Nancy Pelosi says Trump shouldn’t be impeached + other US developments
Comments
-
An extension without ratifying the deal or committing to no deal/revocation is now pointless.numbertwelve said:
I could see that glint in Mrs May’s eye at PMQs today. I know she wants that MV3. I suspect we will get an awful lot of silly parliamentary votes that mean very little over the next week or so, followed by a swift dose of reality from the EU (won’t renegotiate, won’t extend unless there’s a solid reason for doing so (basically EuRef2, GE, to implement The Deal)). TM fancies her chances of getting The Deal through in that 11:55 scenario, I think...kjohnw said:
TM will not revoke , it will destroy her party , for all the initial disruption from wto brexit , the tories will survive as a party and it will not be as bad as the apocalypse doomsayers have predicted, expectations management will have worked quite well on this as we are all expecting zombies and lightning , but will just get a shortage of Brie and a traffic jam in Kent , some jobs will be lost but the government has the levers to subside and smooth the initial shock to the system .anothernick said:
Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.El_Capitano said:Not sure these have been posted here yet:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1105797205712093184
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1105809429830750208
Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.
We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?
If MPs want to prevent no deal they can accept the deal. If MPs want to reject the deal they can go to no deal.
Pissing around needs to end. And I say that as someone who wanted a renegotiation.
Time is up. Make a choice.0 -
Must admit to being wryly amused the 'divisive and expensive' line.0
-
It should be thrown out by Bercow. Both of those are highly subjective.Morris_Dancer said:Must admit to being wryly amused the 'divisive and expensive' line.
0 -
Yep, I know. And there is a reason those planes are not very well known. As an example the Superjet 100 carries a third the passengers of an A350 with vastly less range, and the CRAIC is a paper aeroplane.Sunil_Prasannan said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_familyJosiasJessop said:
As the article states, this latest reported issue might be different: this occurs when the autopilot is switched on, the MCAS issue occurs when it is off. But yes, they will be taking a close look at that now.SeanT said:
This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.Nigelb said:More questions about the 737 Max 8...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/03/13/world/u-s-pilots-reported-switching-boeing-737-max-8-autopilot-initiated-random-nosedives/
The thing is, Boeing won't get killed over this, as it's in no-ones interest. The airlines need at least two manufacturers to create price and technological competition (many would prefer one or two more). A Boeing- or Airbus- only commercial aviation sector would quickly become moribiund. Why bother investing $10 billion in a new plane design if the airlines have to buy your old one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAIC_CR929
From the little I know, the Comac stands the biggest chance of upsetting the big two:; but they will find it much harder than Airbus did in the 1980s because the industry has moved on.
0 -
It might not be an exact comparison, but it is certainly a fair one or do you think there isn't vote splitting. If there isn't why do parties try and target others e.g. xxx can't win here.Endillion said:
A GE isn't a fair comparison because anyone can stand on any platform - and there isn't always an obvious breakdown between left/right/centrist/whatever. On a referendum, the government sets the options, and needs to make sure that doing so doesn't unduly influence the result.kjh said:
I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!Charles said:
Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvotedParistonda said:If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?
0 -
TM will get it through at the 59th minute of the 11th hour but it is hard to think that the world of business, commerce, farming and indeed ordinary people are going to forget parliament's cavalier nonsense very quickly.0
-
As far as revocation is concerned, May can't do it - it would be political suicide for her and for her Party. IF a motion to revoke passed the Commons with the support of 20 or 30 Conservatives, the Party would blame the "feeble" Opposition and the "disloyal" Conservatives for thwarting the will of the people.
The disloyal would face de-selection (assuming they don't jump to the TIG first) and the Conservatives would re-unite around the platform of implementing the Deal and respecting the 23/6/16 Referendum as the custodians of democracy.0 -
Gove on his feet - praises May (who sits next to him) - somewhat valedictory tone......0
-
So, by your logic, it would just as (un)fair to have:kjh said:
It might not be an exact comparison, but it is certainly a fair one or do you think there isn't vote splitting. If there isn't why do parties try and target others e.g. xxx can't win here.Endillion said:
A GE isn't a fair comparison because anyone can stand on any platform - and there isn't always an obvious breakdown between left/right/centrist/whatever. On a referendum, the government sets the options, and needs to make sure that doing so doesn't unduly influence the result.kjh said:
I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!Charles said:
Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvotedParistonda said:If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?
- Remain and join the Euro and Schengen
- Remain and join the Euro
- Remain and join Schengen
- Remain, but give up our rebate
- Remain and try for Cameron's renegotiation again
- Remain on same terms
- Leave with May's Deal
- Leave with No Deal
See the problem? Again, it's the difference between anyone being able to stand, and the Government being required to set the options in a way that produces an outcome such that people can agree that a fair decision has been reached.
0 -
I disagree.algarkirk said:TM will get it through at the 59th minute of the 11th hour but it is hard to think that the world of business, commerce, farming and indeed ordinary people are going to forget parliament's cavalier nonsense very quickly.
