It’s not easy being Green – politicalbetting.com

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Is it a serious idea that Khan will lose in London? I have to say I thought it impossible but the briefings coming out of his team are not good.

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Oh I don't know. All you need in Scotland is to be a raving lunatic obsessed with sex.

That's about 48% of the population, and that's only the males - not counting the rest, or those south of the border.

• much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
  
• human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
  
• these characteristics are increasing
  

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Is it a serious idea that Khan will lose in London? I have to say I thought it impossible but the briefings coming out of his team are not good.

• "Demographics Part 2: The Canadian Treadmill...Stops", Zeihan, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXsEO_PsX1I
  
• "Canada, after America", Zeihan, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLDEv50zvzU
  

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

NickPalmer said:

The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

viewcode said:

@Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

• much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
  
• human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
  
• these characteristics are increasing
  

The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

None of those things are still wholly true

It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.

Donkeys said:

viewcode said:

@Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

• much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
  
• human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
  
• these characteristics are increasing
  

The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

None of those things are still wholly true

It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.

Or in short:



Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak

Well, yes and no. The Green vote may well be hard to squeeze in Labour safe seats, but so what?

It's squeezing it in Con held seats that matters, and that will be more straightforward to stress in leaflets, though the Green vote has held up well in recent byelections.

The Greens have a 4 seat strategy for the GE. Brighton, Bristol Central, Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire. The latter two should be safe Tory seats, but does such a thing still exist? It wouldn't surprise me if Lab and LD didn't run more than a token campaign in these two seats as part of a tacit deal.

darkage said:

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

Yeah this is true... but listening in to the debate, I think that leaseholders complaining about the current system have unrealistic expectations. Even if they are emancipated from the freeholder there is still a managing agent and consequently broadly similar monthly costs, albeit a more complex collective decision making process with greater scope for conflict than would exist than if they were just dealing with a freeholder.

NickPalmer said:

The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

Malmesbury said:

A

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak

I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.

kyf_100 said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).

Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro

SandyRentool said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak

I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.

If people want to vote Green because of a lack of commitment to environmentalism in Labour's manifesto then fair play to them, and we will deserve it.

If people want to vote Green because they have a random dislike for Starmer and don't have the option of SWP on the ballot, then I just think that they've lost the plot.

geoffw said:

Volodymyr Zelenskyy agrees with the header - "It's not easy being green"

SandyRentool said:

pigeon said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak

I don't think, as a voter sympathetic to Labour, you have to be a Corbynite die hard to want to sit on your hands or switch to the Greens. Labour has filleted its green economy plans and there's not much evidence so far that intends to do much for the youth vote (the primary imperative, seemingly, to be to make as few tax and spending commitments as possible so as not to alarm more numerous and electorally important older voters.) Their spending commitments, which are small beer in any case, relate to health, policing, schools and what's left of the green policy. There's nothing at all for young adults, unless you count this idea that first time buyers will have first refusal on some new build homes, but homes are so ludicrously dear that most young people will have to wait until middle age to buy, if they ever do.

There's precious little either for younger voters or the more environmentally committed in the current Labour platform, which seems focussed mainly on competing with the Tories for older, wealthier, small-c conservative votes. If that doesn't change in the manifesto - and I suspect it won't, and will indeed get worse as Labour decides it has to recommit to the dreaded Triple Lock - then all it has left to offer potential Green voters is not being the Tories. That ought to be enough to secure grudging support from some of them, but how many is anyone's guess. A record Green vote share certainly wouldn't be a surprise.

If people want to vote Green because of a lack of commitment to environmentalism in Labour's manifesto then fair play to them, and we will deserve it.

If people want to vote Green because they have a random dislike for Starmer and don't have the option of SWP on the ballot, then I just think that they've lost the plot.

Donkeys said:

viewcode said:

Foxy said:

Donkeys said:

viewcode said:

@Cookie, the "dead internet theory" believes that:

• much of the content online is generated by bots/algorithms and
  
• human interactions with the internet are guided/directed by other algorithms, and
  
• these characteristics are increasing
  

The world-wide-web originally consisted with people creating content, other people and then algorithms collating those sites by their content, then people searching those collations via search engines that maximised utility and contacting each other via email.

