politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cyclefree on the perils of hubris

HurstLlama said:

stodge said:

HurstLlama said:

The late Terry Pratchett maintained in several of his books that from a standing start and over a short distance a man is faster than a horse (less legs to sort out or something). I have no idea if he was correct.

They've run human vs horse races over both distances and sprint trips. Over 220 yards or one furlong, there wouldn't be much in it and Usain Bolt would just beat a thoroughbred - the horse goes about 20 seconds from a starting stall. In full gallop, a horse covers 220 yards in 12-13 seconds comfortably outpacing a human.

At extreme distances, the human closes up again.

So Pratchett was correct!

Next step genetic testing to see if humanity really is where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

kle4 said:

HurstLlama said:

stodge said:

HurstLlama said:

The late Terry Pratchett maintained in several of his books that from a standing start and over a short distance a man is faster than a horse (less legs to sort out or something). I have no idea if he was correct.

They've run human vs horse races over both distances and sprint trips. Over 220 yards or one furlong, there wouldn't be much in it and Usain Bolt would just beat a thoroughbred - the horse goes about 20 seconds from a starting stall. In full gallop, a horse covers 220 yards in 12-13 seconds comfortably outpacing a human.

At extreme distances, the human closes up again.

So Pratchett was correct!

Next step genetic testing to see if humanity really is where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

It's only a matter of time before Semenya syndrome is artificially induced.

A rare 1/2f horse race, pretty much 100m and done in seven seconds. The human v horse race would need to be shorter, 60m maybe, if the human can react quickly enough to the gun.

https://youtu.be/9JGcOIx-Qrg

''I'd vote for this.''

This year UKIP produced an (albeit disputed) dossier of 50 people with very serious criminal records who had slipped the UK under free movement. Its 50 too many. These people should be absolute non-starters.

In the West End we sometime have street beggars who appear to know one word of English (please) which they repeat incessantly to all passers by. I feel sorry for these people as they are clearly being run in teams by some nasty gang master, but I have a feeling they also act as lookouts for other forms of crime.

What are the whole pack of them doing here? They are never going to get past a points system.

Some posters don't see the difference between 'rough' and 'smooth' immigration, but that's possibly because they are rich enough not to.

Just up the road they used to have the annual Vladivar Vodka 24 hour lawn mower Grand Prix.

Often thought that would be a great Olympic sport and the grass would also be sorted ready for the field events.

JackW said:

Naked ladies spear carrying beach dressage ....

Oh .... that might have been a dream last night .... and a bloody corker too !! ....

Not sure what matron is slipping into your cocoa, but it doesn’t appear to be working.

SimonStClare said:

JackW said:

Naked ladies spear carrying beach dressage ....

Oh .... that might have been a dream last night .... and a bloody corker too !! ....

Not sure what matron is slipping into your cocoa, but it doesn’t appear to be working.

Oh but it is ....

On topic:

David Cameron never seemed to have a plan B should Brexit actually occur.

Do we see leaders that plan for stuff not going as expected as weak or some such ? Overconfidence seems to be a remarkably consistent trait with regards to leadership.

Andrew said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You doubt Bolt is clean?

Well, given the extensive history of doping in the 100m, and the extensive history of doping by Jamaicans, and that he's absolutely shattered all records set by dopers .......

Bolt is different, whatever else is or isn't going on with Jamaican sprinters. He has natural attributes that the other sprinters can't compete with, no matter how drugged up they might be.

Mr. Pulpstar, it's not mere over-confidence, it's dereliction of duty. The referendum was not a black swan, it was a flock of honking white swans. And the polls were consistently close.

National - IPSOS/Reuters

Clinton 41 .. Trump 33 - RV
Clinton 41 .. Trump 36 - LV

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_8.17_.16_.pdf

One aspect above all others persuaded me to vote LEAVE. That was the insulting and patronising way in which David Cameron tried to pretend he had achieved a great deal from other EU member states in his so-called re-negotiations, when in truth he achieved next to nothing.
We knew this from the outset, based on his very modest demands and the way in which he was determined to conclude his discussions with undue haste, when by his own self-imposed timetable, he could readily have continued negotiating for a further 18 months. For whatever reason, he deliberately chose not to.

alex. said:

Andrew said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You doubt Bolt is clean?

Well, given the extensive history of doping in the 100m, and the extensive history of doping by Jamaicans, and that he's absolutely shattered all records set by dopers .......

