politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 20/1 tip to start off 2017
Comments
-
So work to decentralize whiteness: in your children’s school lessons, in your PTA meetings, in your office meetings, in your city council meetings, in the film and TV you watch, in the music you listen to, in the leaders you support. If you do not decentralize whiteness in your movements for progress, you will leave people of color behind. And what kind of progress is that?"
I'll have to remember that the next time I'm making a play list on Spotify. Don't make lists of good tunes by theme, or artist, or genre; do decentralize whiteness. FFS!
0 -
Samanth Subrahaniam
May all the crimes you encounter in 2017 be only as serious as this one, out of Ireland: https://t.co/O0JvKmXV5b0 -
He's dividing the number of votes by the whole UK population, rather than the electorate, presumably to account for unregistered votes but also including ineligible voters such as children and prisoners. As a complete coincidence, this makes his percentage of Brexit voters smaller than it actually was. Edit: and foreigners.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the so-called people? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
Funny how these 'mistakes' only ever work one way, but then again the Guardian probably had a sweepstake sunning of who could come up with the smallest percentage of the Brexit vote that could be plausibly explained.0 -
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.-1 -
It's still a rubbish statistic.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.0 -
My favourite misuse of statistics was when some chap described the monthly increase in inflation from 0.9% to 1.2% as a 33% increase in inflation.0
-
Yes, spinners such as this man seem to think including people who weren't able to vote (new born babies etc) is valid. It is the equivalent of saying 73% of the public didn't vote for Cameron's deal to Remain, utterly pathetic.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
When people stoop so low to try and win an argument or make a point it is very hard to take anything they say seriously.0 -
There are (IIRC) 45 million registered voters in the UK (parliamentary) and 46 million (local and EU). I think that's right...TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.0 -
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.0 -
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/population/longevity.htmlDecrepitJohnL said:
Wrong statistic. We need the odds of a 90-year-old surviving to 100, not any mere mortal.rural_voter said:
The chance of a 'mere mortal' living to 100 is one in 10,000. I doubt the royal family have better genes or a much better diet, but they might have better medical care.Luckyguy1983 said:
I pray fervently that the Queen survives The Guardian.SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.0 -
That is far more valid then Keegan's 28% in my opinion.TheScreamingEagles said:My favourite misuse of statistics was when some chap described the monthly increase in inflation from 0.9% to 1.2% as a 33% increase in inflation.
0 -
It is, binary choice referendums are settled by the side that gets the most votes.MaxPB said:
It's still a rubbish statistic.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.0 -
For information, I don't bet and I voted for Andy - although it's possible I used too narrative a style and name-checked others as well resulting in a 'spoiled ballot'.another_richard said:
Well I was one of the less than ten who voted for AndyJS.MyBurningEars said:Best wishes for 2017 to everyone who posts - or even lurks!
Astonished re AndyJS. Not just for the work he put in, but his willingness to share it with one and all was exemplary.
This might be a bit datageeky but I do wonder whether his spreadsheets deserved to be covered by thread headers, not just confined to the comments section.
I suspect that Andy's low score is an indicator of how few people actually bet among readers of PB.
HNY to all.
His spreadsheet wasn't useful only for the betting. It made sense of the results as they arrived, and made the whole night so much more interesting.
(Edited to add: good afternoon, everyone, and Happy New Year.)0 -
And of course EU citizen residents (a couple of million?) couldn't vote in the referendum either. The 28% figure is bollocks on stilts, and the author probably knows it but thinks he's being clever.ydoethur said:
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.0 -
ONS estimates that the population of the UK on June 30th 2015 was 65.1 millionydoethur said:
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates0 -
Which is actually a valid complaint about the referendum. Why let Commonwealth residents vote but not EU residents?Sandpit said:
And of course EU citizen residents (a couple of million?) couldn't vote in the referendum either.ydoethur said:
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.0 -
Do you have any credible evidence for the existence of editors at the Guardian?SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.
Here is another one today which indicates the contrary:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/01/good-health-good-society-we-are-suffering
0 -
One could just as easily (and dishonestly) state that only 26% of the population want to remain in the EU.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.0 -
Some people seem to think that the demographic profile of inner London applies to the UK as a whole.isam said:
Guardian tips for a happy 2017SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.
"Decentralize whiteness
Just about every aspect of western culture centralizes whiteness. Our history, infrastructure, medical system, justice system, education system, entertainment industry – and yes, our social justice organizations – all do this. Whiteness is default, it’s ubiquitous and it’s insidious.