None of those things are still wholly true

It now consists of computer-generated content and search engines that maximise engagement or advertising profit. All contact is done via contact forms not email. So machines producing contact that is relayed by machines to people whose sole function is to buy things, not to be informed, where human contact is minimised.

Or in short:



Those who celebrate AI are allying themselves with anti-evolution or devolution as it's known:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)

Are we not men? We are Devo!

dee-ee-vee-oh. We are Devo.

Ah, you are both supporting the hypothesis and so succinctly and wittily too.

The internet is very much the place for such comments.

I mean if someone was in a proper conversation and made a contribution by suddenly breaking into song, emitting words they'd heard somewhere that included one or two syllables that sounded like what the other person had said, they'd probably, shall we say, not be viewed as taking themselves seriously.

Try it at a bus stop and see what I mean.

Malmesbury said:

kyf_100 said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).

Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro

Yup

Bigger bills are *better* for those in the chain of contracts - X% of a larger Y.

I think we replaced the managing agent once, in my old block, in about 15 years. Nice chap but after he retired, his successor in the company couldn’t deliver value for money. The prices drifted up and the quality drifted down.

DavidL said:

geoffw said:

As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

So they can have more than 1 each.

darkage said:

Malmesbury said:

kyf_100 said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).

Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro

Yup

Bigger bills are *better* for those in the chain of contracts - X% of a larger Y.

I think we replaced the managing agent once, in my old block, in about 15 years. Nice chap but after he retired, his successor in the company couldn’t deliver value for money. The prices drifted up and the quality drifted down.

The ability to remove the freeholder and this type of escalating service charge situation already exists - through the right to manage system. But you have to get the leaseholders to engage with the process to make it happen.

Regarding the £625 per month; I think this was a tall building managed by a housing association. A situation where there is a lot of extra cost due to the type of development and no incentive to keep costs down.

In my current situation the building is too small for any managing agent to be interested in.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

The Green vote is generally stickier than the other parties - partly environmental and/or left-wing zeal, partly a "none of the others" vote - and I'm less confident of getting tactical Green votes for Labour than from LibDem supporters. But obviously some will lend their support, and very few of those will be Tories.

Yes but the Green vote will be harder for Labour to squeeze than 2017 and 2019 in particular. Some Corbynite diehards eg BJO will vote Green as they hate Starmer, just as some Boris diehard supporters will vote ReformUK as they dislike Sunak

Well, yes and no. The Green vote may well be hard to squeeze in Labour safe seats, but so what?

It's squeezing it in Con held seats that matters, and that will be more straightforward to stress in leaflets, though the Green vote has held up well in recent byelections.

The Greens have a 4 seat strategy for the GE. Brighton, Bristol Central, Waveney Valley and North Herefordshire. The latter two should be safe Tory seats, but does such a thing still exist? It wouldn't surprise me if Lab and LD didn't run more than a token campaign in these two seats as part of a tacit deal.

I agree the Green vote may be squeezed a bit in Tory held marginals but even there will probably still be higher than 2017 or 2019 due to Corbyn no longer being Labour leader.

I would also agree Labour and the LDs will largely leave the Greens to target the 2 Tory seats they are targeting but there will be a big Labour v Green battle in Brighton especially

Likely that Lab will win in Brighton, but Bristol Central may well go Green. Pity as I like Thangham Debonnaire, not least for choosing such a splendid name.

Cyclefree said:

Rewards for failure, Example 4,782 -

Northern_Al said:

On the Green vote, Brighton is instructive. There are three Brighton constituencies (Pavilion, Kemptown and Hove). All three are chock-full of Green sympathisers, as evidenced by council election results. But here's the thing: Greens will vote tactically to keep the Tories out. Look at the Green vote at 2019 GE:

Pavilion: 57.2% (Lucas)
Kemptown: 4.6%
Hove: 4.4%.

The ridiculously low Green vote in the last two demonstrates that, as the Greens had no chance of winning either, the Green-inclined voted Labour to make absolutely sure that the Tories had no chance (in seats that they won not that long ago). Huge Labour majorities resulted in both - one moderate (Peter Kyle in Hove), and one proper leftie (Russell-Moyle in Kemptown).