People are going about their lives as normal and see Parliament bickering as normal. Only if there's actual disruption will it be remembered. Otherwise it will be history and people will be far more concerned with promises of jam for tomorrow than any squabbling in the past.0 -
Good. He should take us forwards. It won't happen but a Howard style coronation for Gove would be the right move.CarlottaVance said:Gove on his feet - praises May (who sits next to him) - somewhat valedictory tone......
0 -
Presumably those who are experiencing disruption at this moment are not real people.Philip_Thompson said:
I disagree.algarkirk said:TM will get it through at the 59th minute of the 11th hour but it is hard to think that the world of business, commerce, farming and indeed ordinary people are going to forget parliament's cavalier nonsense very quickly.
People are going about their lives as normal and see Parliament bickering as normal. Only if there's actual disruption will it be remembered. Otherwise it will be history and people will be far more concerned with promises of jam for tomorrow than any squabbling in the past.0 -
It would be if he had the right qualities to be a leader.Philip_Thompson said:
Good. He should take us forwards. It won't happen but a Howard style coronation for Gove would be the right move.CarlottaVance said:Gove on his feet - praises May (who sits next to him) - somewhat valedictory tone......
He has the right qualities to do a job as a minister or a number 2 who gets stuck into detail. He is not a No1.0 -
Or it isn't real disruptionwilliamglenn said:
Presumably those who are experiencing disruption at this moment are not real people.Philip_Thompson said:
I disagree.algarkirk said:TM will get it through at the 59th minute of the 11th hour but it is hard to think that the world of business, commerce, farming and indeed ordinary people are going to forget parliament's cavalier nonsense very quickly.
People are going about their lives as normal and see Parliament bickering as normal. Only if there's actual disruption will it be remembered. Otherwise it will be history and people will be far more concerned with promises of jam for tomorrow than any squabbling in the past.0 -
No, TM will not revoke willingly but if parliament votes to revoke she will have no choice but to comply.kjohnw said:
TM will not revoke , it will destroy her party , for all the initial disruption from wto brexit , the tories will survive as a party and it will not be as bad as the apocalypse doomsayers have predicted, expectations management will have worked quite well on this as we are all expecting zombies and lightning , but will just get a shortage of Brie and a traffic jam in Kent , some jobs will be lost but the government has the levers to subside and smooth the initial shock to the system .anothernick said:
Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.El_Capitano said:Not sure these have been posted here yet:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1105797205712093184
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1105809429830750208
Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.
We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?0 -
My reading of this bit is that legally, "a minister" (any volunteers?) just has to change "Exit Day" from March 29 2019 to June 28 2019, Dec 31 2020... or frankly October 7th 2248. I guess the 'regulation' may need voting through, and I guess there are significant political as well as legal questions.. but I'm not sure the Act needs repealing.. at least yet?? (IANAL etc etc)numbertwelve said:
To technically stop leaving, don’t we have to repeal primary legislation? (Ie the withdrawal act)?Sweeney74 said:
May probably wouldn't revoke A50, but what's to stop a motion being tabled to that effect by a back-bencher?stodge said:Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.
I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).
Would The House support that or not?(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the
day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the
Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.0 -
She would have a choice.anothernick said:
No, TM will not revoke willingly but if parliament votes to revoke she will have no choice but to comply.kjohnw said:
TM will not revoke , it will destroy her party , for all the initial disruption from wto brexit , the tories will survive as a party and it will not be as bad as the apocalypse doomsayers have predicted, expectations management will have worked quite well on this as we are all expecting zombies and lightning , but will just get a shortage of Brie and a traffic jam in Kent , some jobs will be lost but the government has the levers to subside and smooth the initial shock to the system .anothernick said:
Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.El_Capitano said:Not sure these have been posted here yet:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1105797205712093184
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1105809429830750208
Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.
We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?
Resignation, for example0 -
Yes that is absolutely unfair. I wasn't proposing FPTP. I was being ironic. It amuses me that those that are happy with FPTP suddenly become unhappy in a scenario that doesn't work for them. Cynical I think is the word that fits.Endillion said:
So, by your logic, it would just as (un)fair to have:kjh said:
It might not be an exact comparison, but it is certainly a fair one or do you think there isn't vote splitting. If there isn't why do parties try and target others e.g. xxx can't win here.Endillion said:
A GE isn't a fair comparison because anyone can stand on any platform - and there isn't always an obvious breakdown between left/right/centrist/whatever. On a referendum, the government sets the options, and needs to make sure that doing so doesn't unduly influence the result.kjh said:
I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!Charles said:
Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvotedParistonda said:If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?
