lot of southern motorways have a "northerners-only lane" where rule 268 allows me to progress faster than nobbers enjoying 3 cm gaps in lanes 3 and 4.
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
So are you undertaking the guys in the outside lanes?
I've never seen a problem with undertaking. There isn't a rule which says it's fine not to check your mirror when changing lane to the left. I think 50 years ago a lhs wing mirror was an optional extra, but that was 50 years ago.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
It's always the same with these watermelon "environmentalists" their one trick pony is climate change and it invariably reduces to concern for homo sapiens - the very, and only, species which is fucking up the planet.
When do you ever hear these people talk about a plan to reduce human population (never), the shocking loss of biodiversity and biomass (rarely) or loss of habitat (never). In fact the deep green environmentalists who do major on these things have actively been drummed out of some of our best environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which is now an utter disgrace despite its roots tracing back to the wonderful John Muir). (You should read The Wild Muir BTW if you haven't already.)
What's with the "wetermelon" jibe? Personally, I see environmentalism as pretty much synonymous with long-term economics. My motivation is the creation of a world in which our descendants can live happily, comfortably and sustainably, and this inevitably requires a balanced ecosystem. While I do have consideration for the well-being other species (and am a vegetarian), I'd baulk at the suggestion that the maintenance of some idealised ecosystem has significant importance in its own right.
Without getting shot of a shedload of humans it will never happen. Preferably we start with Tories.
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving.
Not indicating left after overtaking on a motorway
This government prefers indicating right whilst heading left, before a quick unannounced u-turn. Fortunately everyone already knows they like a last minute u-turn.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
The last thing is ridiculous. The amount you need to watch your speedometer to make sure it doesn't tick briefly over the limit is taking your eyes off the road substantially more, almost certainly increasing accidents.
Probably pointless even suggesting it, but anyone interested in a nuanced, largely fact-based discussion on trans issues should listen to this morning's Woman's Hour where a lawyer who specialises in trans issues (and is trans herself), Robin Moira White, was interviewed.
Thanks for flagging this, just listened to it. I think it's been said on here that Emma Barnett is a very good presenter/interviewer, and she was top notch in that segment. It's interesting that Robin Moira White compared trans rights to gay rights. As has been pointed out on here, it's not quite so neat and tidy.
99% of comparisons are never neat and tidy, and I think there is a valid comparison there despite it being inexact. My main takeaway was that White implicitly acknowledged that the situation was complicated and context is all. Her referring to cases she has taken on behalf of individuals & companies who had been charged with being transphobic or breaking the law in this area seemed to me a clear recognition of how tricky it is.
I find companies discriminating against trans people utterly bizarre. Irrespective of one's view on the tricky side of this issue, why anyone running a business would care about their staff's identity is a complete mystery to me.
I'm not a woman, so perhaps I shouldn't give a view on this, but I find the whole when is a woman a woman debate a bit meh. As I said earlier, from the state's perspective, deciding when a man is a man is much more important.
Businesses are not transphobic in my experience. I have a relative who is trans, who worked for a while at a well-known company, with branches on many high streets. The company took pains to ensure that they didn't have to work at their "local" branch, to minimise the chance of meeting some-one who knew them before transition.
Everybody has to imagine they are being offended nowadays, we have bred a generation or two of whinging whining arseholes. Time to get back to the good old days.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
And also in ref to the post below, I don't think Shapps saying everything is better, even it partially may be in some places, is going to cut it. The Tories are obviously worried both of continuing the crisis by drawing attention to it, and of any symbolism such as the army being on the streets, for political reasons, but the alternative may be the best of a bad job. If Mike Granatt worked in civil contingencies for 20 years, and says a calm but firm national broadcast emphasising everyone's responsibility so we can fix this all quickly, a la Blair's broadcast in 2000, should be a priority, then I'm inclined to believe him.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
When we cruised from Vancouver to China a few years ago we encountered literally thousands of sea otters in Northern Alaska floating on their backs in groups of three and four, with their young on their tummies, and it was quite the cutest thing we have ever seen
I looked on Google this morning and it showed that our local BP filling station was 'busier than usual'. That could only mean one thing, so off I went.
After around 15 minutes queuing I now have a full tank of E10 petrol. Happy days!