Bolt is different, whatever else is or isn't going on with Jamaican sprinters. He has natural attributes that the other sprinters can't compete with, no matter how drugged up they might be.

He has the body of a 400m runner but is magically able to accelerate to top speed quicker than anyone else of his stature.

He certainly isn't how you would designed the perfect sprinter 'by the book'.

Pulpstar said:

On topic:

David Cameron never seemed to have a plan B should Brexit actually occur.

Do we see leaders that plan for stuff not going as expected as weak or some such ? Overconfidence seems to be a remarkably consistent trait with regards to leadership.

It was certainly Cameron's MO, perhaps it was instilled in him at school/university. Furthermore, after the 2015 General Election, he probably thought he was untouchable.

peter_from_putney said:

One aspect above all others persuaded me to vote LEAVE. That was the insulting and patronising way in which David Cameron tried to pretend he had achieved a great deal from other EU member states in his so-called re-negotiations, when in truth he achieved next to nothing.
We knew this from the outset, based on his very modest demands and the way in which he was determined to conclude his discussions with undue haste, when by his own self-imposed timetable, he could readily have continued negotiating for a further 18 months. For whatever reason, he deliberately chose not to.

This was certainly a factor in my decision to vote leave but my reasoning was somewhat different. What Cameron's negotiations showed me that real change was not possible within the EU, it is a bureaucratic mess which is frankly indifferent to what its citizens want and is incapable of addressing those concerns.

If Cameron had shown that perception to be false and achieved real reform recognising the stresses freedom of movement were causing Britain I would probably have voted differently but his half hearted attempts convinced me that my assessment of the EU was shared by those on the inside. Leaving was the only sensible option.

DavidL said:

peter_from_putney said:

One aspect above all others persuaded me to vote LEAVE. That was the insulting and patronising way in which David Cameron tried to pretend he had achieved a great deal from other EU member states in his so-called re-negotiations, when in truth he achieved next to nothing.
We knew this from the outset, based on his very modest demands and the way in which he was determined to conclude his discussions with undue haste, when by his own self-imposed timetable, he could readily have continued negotiating for a further 18 months. For whatever reason, he deliberately chose not to.

What Cameron's negotiations showed me that real change was not possible within the EU

Probably not. It might, if it is sensible, start to make real change possible, as a result of our leaving. Catch 22.

DavidL said:

peter_from_putney said:

One aspect above all others persuaded me to vote LEAVE. That was the insulting and patronising way in which David Cameron tried to pretend he had achieved a great deal from other EU member states in his so-called re-negotiations, when in truth he achieved next to nothing.
We knew this from the outset, based on his very modest demands and the way in which he was determined to conclude his discussions with undue haste, when by his own self-imposed timetable, he could readily have continued negotiating for a further 18 months. For whatever reason, he deliberately chose not to.

This was certainly a factor in my decision to vote leave but my reasoning was somewhat different. What Cameron's negotiations showed me that real change was not possible within the EU, it is a bureaucratic mess which is frankly indifferent to what its citizens want and is incapable of addressing those concerns.

If Cameron had shown that perception to be false and achieved real reform recognising the stresses freedom of movement were causing Britain I would probably have voted differently but his half hearted attempts convinced me that my assessment of the EU was shared by those on the inside. Leaving was the only sensible option.

So you were never going to vote Remain. Fine.

A cursory glance at any EU directive or treaty would have confirmed that the EU was never going to change and why should it have, with only one member agitating for it and then only one subsection (as was) on the loony right of the Conservative Party of that one member.

Dave understood this; you understood this. What Dave did get is special status and some important opt-outs. He never got a promise that the EU was not going to continue its march towards federalism. He wisely never asked. Like wisely not asking if you could play darts at Wimbledon instead of tennis. What he did ask for, and received, addressed the key issues that the nation said were important. He did badly on the immigration bit.

You and I disagree over the importance or weight of those opt-outs. I think they were legitimate. You, presumably think they were for show.

But it is difficult to accept you would have voted Remain under any possible realistic circumstances.

kle4 said:

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

On topic:

David Cameron never seemed to have a plan B should Brexit actually occur.

Do we see leaders that plan for stuff not going as expected as weak or some such ? Overconfidence seems to be a remarkably consistent trait with regards to leadership.