- Remain and join the Euro and Schengen
- Remain and join the Euro
- Remain and join Schengen
- Remain, but give up our rebate
- Remain and try for Cameron's renegotiation again
- Remain on same terms
- Leave with May's Deal
- Leave with No Deal
See the problem? Again, it's the difference between anyone being able to stand, and the Government being required to set the options in a way that produces an outcome such that people can agree that a fair decision has been reached.0 -
Best options on that list are 1st, 2nd and 8th.kjh said:
Yes that is absolutely unfair. I wasn't proposing FPTP. I was being ironic. It amuses me that those that are happy with FPTP suddenly become unhappy in a scenario that doesn't work for them. Cynical I think is the word that fits.Endillion said:
So, by your logic, it would just as (un)fair to have:kjh said:
It might not be an exact comparison, but it is certainly a fair one or do you think there isn't vote splitting. If there isn't why do parties try and target others e.g. xxx can't win here.Endillion said:
A GE isn't a fair comparison because anyone can stand on any platform - and there isn't always an obvious breakdown between left/right/centrist/whatever. On a referendum, the government sets the options, and needs to make sure that doing so doesn't unduly influence the result.kjh said:
I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!Charles said:
Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvotedParistonda said:If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?
- Remain and join the Euro and Schengen
- Remain and join the Euro
- Remain and join Schengen
- Remain, but give up our rebate
- Remain and try for Cameron's renegotiation again
- Remain on same terms
- Leave with May's Deal
- Leave with No Deal
See the problem? Again, it's the difference between anyone being able to stand, and the Government being required to set the options in a way that produces an outcome such that people can agree that a fair decision has been reached.0 -
In normal times maybe, but perhaps an able minister is what we need in the current situation. I'd rather have a Marquis of Pombal than a Napoleon right now.philiph said:
It would be if he had the right qualities to be a leader.Philip_Thompson said:
Good. He should take us forwards. It won't happen but a Howard style coronation for Gove would be the right move.CarlottaVance said:Gove on his feet - praises May (who sits next to him) - somewhat valedictory tone......
He has the right qualities to do a job as a minister or a number 2 who gets stuck into detail. He is not a No1.0 -
Gove's pretty damn good isnt he...0
-
I totally agree, avionics and flight control software is the polar opposite of AI/ML world. The software flying a plane is no more intelligent than the software running a power plant. Avionics is a very conservative, heavily regulated, and very process driven field.JosiasJessop said:It won't be AI. It's fuck-all to do with AI.
Airbus planes are pretty much fully fly-by-wire. And what's amazing is how little code is required to code the control laws they operate under. The reason is simple: the more complicated the code, the harder it is to test and debug what it does, especially wrt edge and corner cases.
As an example, the 787 has about 7 millions lines of code for avionics and critical systems (yes, I know, a terrible metric). The F22 has about 2 million. A luxury car? 100 million.
The plane manufacturers need to be able to reproduce the way the systems work 100% reliably. And AI and machine learning is exactly the opposite: the way the system reacts to inputs is *not* predictable. In fact, this is a big issue with automated cars that use ML: if there's a crash, how do you work out why the computer did what it did?
I'd be amazed if either Boeing or Airbus let machine learning or AI within a thousand miles of the cockpits of their civilian planes.
(Gets ready to be proved wrong.)0 -
She would almost certainly have to resign if parliament voted to revoke but that would not stop revocation proceeding.philiph said:
She would have a choice.anothernick said:
No, TM will not revoke willingly but if parliament votes to revoke she will have no choice but to comply.kjohnw said:
TM will not revoke , it will destroy her party , for all the initial disruption from wto brexit , the tories will survive as a party and it will not be as bad as the apocalypse doomsayers have predicted, expectations management will have worked quite well on this as we are all expecting zombies and lightning , but will just get a shortage of Brie and a traffic jam in Kent , some jobs will be lost but the government has the levers to subside and smooth the initial shock to the system .anothernick said:
Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.El_Capitano said:Not sure these have been posted here yet:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1105797205712093184
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1105809429830750208
Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.
We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?
Resignation, for example0 -
An extension of A50 would be via Statutory Instrument, following Agreement with the EU.Harris_Tweed said:
My reading of this bit is that legally, "a minister" (any volunteers?) just has to change "Exit Day" from March 29 2019 to June 28 2019, Dec 31 2020... or frankly October 7th 2248. I guess the 'regulation' may need voting through, and I guess there are significant political as well as legal questions.. but I'm not sure the Act needs repealing.. at least yet?? (IANAL etc etc)numbertwelve said:
To technically stop leaving, don’t we have to repeal primary legislation? (Ie the withdrawal act)?Sweeney74 said:
May probably wouldn't revoke A50, but what's to stop a motion being tabled to that effect by a back-bencher?stodge said:Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.
I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).