The chap behind the counter said that they'd been busy since 5:30 this morning, and he expected that they'd be out of fuel this afternoon, with no more due for 2 or 3 days.
Interestingly, the person who had used the pump before me had put exactly £40 worth of diesel into his tank, rather than filling right up. Old habits die hard.
I now have 400 miles range - more than enough to reach the Llandudno branch of Asda.
Best of luck to everyone else on the lookout for fuel.
Forgive me, but how can you Google to find out if a petrol station is busy? This would be v useful to know.
I looked up the filling station and the Google result included a bar chart of typical busy levels. This included a red 'live' bar for the current time, which was well above trend. I have no idea where they get the data from, but very useful.
In contrast, the live bar for the local Asda was through the floor, therefore no fuel.
They get their information from everyone who has a smart phone, uses google maps and has GPS turned on, that's a lot of people. What is not recorded is the prupose of being in that location, ie. google can't tell the difference between someone walking past a petrol station and a car slowly moving up in a queue for petrol, but often the information is good enough to be useful.
There was a guy in Berlin a few years ago, who singlehandedly caused Google to think there was a traffic jam in central Berlin, by cycling slowly around with a bike trailer full of mobile phones.
For some reason, my Audi's own satnav system is consistently better at predicting (and avoiding) traffic than Google Maps.
Which is bizarre – because presumably they use the same data?
Isn't the expectation that Audi drivers will be able to avoid the delay by simply overtaking everyone in the queue and squashing in at the front?
Actually that's another very good example of herd mentality in action!
If there's two lanes open and a major queue in the left hand lane then overtaking everyone and squashing in at the front at the merge point is how you're supposed to drive.
I'll always merge at the front not join the herd queuing for a long distance in a single lane, even if some of the herd shoot me filthy looks for overtaking them; just because a herd of people don't know how to drive properly doesn't mean you should join them.
Trouble is it feels so un-British, that it winds people up. It needs better signage to indicate driving to the end and then merging (zipper style) and an ad campaign.
I know but it is already in the f***ing Highway Code.
So many morons out there that think when there's a queue everyone has to be in the left-hand lane altogether, then the rest of the time they'll drive down the middle lane on the motorway even when the left hand lane is empty.
Its not difficult, keep left unless overtaking. But if the left is moving slow, then then its reasonable to move right and overtake and merge at the merge point.
Sorry, no. That is being a twat. Merge in turn. Whether that is at the start of the narrowing or 400 yards earlier, that is your place in the queue. Overtaking after people have started queuing is not courteous behaviour.
No, read the f***ing Highway Code, merging prematurely is being a twat. Merge in turn at the merge point.
Just because there's fools with a herd mentality who decide to merge prematurely doesn't mean you should join them. Merge in turn is the rule and you are supposed to merge at the merge point, not 400 yards before it and leave valid open road space empty.
You'll never REALLY leave the Tory Party.... 😁
That made me laugh out loud for real! 😂
The merge point is the point where merge in turn kicks in, that's the rules, that's the Highway Code. Just because a herd join the left when they're not supposed to doubling the distance of a queue doesn't mean you should join the herd. Anyone complaining should re-read the Highway Code and learn how to drive properly.
The other daft behaviour is lane discipline. A lot of southern motorways have a "northerners-only lane" where rule 268 allows me to progress faster than nobbers enjoying 3 cm gaps in lanes 3 and 4.
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
So are you undertaking the guys in the outside lanes?
I "keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right" (rule 268).
Traffic to might right should follow Rule 264 and keep left. When they cause congestion by driving like spanners I am perfectly entitled to stay in my lane with the few other vehicles not driven by spanners.
I do that, but again lots people believe that to be undertaking and therefore somewhat, erm, gauche.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
I have. I don't have children.
You have your own life, which presumably you could concede for the greater good?*
*I hate the idea that you would, I like having you around, but I am just highlighting the paradox in your philosophy
No, I don't advocating ending anyone's life prematurely. Nobody chose to be conceived or born. Everyone deserves a quality of life available to us in 21st century society, while not adversely impacting the other species that we share the planet with.
However, we have it within our gift to vacate the world over a 100ish year timeframe. That's what I would like to see. Instead, we'll add a few more billion to the human headcount and come up with new ways to bugger up the planet.
Then you get some feckwits suggesting that we go and colonise Mars. Brilliant! Let's feck up another planet for good measure.