We don’t have to purposefully center whiteness. When we neglect to decentralize it, it will be automatically centered. So work to decentralize whiteness: in your children’s school lessons, in your PTA meetings, in your office meetings, in your city council meetings, in the film and TV you watch, in the music you listen to, in the leaders you support. If you do not decentralize whiteness in your movements for progress, you will leave people of color behind. And what kind of progress is that?"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/01/how-to-keep-fighting-for-justice-in-2017?CMP=twt_gu0 -
Thanks; so were she American, the Queen could look forward to another 4.8 years (no confidence bounds given) all other things being equal.viewcode said:
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/population/longevity.htmlDecrepitJohnL said:
Wrong statistic. We need the odds of a 90-year-old surviving to 100, not any mere mortal.rural_voter said:
The chance of a 'mere mortal' living to 100 is one in 10,000. I doubt the royal family have better genes or a much better diet, but they might have better medical care.Luckyguy1983 said:
I pray fervently that the Queen survives The Guardian.SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.0 -
We covered this before.TheScreamingEagles said:I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
The issue is not how many voted, or the result, the issue is we live in a representative, not absolute, democracy.
Given the referendum was advisory (ducks), how are the people who were not eligible to vote in this referendum to be represented by Parliament as we move forward?0 -
That's not the impression I get from Twitter conversations I have seen, and neither from FB. Although I freely admHYUFD said:FU Resolving that problem would help but the difference between them is you can use Twitter to debate whereas Facebook is largely a glorified photo album
This is PB: thread derailing appears to be positively encouraged.Sandpit said:
But yet people still think death threats and the documentation of their own illegal activities are somehow okay.williamglenn said:
In a world where Mr Pussy-Grabber can become President, perhaps we need to accept that some of the perceived risks of oversharing are overblown.Sandpit said:I deliver a lecture called "Why I'm Not On Facebook" to schools and parents about the perils of social media
This year's graduates will have been on social media since they were 13 or 14. How much of what they have posted in the intervening period, would they wish to have disappeared from the internet as they enter the real world of life and work?
The first thing to understand it that there's no delete button, even if you think there is.
The second thing to understand is that if you're not paying for something (and sometimes even if you are) then you're not the customer, you are the product sold to the customer advertisers.
The third thing to understand is that anything you post on *someone else's website* is basically theirs to do with as they wish, that US freedom of speech laws ban very little in this regard, and that if you have a problem with it you'll need expensive lawyers.
I could (and often do, professionally) go on all day about this, so I think I'll quit now rather than derail the New Year thread completely!
I was talking to my nephew about this at Christmas. He's 18, and on FB and several other social media sites. He said he was staggered by what his compatriots put online: often highly personal texts and images that he says are cringeworthy after ten minutes, yet alone ten years.
He seems mainly to use FB to see what his mum's put on the site, and laugh at that ...
One lesson I taught him from he was knee-high to a grasshopper: "The Internet has a memory."0 -
An old story from a now-discontinued humorous account, or fake news in the modern argot.PlatoSaid said:Samanth Subrahaniam
May all the crimes you encounter in 2017 be only as serious as this one, out of Ireland: https://t.co/O0JvKmXV5b0 -
Probably for the same reason that the family didn't let their 'pet' turkey partake in the family's vote on whether or not to celebrate Christmas this year?williamglenn said:
Which is actually a valid complaint about the referendum. Why let Commonwealth residents vote but not EU residents?Sandpit said:
And of course EU citizen residents (a couple of million?) couldn't vote in the referendum either.ydoethur said:
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.
The electorate definition was passed by Parliament, although I can't remember if it were in the original Bill or was an amendment.0 -
Father and sister died of smoking, so aren't genetically relevant. Mother living past 100 is.rural_voter said:
The chance of a 'mere mortal' living to 100 is one in 10,000. I doubt the royal family have better genes or a much better diet, but they might have better medical care.Luckyguy1983 said:
I pray fervently that the Queen survives The Guardian.SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.
The Queen's father died in middle age. Her sister apparently followed the advice 'live fast die young'. Who knows if she'll get to 101, like her mother. I think it's possible she'll die before the Scott Trust runs out of money or sub-editors who should surely have also spotted this and questioned it.0 -
The Queen at 90 looks more robust than the QM did at her age, and the latter went on to live for another decade.Ishmael_Z said:
Father and sister died of smoking, so aren't genetically relevant. Mother living past 100 is.rural_voter said:
The chance of a 'mere mortal' living to 100 is one in 10,000. I doubt the royal family have better genes or a much better diet, but they might have better medical care.Luckyguy1983 said:
I pray fervently that the Queen survives The Guardian.SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.