Would The House support that or not?(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the
day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the
Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
The more difficult question is what domestic legislation would be required if we were to revoke the A50 notification?0 -
We may find out within 16 days and 7 hoursanothernick said:
She would almost certainly have to resign if parliament voted to revoke but that would not stop revocation proceeding.philiph said:
She would have a choice.anothernick said:
No, TM will not revoke willingly but if parliament votes to revoke she will have no choice but to comply.kjohnw said:
TM will not revoke , it will destroy her party , for all the initial disruption from wto brexit , the tories will survive as a party and it will not be as bad as the apocalypse doomsayers have predicted, expectations management will have worked quite well on this as we are all expecting zombies and lightning , but will just get a shortage of Brie and a traffic jam in Kent , some jobs will be lost but the government has the levers to subside and smooth the initial shock to the system .anothernick said:
Yes. And if the EU blocks an extension that is the likely outcome.El_Capitano said:Not sure these have been posted here yet:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1105797205712093184
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1105809429830750208
Cadwalladr is never knowingly understated, but it wouldn't surprise me.
We can still revoke Article 50 unilaterally, right?
Resignation, for example0 -
I'd have agreed with you until he wound up the VONC debate, and also off the back of his performance at Education.philiph said:
It would be if he had the right qualities to be a leader.Philip_Thompson said:
Good. He should take us forwards. It won't happen but a Howard style coronation for Gove would be the right move.CarlottaVance said:Gove on his feet - praises May (who sits next to him) - somewhat valedictory tone......
He has the right qualities to do a job as a minister or a number 2 who gets stuck into detail. He is not a No1.
But these two parliamentary performances, his ability to wind his neck in when Boris and JRM can't resist being dicks, and apparently more thoughtful and pragmatic ministerial performances at Justice and DEFRA make me think he might have it.. especially in the presumed hour of need for a solid Leaver, probably in a hurry.
I suspect others will rise if they choose at leisure.. but if there's a "bugger this for a game of soldiers" moment from May and chronological pressure for a new leader (either imminent Brexit or need for a GE), I wouldn't bet against him.0 -
Schedule 7 of the Act states that some regulations need Parliamentary approval. However, the principle clauses relating to the EC Act being repealed have not yet been commenced and themselves need a Minister of the Crown to make regulations to commence them.Harris_Tweed said:
My reading of this bit is that legally, "a minister" (any volunteers?) just has to change "Exit Day" from March 29 2019 to June 28 2019, Dec 31 2020... or frankly October 7th 2248. I guess the 'regulation' may need voting through, and I guess there are significant political as well as legal questions.. but I'm not sure the Act needs repealing.. at least yet?? (IANAL etc etc)numbertwelve said:
To technically stop leaving, don’t we have to repeal primary legislation? (Ie the withdrawal act)?Sweeney74 said:
May probably wouldn't revoke A50, but what's to stop a motion being tabled to that effect by a back-bencher?stodge said:Just to be sure I've understood this - IF we vote to ask for an extension and is refused by the EU because it doesn't have unanimous support, we are left with MV3 or No Deal or unilateral revocation of A50.
I suspect May might quite like the EU refusing an extension - there will be no road to left for the can to be kicked down. MV3 in thirteen days - with 72 hours to go. Not too late to back the Deal, not too late to prevent chaos (so the argument will go in the Mail, Express and elsewhere).
Would The House support that or not?(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the
day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the
Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.0 -
It depends upon the context, doesn't it? I like FPTP for electing representatives to councils/parliament, but prefer AV for leadership/mayoral elections.kjh said:
Yes that is absolutely unfair. I wasn't proposing FPTP. I was being ironic. It amuses me that those that are happy with FPTP suddenly become unhappy in a scenario that doesn't work for them. Cynical I think is the word that fits.Endillion said:
So, by your logic, it would just as (un)fair to have:kjh said:
It might not be an exact comparison, but it is certainly a fair one or do you think there isn't vote splitting. If there isn't why do parties try and target others e.g. xxx can't win here.Endillion said:
A GE isn't a fair comparison because anyone can stand on any platform - and there isn't always an obvious breakdown between left/right/centrist/whatever. On a referendum, the government sets the options, and needs to make sure that doing so doesn't unduly influence the result.kjh said:
I suspect there may have been irony in the post because that is exactly what happens in a General Election, but those that benefit from it ignore it - when the boots on the other foot!Charles said:
Because Remain could win with 34/33/33 - 2/3 of people want to leave but are outvotedParistonda said:If there was a second referendum, why would we not simply give three options, deal, remain, no deal, and whichever gets most votes wins? If FPTP is good enough for our elections, why not our referendums?
- Remain and join the Euro and Schengen
- Remain and join the Euro
- Remain and join Schengen
- Remain, but give up our rebate
- Remain and try for Cameron's renegotiation again
- Remain on same terms
- Leave with May's Deal
- Leave with No Deal
See the problem? Again, it's the difference between anyone being able to stand, and the Government being required to set the options in a way that produces an outcome such that people can agree that a fair decision has been reached.