I think you are advocating ending people's lives prematurely, in effect. Who's going to wipe the arses of all the old people when there are no more young people?
And which beings are going to really appreciate the universe if there are no humans any more? The universe would be a much sadder, poorer place without us.
Not all old people require personal care. Those in good shape can help their compatriots. The last few decades of human existence would be an interesting thing to experience. What we value, how we live, how we interact with the world around us would be very different from today's society.
And I believe that the universe (well our little corner of it) is already a worse place because of us.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
As a species, we have a massive desire to foul our own nests.
But, you're quite right. most people alive today are part of the lucky minority of mankind.
Judging by the rain outside/icelandic low on windy should be higher though.
The issue is that on days like this we should be generating 40-50GW of peak energy and storing 80% for those days like two weeks ago when the wind wasn't blowing.
A decade, pissed away trying to get the French and Chinese to build a nuclear station that may never actually turn on judging by the difficulties China have got with their EPR.
Something else we should have started on a decade ago:
The resource is proven turbine technology, which, apart from the floating kind, is mature, costs are competitive, and as the UK’s recent offshore wind leasing round shows, major players are clamouring to invest. Yet, the wider picture of achieving these targets is more complex.
Studies have determined that when offshore wind power assets are built at the scale planned, single, point-to-point connections from wind farms to the onshore grid using traditional high-voltage three-phase alternating current (HVAC) technology, as is currently standard, will be inefficient, more expensive, and potentially less environmentally friendly.
Instead, experts say a multi-country-connected offshore meshed high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) grid – which allows for much higher levels of energy transported with fewer losses – should be constructed in the North Sea. This infrastructure will enable supply to be more easily transported to demand wherever it may be across the five major players – the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark.
The foundations for a North Sea grid, which could also support the wider ambitions for a European super-grid, are already forming. But its realisation requires international co-operation and regulation – between governments and technology vendors – as well as technological innovation. And time is running out....
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
Rachel Cunliffe @RMCunliffe · 6h It never ceases to amaze me that governments are happy to pour unlimited funds into the NHS, raising taxes to do so, but scrimp on education. We are failing the next generation so badly.
Maybe if we rebranded schools "Future NHS worker training camps" they'd get more funding.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
The last thing is ridiculous. The amount you need to watch your speedometer to make sure it doesn't tick briefly over the limit is taking your eyes off the road substantially more, almost certainly increasing accidents.
He said that on his course he had two people yesterday in this situation. I have n idea if this is just a 'scare the punters' anecdote, or true, but no reason to doubt. I'd guess the response to your point is that the speed limit isn't the target and your speedo is biased to make you think you are going faster than you are. So it will read 30 mph when you are doing 27 say. Also compare it GPS devices which are pretty accurate.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
The last thing is ridiculous. The amount you need to watch your speedometer to make sure it doesn't tick briefly over the limit is taking your eyes off the road substantially more, almost certainly increasing accidents.
You would think the arseholes could be out stopping crimes/catching criminals.
I'm with the Tories on the merge in turn / queue jumping question. It's people prematurely filtering left and clogging up the slip lane that makes those continuing in the outside lane until later look like queue jumping libertarians. If everyone was sensible and stuck to their usual lanes until nearly at the junction, we would all be utilising the available space in the most efficient way and the overall queues would be shorter. That's utilitarianism.
Don't call me a Tory!
Then get to the back of the queue, Comrade!
On topic: I've fancied Rachel Reeves for a long time
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
And also in ref to the post below, I don't think Shapps saying everything is better, even it partially may be in some places, is going to cut it. The Tories are obviously worried both of continuing the crisis by drawing attention to it, and of any symbolism such as the army being on the streets for political reasons, but hiding away may not cut it, and the alternative may be the best of a bad job. If Mike Granatt worked in civil contingencies for 20 years, and says a calm but firm national broadcast emphasising everyone's responsibility so we can fix this all quickly, a la Blair's broadcast in 2000, should be a priority, then I'm inclined to believe him.
It's the "calm but firm" bit which may be a problem. Can't guarantee the PM won't slip into "get out there and drive about a bit for Britain" boosterism.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
Yep, Tarka was bleaker or more unsentimental depending on pov. Williamson spent a lot of time with Devon otter hunts which to a nature lover nowadays seems like anathema, but his observations of them must have added to to his undoubted knowledge of the subject.