It was certainly Cameron's MO, perhaps it was instilled in him at school/university. Furthermore, after the 2015 General Election, he probably thought he was untouchable.

His not taking it easy in the campaign does not seem like the actions of a man who was overconfident. Overconfident people do not fight that hard in ways they know would aggravate sections of their own base in the near future, unless they felt they could not win without such extremity. Failure to plan for not winning is another issue than overconfidence or thinking oneself untouchable.

I certainly think he was overconfident in terms of the renegotiation and the timing of the vote. At no point did he think he would have to go nuclear and back Leave and as such got very little from the renegotiation. This was exacerbated by Cameron wanting to get it over and done with.

When the polls didn't move his way decisively after the local elections him and his team went into full on panic mode.

kle4 said:

alex. said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

PlatoSaid said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Doethur, sharks? Glorified goldfish beside the genetic supremacy of the enormo-haddock!

Mr. Taffys, Hamilton is likely to win a third consecutive driver's title (fourth total), and is currently 40/1 for SPOTY.

People with no personality win SPOTY.

Great sportsmen and women often have quite unprepossessing personalities. Goes with the trade. Sports personality could be one of those pairings where the former word negates the latter.

Don't really know why Hamilton is being given the "no personality" tag. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but that's not quite the same thing.

I don't think he has no personality. It's mostly a bland personality with a little bit of being a prat, but compared to some others in F1 he has bucketfuls of personality as he can occasionally liven up.

Unprepossessing personality is actually one of the best ways of describing a lot of sportsmen and women. They can be a little too focused, standoffish or weird, or just boring. Or outright unlikable. That's why ones who are genuinely charismatic can be so adored, and those who are refreshingly 'normal also celebrated.

A good friend of mine used to represent England at a water-based sport, and does Ironman triathlons as a hobby. He could have done it semi-professionally fifteen or so years ago (there was less money in the sport back then), but he turned down the opportunity.

The reason: he was earning well as an engineer, but the main reason was that he found the training utterly boring. He says that most - not all - top sportsmen are either quite thick, or have extraordinary minds who can switch off for training.

Then again, in summer he regularly does 100+mile bike rides.

As for sportsmen being boring: I think sponsorship has a great deal to do with it. They don't want to upset sponsors, and the best way to do that is not to say anything outrageous.

JackW said:

Nate Silver of 538 looks at Trump's swing state death spiral :

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-doubling-down-on-a-losing-strategy/

The most interesting part of that polling - to me - is that Gary Johnson has taken a meaningful chunk of the Republican vote share in Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. If this leads to Hillary wining those states then the Trump path to the Presidency is narrow indeed.

perdix said:

DavidL said:

peter_from_putney said:

One aspect above all others persuaded me to vote LEAVE. That was the insulting and patronising way in which David Cameron tried to pretend he had achieved a great deal from other EU member states in his so-called re-negotiations, when in truth he achieved next to nothing.
We knew this from the outset, based on his very modest demands and the way in which he was determined to conclude his discussions with undue haste, when by his own self-imposed timetable, he could readily have continued negotiating for a further 18 months. For whatever reason, he deliberately chose not to.

This was certainly a factor in my decision to vote leave but my reasoning was somewhat different. What Cameron's negotiations showed me that real change was not possible within the EU, it is a bureaucratic mess which is frankly indifferent to what its citizens want and is incapable of addressing those concerns.

If Cameron had shown that perception to be false and achieved real reform recognising the stresses freedom of movement were causing Britain I would probably have voted differently but his half hearted attempts convinced me that my assessment of the EU was shared by those on the inside. Leaving was the only sensible option.

The real reason why change in the EU seemed impossible was that the majority of EU politicians have the objective of a United States of Europe and they don't want to jeopardise their gravy train. However, it is now becoming clearer to many of them that "one size fits all" for currency, labour movement and other institutions are at a minimum counter-productive or may lead to the eventual breakup of the Union.

I think the currency union *needs* freedom of labour. If you go back to the papers at the start of the Euro in 1998/1999, there was a lot of talk about optimum currency areas, and one of the things that the Eurozone was criticised for was lack of labour mobility between countries.

More of an issue in the post GFC/Eurozone crisis has been the inability of the German government to see that its austerity and current account surplus made it much harder for the periphery to rebalance. A modest consumer boom in Germany, with 3-5% wage inflation and rising imports, would have done wonders for the competitiveness of Spain and Italy, as well as encouraging Germans to recycle their Euros in beachfront property.