What I've been trying to find out is, what system did NZ use to select their new voting system once FPTP had been rejected in a referendum? The wiki page doesn't say:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand#Question_Two_in_the_1992_Referendum
And as the winner got over 50% of the vote it doesn't matter. But it does amuse me to think that having voted to abolish FPTP, they then might have used it to select its replacement.0 -
You’re not wrong.JosiasJessop said:
It won't be AI. It's fuck-all to do with AI.Foxy said:
This article covers it well in laymans terms. 2 crashes on take off for 350 planes in recent service raises my flying anxiety.FF43 said:
It is catastrophic for Boeing, if so, because the only way apparently of dealing with a malfunctioning MCAS system is to switch autopilot on. If you have to switch it off because that isn't functioning either, you're snookered either way. MCAS was at the root of the Lion air crash and suspected for the Ethiopian one.SeanT said:
This sounds catastrophic for Boeing. Class action lawsuits from hundreds of dead people, and lots of airlines? Ooof.Nigelb said:More questions about the 737 Max 8...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/03/13/world/u-s-pilots-reported-switching-boeing-737-max-8-autopilot-initiated-random-nosedives/
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1105824138739023872?s=19
Airbus planes are pretty much fully fly-by-wire. And what's amazing is how little code is required to code the control laws they operate under. The reason is simple: the more complicated the code, the harder it is to test and debug what it does, especially wrt edge and corner cases.
As an example, the 787 has about 7 millions lines of code for avionics and critical systems (yes, I know, a terrible metric). The F22 has about 2 million. A luxury car? 100 million.
The plane manufacturers need to be able to reproduce the way the systems work 100% reliably. And AI and machine learning is exactly the opposite: the way the system reacts to inputs is *not* predictable. In fact, this is a big issue with automated cars that use ML: if there's a crash, how do you work out why the computer did what it did?
I'd be amazed if either Boeing or Airbus let machine learning or AI within a thousand miles of the cockpits of their civilian planes.
(Gets ready to be proved wrong.)
As we are seeing, regulators have enough problems dealing with the current generation of computer-controlled aircraft.
That article is guilty of over-simplifying things in an attempt to explain it to a non-aviation audience.
I think the resolution to the 737 issue is going to have to be a complete redesign of the MCAS system and it’s inputs, followed by a *full* recertification of the airframe. It’s not tenable that a 1967 Type Certificate can still be valid for a plane made in 2019, that shares not a single component with the originally certified aircraft. The only thing in common between an original 737 and a new one is the fuselage diameter.0 -
Perhaps he holds all the cards now?Slackbladder said:Gove's pretty damn good isnt he...
0 -
Mr. Nick, that's the Power of Gove.0
-
I have a holiday in Europe planned next month. I don't know if my EHIC will still work, and if not, what my travel insurance will and won't cover.philiph said:
Or it isn't real disruptionwilliamglenn said:
Presumably those who are experiencing disruption at this moment are not real people.Philip_Thompson said:
I disagree.algarkirk said:TM will get it through at the 59th minute of the 11th hour but it is hard to think that the world of business, commerce, farming and indeed ordinary people are going to forget parliament's cavalier nonsense very quickly.
People are going about their lives as normal and see Parliament bickering as normal. Only if there's actual disruption will it be remembered. Otherwise it will be history and people will be far more concerned with promises of jam for tomorrow than any squabbling in the past.
Is that disruption?
What level of medical condition would I have to suffer from for it to constitute disruption?
And I'm assuming there are a whole bunch of people who can come up with far worse examples from personal experience.0 -
0
-
Wow, Canada reverse ferrets and bans the 737 MAX based on new satellite data indicating similarity with the Lion Air crash.
US now the only major operator country still flying them.0 -
Mr. Endillion, the health card's a good idea but it only entitles treatment equal to a citizen of said country. I think Greece charges for air ambulances, so if you needed one, even with the health card, you'd end up paying hundreds if not thousands of pounds.
Everyone travelling should have travel insurance, and not just rely on the health card (I realise you probably weren't doing that, but sometimes the card gets a big over-egged).
Edited extra bit: bit*, not big.0 -
LOL ! Soubry's gas at a peep.williamglenn said:0 -
This is true, and I do have travel insurance, but some insurers insist as part of their T&Cs that you carry an EHIC anyway. Plus it's good practice.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Endillion, the health card's a good idea but it only entitles treatment equal to a citizen of said country. I think Greece charges for air ambulances, so if you needed one, even with the health card, you'd end up paying hundreds if not thousands of pounds.
Everyone travelling should have travel insurance, and not just rely on the health card (I realise you probably weren't doing that, but sometimes the card gets a big over-egged).
Edited extra bit: bit*, not big.