Williamson was one of my favourites when young(er) but he seems to be one of those writers who have sunk back into obscurity, maybe due to his politics. Checking his/Tarka's wiki I see Ted Hughes described him as 'one of the truest English poets of his generation' at his commemoration, quite the tribute.
Was just going to say Soay isn't a Small Isle but it turns out it is. I always thought it was too close to Skye to count.
Maxwell reckoned the shark fishing would have been viable if he had just dealt in shark liver oil and thrown the rest of the shark away, so good for him for not doing that. He was a very good writer and reading between the lines a bloody difficult man.
The words "Ring of bright water" are from a Raine poem.
To be fair, this article from the AA does appear to back Philip up. I have never thought about it that hard before, always just assumed that those who pushed in were queue jumping. It would seem that they are in the right!
The "I just assumed" comment reminds me of a scary ride with a new colleague. He literally rammed his way onto the motorway. When I commented he said "traffic has to give way to people joining".
No mate, the other way round FFS.
Silly comparison as that's very obviously stupid and dangerous driving. At least I was honest that I was unaware of that rule – I suspect 99% of the driving glove brigade on here would rather eat their own poo than admit to not having read and understood every single subclause in the Highway Code.
(And, by the way, I assume you don't actually mean literally)
I did read it back in the early seventies, thought it was bollox then but had to know it.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
AIUI Smart motorways cut down on accidents but raise deaths? Is that safer, it depends how you score it, but probably not, hence the adverse publicity.
There have been rumours of speed tickets for 1mph over the limit for many years, and it probably does happen somewhere but is extremely rare.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
As a species, we have a massive desire to foul our own nests.
But, you're quite right. most people alive today are part of the lucky minority of mankind.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
When we cruised from Vancouver to China a few years ago we encountered literally thousands of sea otters in Northern Alaska floating on their backs in groups of three and four, with their young on their tummies, and it was quite the cutest thing we have ever seen
Indeed. This tendency caused them to be hunted almost to extinction for their fur.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
The first thing to remember about Rare Earth Elements is that they're not rare. It's just that - for a long-time - it wasn't economic to mine them anywhere other than China.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Merge in turn, doesn’t mean overtake a dozen cars to push in at the last minute - it means get in lane in a sensible manner, well before the lane disappears.
Starmers senior strategic advisor says he is shite
Sky News @SkyNews · 45s Simon Fletcher, who recently left his role as a senior strategic adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, has written an article saying he regrets helping him win the Labour leadership.
International summits almost inevitably end in grandiose joint communiqués, most of which are quickly forgotten. This month’s announcement of the Aukus partnership by President Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be. This isn’t because the pact made France unhappy or even because it highlights America’s long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific. Aukus is a deep but flexible partnership between leading tech powers that could shape the 21st century and serve as the model for U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific.
The impetus for the agreement, Prime Minister Morrison told me in an interview during his recent trip to Washington, came from the Australians. After years of escalating pressure, last November Chinese diplomats in Canberra warned that to enjoy better relations with Beijing, Australia’s government must address 14 Chinese grievances. It must, among other things, stop funding “anti-China” research, refrain from provocative actions like requesting a more thorough World Health Organization investigation of the origins of Covid-19, stop opposing strategic Chinese investments into Australia, and block private media outlets from publishing “unfriendly” news stories about China.
Meanwhile, the size and speed of China’s naval buildup had forced Australian defense planners to rethink their national defense strategy. One casualty of that review was confidence in Australia’s strategic partnership with France which was anchored by the now-cancelled submarine program. Faced with a relentless and rising China, the Australians concluded that only closer ties to the U.S. could provide the deterrence and protection they need.
This feels like the Australian view of the world, not the Chinese one as relayed by the Australians. Which is OK, as a country's interest is whatever the government of that country determines it to be.
I don't think the Chinese are particularly dismayed by further delay and uncertainty in Australia's submarines. They may be more concerned by a developing arms race if the Japanese, Koreans and Indians also develop nuclear subs. They are certainly happy to develop a narrative around the US as unreliable ally, screwing first the Afghans, now the French and the Australians and British shouldn't be too confident either.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
AIUI Smart motorways cut down on accidents but raise deaths? Is that safer, it depends how you score it, but probably not, hence the adverse publicity.