A very enthusiastic Leaver of my acquaintance told me (over lunch) that he was very disappointed with Mrs May. She hadn't got on with Leaving and he was starting to think that she never would.

Richard_Nabavi said:

John_M said:

As I've said before, if 650k in two years isn't mass immigration, please tell me what number would qualify. We should note that immigration is primarily to England. From memory Scotland has ~173k and Wales ~85k.

Nonetheless public perception is wrong in many respects. In particular:

- People think there are zillions of asylum seekers coming into the UK. In fact there are very few (around 25,000 out of 600,000 immigrants).

- People think it is easy for non-EEA citizens to come here, and are amazed when they are told just how draconian the rules are.

- People don't think of students as immigrants, but they account for about a third of all immigrants; there is almost universal support in favour of continuing to take their fees!

Basically the only ways of reducing net immigration significantly are either to reduce EU worker migration, or to encourage more people to emigrate (I suppose trashing the economy would do both..). That's basically why I think the Brexit settlement must exclude freedom of movement; it was the strongest argument for leaving the EU, and the most important one for many Leave voters.

If students came here for 3-4 years, and then left again, applying for a new work visa if required once outside the UK, there wouldn't be a problem. But there is. Most students (and many are students in name only) turn out to be permanent economic migrants.

The Government needs to tighten up on that, family reunions - particularly from the subcontinent, and put a similar cap on EU worker migration.

I think it should be feasible to get net migration down to between 100-175k per year, depending upon the economic cycle.

British "Empire" Running away with Olympics.

HM Queen is Beating everyone.

US.
31:Gold,
32 Silver,
31 Bronze

HM Queens Realms.
40 Gold,
41 Silver.
36 Bronze.

(UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, Jamaica, Bahamas, Grenada)

rottenborough said:

JackW said:

Nate Silver of 538 looks at Trump's swing state death spiral :

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-doubling-down-on-a-losing-strategy/

Well, its gonna be a lot of fun as Trump tries to be more Trumptastic under the guidance of Steve Bannon. This is looking like either a landslide* or the biggest recovery in American history.

* edit: for HRC I mean.

Well, now we will see what a political party would look like if run by, and on the lines of, internet trolls.

peter_from_putney said:

One aspect above all others persuaded me to vote LEAVE. That was the insulting and patronising way in which David Cameron tried to pretend he had achieved a great deal from other EU member states in his so-called re-negotiations, when in truth he achieved next to nothing.
We knew this from the outset, based on his very modest demands and the way in which he was determined to conclude his discussions with undue haste, when by his own self-imposed timetable, he could readily have continued negotiating for a further 18 months. For whatever reason, he deliberately chose not to.

What surprises me the most is how so many of those who voted to Remain refuse to believe that many who voted Leave made up their minds on the merits of the deal, and the EU's attitude to the UK wanting it, and instead insist they were always going to vote Leave.

Obviously that's not true, as any reading of the opinion polling over the previous 18 months would show you.

JackW said:

rcs1000 said:

JackW said:

Nate Silver of 538 looks at Trump's swing state death spiral :

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-doubling-down-on-a-losing-strategy/

The most interesting part of that polling - to me - is that Gary Johnson has taken a meaningful chunk of the Republican vote share in Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. If this leads to Hillary wining those states then the Trump path to the Presidency is narrow indeed.

Johnson's polling will narrow at election day looms but he's certainly going to trim more from Trump than Clinton. Presently Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire are more "Likely Clinton" than TCTC. In a tighter race Johnson would figure but not presently.

Trump's path runs through the rust belt and Florida, except that it doesn't as the race stands. Trump requires game changers. Still time but one heck of a stretch.

Libertarian party Candidate Gary Johnsons Poling may narrow towards election day, unless he gets in the debates, which is still an open question, and will not be answered for another 4 weeks. if he does get in the debates, his poling will rise, by how much will depend on how well he does, but the publicity on its own will boost him.

Whether he is tacking more from trump or Clinton, is a much harder question, he is tacking a lot of don't know/would not normally vote, and he is tacking at least some from each party.

I think a large chunk of his support will be people that voted for Romney, when he faced Obama in 2012, but this time if they where forced, would probably reluctantly go for Clinton, in repulsion of Trump.