Point is, the low-level uncertainty about a situation a few weeks away is unsettling.0 -
Oh f*** off Francois....0
-
One of the real tragedies of this last few years in British politics is that I have had to learn who Mark Francois is.0
-
Theresa's not a well woman...Slackbladder said:0 -
Anna appears completely unhinged now...williamglenn said:0 -
OT: Manafort has been given another 4 years on top of the time he received in the Virginia case.0
-
I really would hope that a phone call or email to the insurer would clarify the situation and remove the unsettled feeling. In an area of doubt it is often prudent to double down on the insurance and mitigate the risk.Endillion said:
This is true, and I do have travel insurance, but some insurers insist as part of their T&Cs that you carry an EHIC anyway. Plus it's good practice.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Endillion, the health card's a good idea but it only entitles treatment equal to a citizen of said country. I think Greece charges for air ambulances, so if you needed one, even with the health card, you'd end up paying hundreds if not thousands of pounds.
Everyone travelling should have travel insurance, and not just rely on the health card (I realise you probably weren't doing that, but sometimes the card gets a big over-egged).
Edited extra bit: bit*, not big.
Point is, the low-level uncertainty about a situation a few weeks away is unsettling.0 -
Mr. Endillion, yeah, uncertainty is difficult to deal with and stressful, and I hope everything's fine for you.0
-
Afternoon all
I see after months of Project Stick we now have Hammond with Project Carrot promising a Brown-esque spending splurge of £26 billion IF we vote for the Deal.
Cynical, manipulative and totally predictable politics.0 -
Mr. Stodge, aye, and it's bloody stupid to withhold money intended to ease our leaving unless a deal's agreed, as it risks a more disruptive no deal departure with no (or far less) spending in that area.
Hammond's an idiot.0 -
Still leaves farmers, and especially sheep farmers, staring down the gun barrel, though.stodge said:Afternoon all
I see after months of Project Stick we now have Hammond with Project Carrot promising a Brown-esque spending splurge of £26 billion IF we vote for the Deal.
Cynical, manipulative and totally predictable politics.0 -
Sorry, have missed a lot of the discussions owing to the technical problems.
I wonder whether anyone can sketch a path that avoids No Deal, consistent with the following:
(1) No revocation without a referendum
(2) No extension without a feasible plan for a way forward, and probably no lengthy extension because of the Euro-elections
(3) Still a large majority in the Commons against the existing deal.
No Deal in May or June seems almost unavoidable to me.0 -
If the money needs to be spent, it should be spent regardless of the outcome of the vote.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, aye, and it's bloody stupid to withhold money intended to ease our leaving unless a deal's agreed, as it risks a more disruptive no deal departure with no (or far less) spending in that area.
Hammond's an idiot.0 -
What is a dose of no-deal?williamglenn said:
Surely no-deal is more akin to the entire bottle?0 -
Mr. F, precisely.
Withholding it is reckless idiocy, and deeply unimpressive.0 -
And, I've no doubt it does need to be spent. Some public services are struggling.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. F, precisely.
Withholding it is reckless idiocy, and deeply unimpressive.0 -
If anybody is watching Starmer's reply could they tell me who the wittering woman is to his left.0
-
Spelman no longer backing her amendment..
Damien Green's selected for vote.0 -
Whatever happens by March 29th, May and Hammond have to go before Summer. Complete clear out and reset of the government is needed.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, aye, and it's bloody stupid to withhold money intended to ease our leaving unless a deal's agreed, as it risks a more disruptive no deal departure with no (or far less) spending in that area.
Hammond's an idiot.0 -
Being entirely serious, given some that are selected I have no clue what criteria he applies on which to select and how many. The Baron one which got around 20 votes springs to mind.CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1105842491348135936Richard_Nabavi said:https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1105838894426308609
If successful it would of course make the deal passing at MV3 much more likely.0 -
Anyone got a theory on why the odds of No Deal have come in to 4.5 at Smarkets but gone out to 8.8 at Betfair in the last 24 hours? There are minor differences in the markets (Smarkets allows for exit up to 1st April, Betfair must be by 30th March; Betfair says "No Deal" is leaving without a deal ratified by the UK and EU Parliaments - I suppose it's just about technically possible that we could leave with a deal Parliament and the Commission have agreed with it going to the EU Parliament for confirmation after the fact, but that doesn't feel big enough to shift the odds that far, and nor does the likelihood of a delay to Article 50 of no more than 48 hours. Enough difference that it's not exactly arbitrage, but all the same...0
-
That could mean a GE. Not convinced that would mean significantly different crop of MP's, but it might. Is it a gamble worth taking?GIN1138 said:
Whatever happens by March 29th, May and Hammond have to go before Summer. Complete clear out and reset of the government is needed.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, aye, and it's bloody stupid to withhold money intended to ease our leaving unless a deal's agreed, as it risks a more disruptive no deal departure with no (or far less) spending in that area.