There have been rumours of speed tickets for 1mph over the limit for many years, and it probably does happen somewhere but is extremely rare.
Not sure about the safety stats, but I can imagine that it could genuinely be safer. That is no consolation to anyone who has suffered a bereavement on a smart motorway, but I am wary as there have been several high profile stories in recent times.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
Yep, Tarka was bleaker or more unsentimental depending on pov. Williamson spent a lot of time with Devon otter hunts which to a nature lover nowadays seems like anathema, but his observations of them must have added to to his undoubted knowledge of the subject.
Williamson was one of my favourites when young(er) but he seems to be one of those writers who have sunk back into obscurity, maybe due to his politics. Checking his/Tarka's wiki I see Ted Hughes described him as 'one of the truest English poets of his generation' at his commemoration, quite the tribute.
Was just going to say Soay isn't a Small Isle but it turns out it is. I always thought it was too close to Skye to count.
Maxwell reckoned the shark fishing would have been viable if he had just dealt in shark liver oil and thrown the rest of the shark away, so good for him for not doing that. He was a very good writer and reading between the lines a bloody difficult man.
The words "Ring of bright water" are from a Raine poem.
I never realised that title was from Raine! Thank you.
Small Isles as a Kirk *parish* does exclude Soay, tbf.
Former Starmer aide says he regrets supporting his bid for the leadership
Simon Fletcher, who recently left his role as a senior strategic adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, has written an article saying he regrets helping him win the Labour leadership.
Mr Fletcher's backing of Sir Keir was seen as crucial to his claim to be a unifying candidate, given he had previously worked as an adviser to Jeremy Corbyn.
However, writing in the Guardian this afternoon Simon Fletcher said:
"When I was approached to join Starmer’s campaign after working for left campaigns and politicians including Jeremy Corbyn, I saw the commitment to policies I strongly support as clear common ground between the two eras.
"Unfortunately, the shortfall between what was promised and what has happened since raises some very big questions for thousands on the left and soft left who voted for Starmer to be leader.
"It is very hard for me to say this because in politics people aren’t supposed to admit they got something wrong. But while the unifying pitch that Starmer put to the membership was open, conciliatory and correct – and explains the big vote he secured – it has not been delivered. It sadly proved to be the wrong thing, for me at least, to have supported that leadership campaign".
I'm with the Tories on the merge in turn / queue jumping question. It's people prematurely filtering left and clogging up the slip lane that makes those continuing in the outside lane until later look like queue jumping libertarians. If everyone was sensible and stuck to their usual lanes until nearly at the junction, we would all be utilising the available space in the most efficient way and the overall queues would be shorter. That's utilitarianism.
Don't call me a Tory!
Then get to the back of the queue, Comrade!
On topic: I've fancied Rachel Reeves for a long time
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Merge in turn, doesn’t mean overtake a dozen cars to push in at the last minute - it means get in lane in a sensible manner, well before the lane disappears.
No, it doesn't. It genuinely means drive to the end of the lane and merge politely there. The issues arise because (a) often there are more cars on the left anyway and thus those in the outer lane are in effect queue jumping, and (b) many people (as this thread has shown) believe you should get over well before the lane disappears.
To be fair, this article from the AA does appear to back Philip up. I have never thought about it that hard before, always just assumed that those who pushed in were queue jumping. It would seem that they are in the right!
Yes PT is right: "you should use all available road space in both lanes with drivers at the front of the queues taking it in turns to 'merge in turn' or 'zip merge' as the Americans call it. This can help reduce the overall length of the queue significantly and minimises the risk of disruption at junctions further back up the road".
But trouble is those who have queued in the wrong place are unlikely to have their anger placated by waving the relevant page of the Highway Code at them as you go by. Consequently, I also queue up in the wrong place.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
AIUI Smart motorways cut down on accidents but raise deaths? Is that safer, it depends how you score it, but probably not, hence the adverse publicity.
There have been rumours of speed tickets for 1mph over the limit for many years, and it probably does happen somewhere but is extremely rare.
Not sure about the safety stats, but I can imagine that it could genuinely be safer. That is no consolation to anyone who has suffered a bereavement on a smart motorway, but I am wary as there have been several high profile stories in recent times.