The Queen's father died in middle age. Her sister apparently followed the advice 'live fast die young'. Who knows if she'll get to 101, like her mother. I think it's possible she'll die before the Scott Trust runs out of money or sub-editors who should surely have also spotted this and questioned it.0 -
We shouldn't make assumptions. What about people like Gisela Stuart (presumably a citizen now) or the Latvian wife of one of the posters on here who is apparently anti-EU?Sandpit said:
Probably for the same reason that the family didn't let their 'pet' turkey partake in the family's vote on whether or not to celebrate Christmas this year?williamglenn said:
Which is actually a valid complaint about the referendum. Why let Commonwealth residents vote but not EU residents?Sandpit said:
And of course EU citizen residents (a couple of million?) couldn't vote in the referendum either.ydoethur said:
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.0 -
And by all accounts drinks much less gin.Luckyguy1983 said:
The Queen at 90 looks more robust than the QM did at her age, and the latter went on to live for another decade.Ishmael_Z said:
Father and sister died of smoking, so aren't genetically relevant. Mother living past 100 is.rural_voter said:
The chance of a 'mere mortal' living to 100 is one in 10,000. I doubt the royal family have better genes or a much better diet, but they might have better medical care.Luckyguy1983 said:
I pray fervently that the Queen survives The Guardian.SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.
The Queen's father died in middle age. Her sister apparently followed the advice 'live fast die young'. Who knows if she'll get to 101, like her mother. I think it's possible she'll die before the Scott Trust runs out of money or sub-editors who should surely have also spotted this and questioned it.0 -
Do you reckon in the Jamaican Guardian they are saying "Decentralise Blackness. Blackness is default, it’s ubiquitous and it’s insidious." ?Sean_F said:
Some people seem to think that the demographic profile of inner London applies to the UK as a whole.isam said:
Guardian tips for a happy 2017SeanT said:Talking of Twitter, check this
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/815528097609121792
To be charitable to the journalist, William Keegan, he is quite old and maybe a bit doddery, and - maybe - he didn't realise how this would sound. i.e. oozing contempt, reinforcing every stereoptype of Remoaners.
What amazes me is that the Guardian editors let it pass. A good or sensible sub-editor would have jumped on it and taken it out in a trice. It's in the first sentence!
I sense possible terminal decline here. The Guardian is the Queen with a cold.
"Decentralize whiteness
Just about every aspect of western culture centralizes whiteness. Our history, infrastructure, medical system, justice system, education system, entertainment industry – and yes, our social justice organizations – all do this. Whiteness is default, it’s ubiquitous and it’s insidious.
We don’t have to purposefully center whiteness. When we neglect to decentralize it, it will be automatically centered. So work to decentralize whiteness: in your children’s school lessons, in your PTA meetings, in your office meetings, in your city council meetings, in the film and TV you watch, in the music you listen to, in the leaders you support. If you do not decentralize whiteness in your movements for progress, you will leave people of color behind. And what kind of progress is that?"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/01/how-to-keep-fighting-for-justice-in-2017?CMP=twt_gu
0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
I know some of you are fans of strategy / wargames.
I found out about this site a few days ago, it came heavily recommended to me.
http://www.vassalengine.org/index.php
just look at the modules available
http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Category:Modules
Including Carcassone, Squad leader, Advanced Squad leader, 2nd fleet and Gulf Strike to name a few0 -
For the same reason we let Commonwealth residents vote in General Elections but not EU residents.williamglenn said:
Which is actually a valid complaint about the referendum. Why let Commonwealth residents vote but not EU residents?Sandpit said:
And of course EU citizen residents (a couple of million?) couldn't vote in the referendum either.ydoethur said:
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.0 -
Unfortunately too many teenagers are learning this in the hardest way possible, often seriously screwing up their future lives in the process.JosiasJessop said:
That's not the impression I get from Twitter conversations I have seen, and neither from FB. Although I freely admHYUFD said:FU Resolving that problem would help but the difference between them is you can use Twitter to debate whereas Facebook is largely a glorified photo album
This is PB: thread derailing appears to be positively encouraged.Sandpit said:
But yet people still think death threats and the documentation of their own illegal activities are somehow okay.williamglenn said:
.Sandpit said:I deliver a lecture called "Why I'm Not On Facebook" to schools and parents about the perils of social media
This year's graduates will have been on social media since they were 13 or 14. How much of what they have posted in the intervening period, would they wish to have disappeared from the internet as they enter the real world of life and work?