Hammond's an idiot.0 -
Edit button not working. Just closing my brackets).0
-
Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
Well Rutte and Macron have already said it needs to be for a purpose. Orban & Salvini might be worth a call, I take it the Rt Hon for Shrewsbury is in touch with Poland...SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
I wonder how long is needed to apply for and have additional time agreed. Do you just have to put in the request before 22.59 on 29th March or have it agreed by then?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
It's becoming increasingly difficult to be proud of being British. No-one likes being a laughing stock, surely.0
-
The money won't be there if it has to be spent on emergency transport of medicines, tarmacking Kent, or whatever other horrors No Deal brings upon us. Remember the magic money tree idea?Sean_F said:
If the money needs to be spent, it should be spent regardless of the outcome of the vote.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, aye, and it's bloody stupid to withhold money intended to ease our leaving unless a deal's agreed, as it risks a more disruptive no deal departure with no (or far less) spending in that area.
Hammond's an idiot.0 -
A point i’ve been saying for months, there is absolutely no guarantee of an extension regardless since there’s plenty who might see it as an opportunity to twist the knife.
(I expect Orban won’t be the culprit since it’s in his interest the U.K. remains.)0 -
"Hello, It's Theresa on line one asking for an extension..."philiph said:
I wonder how long is needed to apply for and have additional time agreed. Do you just have to put in the request before 22.59 on 29th March or have it agreed by then?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
I don't think it is worth your while, Theresa, by the time we have built the extension you will be ousted from No. 10 and that nice Mr Corbyn will enjoy it, with his funny Customs & Union friendsPulpstar said:
"Hello, It's Theresa on line one asking for an extension..."philiph said:
I wonder how long is needed to apply for and have additional time agreed. Do you just have to put in the request before 22.59 on 29th March or have it agreed by then?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
In terms of machine learning this does depend on what method you are using. Some ML methodsare totally predictable to changes in the inputs ... BUT the trendy methods (eg Deep Learning) riding high on the tide of a few successes are exactly like this, you have no realistic way of understanding the model does, if the outputs start giving wierd predictions, you can't tell if the input data is rubbish, the model is rubbish or something driving the input data has changed.JosiasJessop said:
The plane manufacturers need to be able to reproduce the way the systems work 100% reliably. And AI and machine learning is exactly the opposite: the way the system reacts to inputs is *not* predictable. In fact, this is a big issue with automated cars that use ML: if there's a crash, how do you work out why the computer did what it did?
0 -
That might put the loons in charge of the asylum. Sub optimal.GIN1138 said:
Whatever happens by March 29th, May and Hammond have to go before Summer. Complete clear out and reset of the government is needed.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, aye, and it's bloody stupid to withhold money intended to ease our leaving unless a deal's agreed, as it risks a more disruptive no deal departure with no (or far less) spending in that area.
Hammond's an idiot.0 -
Proud of Britain - ashamed of our 650 mps and the broadcast mediaOldKingCole said:It's becoming increasingly difficult to be proud of being British. No-one likes being a laughing stock, surely.
0 -
It isn't hard at all. If a period of fraught politics destroys pride the world must have very little of itOldKingCole said:It's becoming increasingly difficult to be proud of being British. No-one likes being a laughing stock, surely.
Disgraceful when even ex MPs are not showing appreciation for patriotic British cheddar. For shame sirNickPalmer said:
More about protectionism, I'd guess - we're not bothered by imports of camembert or emmental, but producers of tasteless cheddar don't want competition from rival producers of tasteless cheese.kle4 said:
Amusing, but isn't it more likely it's just that volume of cheddar is as much as all other types combined? Just a guess.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
The calibre of my country's politicians has no bearing on my own feelings of self-esteem.OldKingCole said:It's becoming increasingly difficult to be proud of being British. No-one likes being a laughing stock, surely.
0 -
Mr. Meeks, tinkers?0
-
Wankers?AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
I do take issue with the use of the term 'settled policy'AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
Apart from that there are many words to use to describe the miscreants.
0 -
Their actions only become relevant if the policy becomes settled upon.philiph said:
I do take issue with the use of the term 'settled policy'AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
Apart from that there are many words to use to describe the miscreants.0 -
FWIW I think a GE would lead to a large amount of tactical voting against prominent no-deal leavers who could well be defeated - Boris and IDS in particular. There would also be tactical voting the other way but this would be harder as there are fewer no deal candidates around whom voters could coalesce - in many constituencies candidates from all 3 major parties would be remain and/or soft Brexit supporters.OldKingCole said:
That could mean a GE. Not convinced that would mean significantly different crop of MP's, but it might. Is it a gamble worth taking?GIN1138 said:
Whatever happens by March 29th, May and Hammond have to go before Summer. Complete clear out and reset of the government is needed.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, aye, and it's bloody stupid to withhold money intended to ease our leaving unless a deal's agreed, as it risks a more disruptive no deal departure with no (or far less) spending in that area.