As with much of our infrastructure a lot of it comes down to underfunding. Reduce the gaps between lay bys and they can be safer. Go for the cheaper option and have 1.5 miles between the lay bys and they become death traps.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Merge in turn, doesn’t mean overtake a dozen cars to push in at the last minute - it means get in lane in a sensible manner, well before the lane disappears.
No, it doesn't. It genuinely means drive to the end of the lane and merge politely there. The issues arise because (a) often there are more cars on the left anyway and thus those in the outer lane are in effect queue jumping, and (b) many people (as this thread has shown) believe you should get over well before the lane disappears.
Yes and normally the left lane is full of arseholes who would rather cause a crash than let one car in
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Merge in turn, doesn’t mean overtake a dozen cars to push in at the last minute - it means get in lane in a sensible manner, well before the lane disappears.
I normally always agree with you but not on this.
"Well before the lane disappears" is the herd creating a tailback half a mile long. Which if done in residential areas can mean people stuck in the lane unable to reach a side street to get out of the traffic because the length of the queue has been doubled.
The last minute is the merge point, its where merging is supposed to happen.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
When we cruised from Vancouver to China a few years ago we encountered literally thousands of sea otters in Northern Alaska floating on their backs in groups of three and four, with their young on their tummies, and it was quite the cutest thing we have ever seen
Indeed. This tendency caused them to be hunted almost to extinction for their fur.
They were altogether, and floated past us as we gentle nudged through them, and it was a wonderful sight of pure nature in its elements
Probably pointless even suggesting it, but anyone interested in a nuanced, largely fact-based discussion on trans issues should listen to this morning's Woman's Hour where a lawyer who specialises in trans issues (and is trans herself), Robin Moira White, was interviewed.
Thanks for flagging this, just listened to it. I think it's been said on here that Emma Barnett is a very good presenter/interviewer, and she was top notch in that segment. It's interesting that Robin Moira White compared trans rights to gay rights. As has been pointed out on here, it's not quite so neat and tidy.
99% of comparisons are never neat and tidy, and I think there is a valid comparison there despite it being inexact. My main takeaway was that White implicitly acknowledged that the situation was complicated and context is all. Her referring to cases she has taken on behalf of individuals & companies who had been charged with being transphobic or breaking the law in this area seemed to me a clear recognition of how tricky it is.
I find companies discriminating against trans people utterly bizarre. Irrespective of one's view on the tricky side of this issue, why anyone running a business would care about their staff's identity is a complete mystery to me.
I'm not a woman, so perhaps I shouldn't give a view on this, but I find the whole when is a woman a woman debate a bit meh. As I said earlier, from the state's perspective, deciding when a man is a man is much more important.
Businesses are not transphobic in my experience. I have a relative who is trans, who worked for a while at a well-known company, with branches on many high streets. The company took pains to ensure that they didn't have to work at their "local" branch, to minimise the chance of meeting some-one who knew them before transition.
Everybody has to imagine they are being offended nowadays, we have bred a generation or two of whinging whining arseholes. Time to get back to the good old days.
What, like: Sod off, you ugly, boring old Scottish flatulent windbag. No offence.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Comments
When do you ever hear these people talk about a plan to reduce human population (never), the shocking loss of biodiversity and biomass (rarely) or loss of habitat (never). In fact the deep green environmentalists who do major on these things have actively been drummed out of some of our best environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (which is now an utter disgrace despite its roots tracing back to the wonderful John Muir). (You should read The Wild Muir BTW if you haven't already.)
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
My occasional solution to this is to stay in the right hand lane, but slow down to a crawl to allow things to unclog. It tends to infuriate those who think it their inalienable right to overtake the 30 cars at speed...
*I hate the idea that you would, I like having you around, but I am just highlighting the paradox in your philosophy
Cruising at 65mph. With a completely empty lane 2 to the right. With all the traffic bunched in lanes 3 & 4 brake testing each other thanks to no braking gap. What is wrong with you people? Drive proper like what I do
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Mind, I can't imagine the Tory Party would ever agree.
I merge in turn.
You queue jump.
He's been driven off the road by an HGV and beaten to death by angry motorists.
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/merge-in-turn
So when people behave like arses and don't allow the required gap between cars and don't anticipate other vehicles merging by a lane closure brakes get applied a little harder and a little harder until its a full stop further back and probably a crash back from there.