The first thing to understand it that there's no delete button, even if you think there is.
The second thing to understand is that if you're not paying for something (and sometimes even if you are) then you're not the customer, you are the product sold to the customer advertisers.
The third thing to understand is that anything you post on *someone else's website* is basically theirs to do with as they wish, that US freedom of speech laws ban very little in this regard, and that if you have a problem with it you'll need expensive lawyers.
I could (and often do, professionally) go on all day about this, so I think I'll quit now rather than derail the New Year thread completely!
I was talking to my nephew about this at Christmas. He's 18, and on FB and several other social media sites. He said he was staggered by what his compatriots put online: often highly personal texts and images that he says are cringeworthy after ten minutes, yet alone ten years.
He seems mainly to use FB to see what his mum's put on the site, and laugh at that ...
One lesson I taught him from he was knee-high to a grasshopper: "The Internet has a memory."
Three British kids in this part of the world are currently in the big house for posting a video of them smoking dope at a party, there are several more in the UK inside for 'production and distribution of child pornography', and there are several 'Revenge Porn' sites in the US that post images and personal details of mostly young adults, that are pretty much impossible to take down and work hard on boosting search results for their 'models'. These things can't be undone.0 -
Yes, because of an outdated convention.Philip_Thompson said:
For the same reason we let Commonwealth residents vote in General Elections but not EU residents.williamglenn said:
Which is actually a valid complaint about the referendum. Why let Commonwealth residents vote but not EU residents?Sandpit said:
And of course EU citizen residents (a couple of million?) couldn't vote in the referendum either.ydoethur said:
What, including babes in arms? That's ridiculous (even if the 64 million figure is accurate, which ironically it almost certainly isn't). The statistic has to be related to those in a position to vote, or it is meaningless.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've seen the 28% figure bandied about before.ydoethur said:@SeanT and others:
Incidentally, have you noticed that Keegan has quite brilliantly mucked up his figures in that sentence about the 'so-called people'? 52% on a 72% turnout is 37.4% which by various rounding methods would go up to 38% in practice - not the 28% he claims.
This merely confirms me in my belief that he's basically thick, as well as patronising. You have to wonder what strings had to be pulled to get him a job at the Guardian, even for a job involving economic forecasting where I suppose blatant fiddling is to be expected.
It is calculated by 17.4 million no voters divided by the entire the population of the UK, of approx 64million, which works out around 28%.
Although in fairness babes in arms might make better writers on economics than William Keegan.0 -
Been in ED over christmas in an oculus rift, makes a huge difference to the game, when playing flat screen I am playing a game, in the rift I am flying a spaceshipJosiasJessop said:
Ah, but I play Elite Dangerous. That game is apparently mahoossively good under VR.FrancisUrquhart said:
Vive is the best of all the VR so far, but it still isn't really that great, and it is way more expensive than Playstation VR (both the unit cost and needing a really high spec pc) and the games are generally crap. Playstation VR is doing better, because well Sony "get games".JosiasJessop said:
Have they? I thought they were slightly the better of the VR systems on the market, at least from reviews and specs.MaxPB said:
Vive sales have taken a massive nosedive after an initial flurry of action. Would be surprised if they lasted the year.FrancisUrquhart said:I didn't realise HTC were in such big doo doo.
It'll be interesting to see what patents they have, and how valuable they are.
On that note: I decided against buying this generation of VR systems when I got my new PC. I'm banking on the second generation being far superior as the providers compete. But with Vive out of the market there might not be the case.
I attended the Virtuality conference in 1994. Back then everyone was saying that VR was the next big thing. It'd be a shame if VR fails again, over twenty years later.0 -
Writing "the so-called people" and referring to the 28% was not an accident or sloppy maths by Keegan, instead he chose his words carefully and deliberately. Some may call this madness, but it certainly has a method. There continues to be a belief in some circles that the UK should not leave the EU and Brexit must be stopped either in the courts or in parliament (read AC Grayling's tweets or the New European newspaper or Britain for Europe. Delegitimising the referendum is central to this. Likely this kind of view will continue until the UK actually leaves the EU.0
-
They were also good at culling a particular kind of cyclist.SandyRentool said:Bendy buses in London were very popular with fare dodgers who used to get on at the back.
0 -
I am a newbie here and I am super excited to watch all the threads in politicalbetting. I could see some good updates here.0