Hammond's an idiot.0 -
Since traitor is overused, as we know, would they object to judas?AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
We have a Buggins turn electoral system that gives only 2 parties stand a chance of becoming a government and 80% of the MPs are in safe seats so are effectively chosen by handfuls of increasingly extreme and out of touch Labour and Tory members. We are now truly a laughing stock. How anyone has the nerve to look down their noses at the rest of Europe beats me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Proud of Britain - ashamed of our 650 mps and the broadcast mediaOldKingCole said:It's becoming increasingly difficult to be proud of being British. No-one likes being a laughing stock, surely.
0 -
Friends of Vladimir?AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
Soubry is a feisty one!williamglenn said:0 -
You seem to be suggesting simply having fptp should be a source of national shame. I'm a pr man myself, but that seems a bit harsh.OllyT said:
We have a Buggins turn electoral system that gives only 2 parties stand a chance of becoming a government and 80% of the MPs are in safe seats so are effectively chosen by handfuls of increasingly extreme and out of touch Labour and Tory members. We are now truly a laughing stock. How anyone has the nerve to look down their noses at the rest of Europe beats me.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Proud of Britain - ashamed of our 650 mps and the broadcast mediaOldKingCole said:It's becoming increasingly difficult to be proud of being British. No-one likes being a laughing stock, surely.
And why should we look down at down at Europe over divisive politics, or they us? Are there no serious political issues in Europe?0 -
We prefer the term 'agents' of Vladimir. I mean I dont knowFoxy said:
Friends of Vladimir?AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
A noble and enjoyable pursuit compared to the actions of some.Sean_F said:
Wankers?AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
FPT (sorry)
Actually that thread is about the use of AV within a referendum - it doesn't talk about the method of AV that to be used and whether it should be a Condorcet system or a transferable vote system - and it's the latter I was commentating on.TheScreamingEagles said:
I did a thread on it recently.eek said:
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/03/a-second-referendum-conducted-under-av-maybe-the-only-way-to-end-the-brexit-impasse/0 -
Gove is now an enemy of the people.
https://twitter.com/speccoffeehouse/status/1105875757115629576?s=210 -
It's blaming painful at the moment....OldKingCole said:It's becoming increasingly difficult to be proud of being British. No-one likes being a laughing stock, surely.
0 -
AV IS a specific system, it doesn't always pick out the condorcet winner.eek said:FPT (sorry)
Actually that thread is about the use of AV within a referendum - it doesn't talk about the method of AV that to be used and whether it should be a Condorcet system or a transferable vote system - and it's the latter I was commentating on.TheScreamingEagles said:
I did a thread on it recently.eek said:
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/03/a-second-referendum-conducted-under-av-maybe-the-only-way-to-end-the-brexit-impasse/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems0 -
Depends on who writes the histories.AlastairMeeks said:
Can anyone think of a convenient description of people who are prepared to actively work against the settled policy of their own government through the means of foreign powers?SunnyJim said:Some interesting twitter discussions about lobbying of some EU governments with the aim of ensuring a request to extend A50 is refused.
0 -
-
0
-
No one should trust Gove further than they can throw him, but whether one thinks the contortions on Brexit are on too many, he at least is actually trying to ensure something called Brexit happens (yes, some say it is not really Brexit, whatever), rather than talk about how much he loves Brexit while voting it down all the time.williamglenn said:Gove is now an enemy of the people.
https://twitter.com/speccoffeehouse/status/1105875757115629576?s=21
0 -
I sometimes wonder if Bercow posts on 4chan. His trolling abilities "for the lulz" are quite magnificent.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/11058571293306798080 -
And that's the point - the result may be very different based on the approach used (albeit not as driven as a two stage question would be where the first question almost always determine the answer to the second question).Pulpstar said:
AV IS a specific system, it doesn't always pick out the condorcet winner.eek said:FPT (sorry)
Actually that thread is about the use of AV within a referendum - it doesn't talk about the method of AV that to be used and whether it should be a Condorcet system or a transferable vote system - and it's the latter I was commentating on.TheScreamingEagles said:
I did a thread on it recently.eek said:
Which form of AV counting mechanism would you use though? That could well influence the result in unexpected ways...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/03/a-second-referendum-conducted-under-av-maybe-the-only-way-to-end-the-brexit-impasse/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems
So Q1 - should we revoke and leave the the EU - latter could win
Q2 May's Deal or no deal - May's deal would win
Q1 leave under No Deal? Likely answer No
Q2 May's Deal or Revoke - likely answer May's dea
However
Q1 - should we leave under May's Deal - answer unknown
Q2 - No Deal or revoke? answer unknown - but I suspect revoke
Depending on the AV system used were the system to be the transferable vote I suspect No Deal could win it, as May's Deal would be the one rejected first.
Hence actually throwing it to a referendum may look like it fixes something but it really doesn't. The best it does is pass the blame away from Parliament but to voters.
0 -
Backing that up:El_Capitano said:I sometimes wonder if Bercow posts on 4chan. His trolling abilities "for the lulz" are quite magnificent.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1105857129330679808
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/11058683437923368960