Or - radical idea - accept that people need to merge. Drop back a little from the car in front to allow dynamic merging. Unless traffic is absolutely rammed there is no reason why a lane drop should cause huge queues - you all just need to slow down and co-operate.
As a merge in turn / Highway Code advocate I roll along the closing lane. A gap always opens in the running lane as people recover from full stops and so often I don't actually stop. Which is how its supposed to be done.
However, we have it within our gift to vacate the world over a 100ish year timeframe. That's what I would like to see. Instead, we'll add a few more billion to the human headcount and come up with new ways to bugger up the planet.
Then you get some feckwits suggesting that we go and colonise Mars. Brilliant! Let's feck up another planet for good measure.
No mate, the other way round FFS.
International summits almost inevitably end in grandiose joint communiqués, most of which are quickly forgotten. This month’s announcement of the Aukus partnership by President Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison won’t be. This isn’t because the pact made France unhappy or even because it highlights America’s long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific. Aukus is a deep but flexible partnership between leading tech powers that could shape the 21st century and serve as the model for U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific.
The impetus for the agreement, Prime Minister Morrison told me in an interview during his recent trip to Washington, came from the Australians. After years of escalating pressure, last November Chinese diplomats in Canberra warned that to enjoy better relations with Beijing, Australia’s government must address 14 Chinese grievances. It must, among other things, stop funding “anti-China” research, refrain from provocative actions like requesting a more thorough World Health Organization investigation of the origins of Covid-19, stop opposing strategic Chinese investments into Australia, and block private media outlets from publishing “unfriendly” news stories about China.
Meanwhile, the size and speed of China’s naval buildup had forced Australian defense planners to rethink their national defense strategy. One casualty of that review was confidence in Australia’s strategic partnership with France which was anchored by the now-cancelled submarine program. Faced with a relentless and rising China, the Australians concluded that only closer ties to the U.S. could provide the deterrence and protection they need.
I was not aware than merge in turn was now in the Highway Code. Its interesting to me that you sometimes get signs indicating to do this, and sometimes not. This is not helpful, if you are meant to do this every time.
Yes, the second hand market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k
(Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
But yes, we have terrible lane discipline, and thanks to all the cameras and speedometer laws, not many cars actually travel over 70mph on south eastern motorways anymore, even when the traffic is fairly light. Last time I drove in Germany, maybe 5 years ago, they still had near perfect lane discipline which shows it can be done.
NHS Nurse, 58, who 'threw a sickie so she could get the blood cleaned off the seats of her Mercedes after her son kneecapped a love rival with a shotgun' faces up to ten years in jail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10036335/NHS-Nurse-threw-sickie-clean-blood-seats-Mercedes-son-kneecapped-love-rival.html
The only real solution is imposing and policing a much slower speed limit at the approach to such bottlenecks. The ability to do that is one of the better things about smart motorways.
Williamson was one of my favourites when young(er) but he seems to be one of those writers who have sunk back into obscurity, maybe due to his politics. Checking his/Tarka's wiki I see Ted Hughes described him as 'one of the truest English poets of his generation' at his commemoration, quite the tribute.
And which beings are going to really appreciate the universe if there are no humans any more? The universe would be a much sadder, poorer place without us.
Disciplinary watchdog will send inspectors into China’s top 25 financial institutions in the coming weeks to look for signs of corruption, negligence and disloyalty (sic)
Former China Huarong Asset Management chairman Lai Xiaomin was executed earlier this year after he was convicted of corruption in a case involving 1.8 billion yuan (US$278 million)
https://www.scmp.com/economy/article/3150298/chinas-raid-its-wall-street-keep-many-bankers-awake-night-beijing-probes
Maybe chocolate in the run up to Christmas? Or Stilton?
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
(And, by the way, I assume you don't actually mean literally)
A quid pro quo relationship. Not friendship in any Western sense.
Traffic to might right should follow Rule 264 and keep left. When they cause congestion by driving like spanners I am perfectly entitled to stay in my lane with the few other vehicles not driven by spanners.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/26/christmas-turkeys-scarcer-uk-supermarkets-brexit-shortage
ISTR the production is 80% down on normal years already.
Utterly emblematic of tabloid Christmas, as espoused by Mr Johnson.
And I believe that the universe (well our little corner of it) is already a worse place because of us.
But, you're quite right. most people alive today are part of the lucky minority of mankind.
Electrifying the North Sea: a gamechanger for wind power production
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/09/electrifying-the-north-sea-a-gamechanger-for-wind-power-production/
Offshore wind turbines are the sails in Europe’s energy transition ambitions. The European Commission has plans for the continent to increase its current level of capacity from 12GW to at least 60GW by 2030 and to 300GW by 2050, while the UK is targeting 40GW by 2030.
The resource is proven turbine technology, which, apart from the floating kind, is mature, costs are competitive, and as the UK’s recent offshore wind leasing round shows, major players are clamouring to invest. Yet, the wider picture of achieving these targets is more complex.
Studies have determined that when offshore wind power assets are built at the scale planned, single, point-to-point connections from wind farms to the onshore grid using traditional high-voltage three-phase alternating current (HVAC) technology, as is currently standard, will be inefficient, more expensive, and potentially less environmentally friendly.
Instead, experts say a multi-country-connected offshore meshed high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) grid – which allows for much higher levels of energy transported with fewer losses – should be constructed in the North Sea. This infrastructure will enable supply to be more easily transported to demand wherever it may be across the five major players – the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark.
The foundations for a North Sea grid, which could also support the wider ambitions for a European super-grid, are already forming. But its realisation requires international co-operation and regulation – between governments and technology vendors – as well as technological innovation. And time is running out....
Rachel Cunliffe
@RMCunliffe
·
6h
It never ceases to amaze me that governments are happy to pour unlimited funds into the NHS, raising taxes to do so, but scrimp on education. We are failing the next generation so badly.
Maybe if we rebranded schools "Future NHS worker training camps" they'd get more funding.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Can't guarantee the PM won't slip into "get out there and drive about a bit for Britain" boosterism.
Maxwell reckoned the shark fishing would have been viable if he had just dealt in shark liver oil and thrown the rest of the shark away, so good for him for not doing that. He was a very good writer and reading between the lines a bloody difficult man.
The words "Ring of bright water" are from a Raine poem.
There have been rumours of speed tickets for 1mph over the limit for many years, and it probably does happen somewhere but is extremely rare.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
Sky News
@SkyNews
·
45s
Simon Fletcher, who recently left his role as a senior strategic adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, has written an article saying he regrets helping him win the Labour leadership.
I don't if overtaking one vehicle. If I have been in the outer lane for a while, I do signal, as the lane change could be seen as unexpected.
I don't think the Chinese are particularly dismayed by further delay and uncertainty in Australia's submarines. They may be more concerned by a developing arms race if the Japanese, Koreans and Indians also develop nuclear subs. They are certainly happy to develop a narrative around the US as unreliable ally, screwing first the Afghans, now the French and the Australians and British shouldn't be too confident either.
Small Isles as a Kirk *parish* does exclude Soay, tbf.
Former Starmer aide says he regrets supporting his bid for the leadership
Simon Fletcher, who recently left his role as a senior strategic adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, has written an article saying he regrets helping him win the Labour leadership.
Mr Fletcher's backing of Sir Keir was seen as crucial to his claim to be a unifying candidate, given he had previously worked as an adviser to Jeremy Corbyn.
However, writing in the Guardian this afternoon Simon Fletcher said:
"When I was approached to join Starmer’s campaign after working for left campaigns and politicians including Jeremy Corbyn, I saw the commitment to policies I strongly support as clear common ground between the two eras.
"Unfortunately, the shortfall between what was promised and what has happened since raises some very big questions for thousands on the left and soft left who voted for Starmer to be leader.
"It is very hard for me to say this because in politics people aren’t supposed to admit they got something wrong. But while the unifying pitch that Starmer put to the membership was open, conciliatory and correct – and explains the big vote he secured – it has not been delivered. It sadly proved to be the wrong thing, for me at least, to have supported that leadership campaign".
But trouble is those who have queued in the wrong place are unlikely to have their anger placated by waving the relevant page of the Highway Code at them as you go by. Consequently, I also queue up in the wrong place.
"Well before the lane disappears" is the herd creating a tailback half a mile long. Which if done in residential areas can mean people stuck in the lane unable to reach a side street to get out of the traffic because the length of the queue has been doubled.
The last minute is the merge point, its where merging is supposed to happen.
No offence.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.