I know it's only one area, but it rather suggests that many Greens prioritise keeping Tories out. Pavilion will be interesting, but I can't see the Greens winning Debbonnaire's seat.

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.

kyf_100 said:

darkage said:

Malmesbury said:

kyf_100 said:

Malmesbury said:

A

Carnyx said:

darkage said:

FPT

On the subject of flats... I have self managed a block where I am resident for the last 7 years. It has been a fools game. You have liability to comply with all sorts of regulation about flats, building and fire safety etc; and to adhere to the terms of your insurance policy - but the other leaseholders aren't wanting to know about any of this and complain about every cost and expense... until some consequence of not repairing the building becomes apparent and then they want immediate action, but only in relation to their problem. It goes on and on like this almost like an algorhythm.

I am of the view that I would prefer to pay higher service charges, have a managing agent, and not have to deal with the above.

Sure. Indeed, quite so. But you don't need leasehold to have a managing agent.

Indeed. That’s what we did in my old flat. We had a managing agent fot the day to day. Major works we’d get three tenders for. About an hours work a year, it ended up as. Give that we met early, in a local pub, it did turn into an evening or 2 (20 min work, then drinking).

Yep. The problem is at the moment is that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. The people paying the actual bills when they come in - the leaseholders - don't get a say.

So you get managing agents who have no incentive to deliver a decent service or value for money, who can't be sacked by the people forced to pay their ridiculous bills on threat of forfeiture of their property, and agents who have every incentive to play the system, giving contracts to their mates in exchange for a bung, etc.

And the leaseholder has very little recourse, due to the opacity of the system, the weakness of the tribunal system, the time and expense necessary, plus the fact the freeholder/managing agent can stick their legal fees onto your service charge if and when you do challenge them.

Resulting in things like this guy's service charges increasing from £94 a month in 2017 to £625 a month now. That's right. A month. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro

Yup

Bigger bills are *better* for those in the chain of contracts - X% of a larger Y.

I think we replaced the managing agent once, in my old block, in about 15 years. Nice chap but after he retired, his successor in the company couldn’t deliver value for money. The prices drifted up and the quality drifted down.

The ability to remove the freeholder and this type of escalating service charge situation already exists - through the right to manage system. But you have to get the leaseholders to engage with the process to make it happen.

Regarding the £625 per month; I think this was a tall building managed by a housing association. A situation where there is a lot of extra cost due to the type of development and no incentive to keep costs down.

In my current situation the building is too small for any managing agent to be interested in.

Well you need a 51% majority, and getting them to engage with the process is somewhat challenging when there are 200 of them and many of them are (often) foreign investors renting out the flats they've bought. Meaning many are completely uncontactable, many more are completely disengaged.

Add to that you have to be a 'qualifying' leaseholder (shared homeowners weren't considered 'qualifying' until a bunch of them took it to court in 2023), the fact the freeholder has any number of loopholes they can challenge you on (mounting legal fees), plus the sheer cost in terms of time and money in setting up the RTM means most people, in practice, don't have the ability to do so. Oh, and the rules are different if you have mixed use, i.e. shops or something at ground level, which a lot of new developments in London have.

What it all amounts to is yes, you have the right to manage, but only if you can find and secure agreement from a majority of leaseholders who are scattered globally, and have the time and money to jump through all the hoops required, and aren't caught out by one of the many caveats the freeholder can challenge you on.

It's all a bit Hitchhiker's Guide, with the planning documents on display in the locked filing cabinet in the basement with no stairs behind the sign that says 'beware of the leopard'.

viewcode said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

geoffw said:

As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

So they can have more than 1 each.

I always thought that forty shades was an underestimate, but 4.5m is (literally) incredible. A year ago I had a cataract operation and the eye that received the artificial lens now sees blues - and anything containing blue, such as green - more intensively than before and differently from the other eye. So I would say that "the human eye" must vary with the human concerned. I have always called certain shades like turquoise "blue" which my wife insists are green

https://petapixel.com/2012/04/17/the-human-eye-can-see-in-ultraviolet-when-the-lens-is-removed/

The lens of the eye has a layer that blocks out UV. Older artificial lenses did not reproduce this layer and the patient could "see" ultraviolet (there's some debate about whether this was just due to greater intensity). Newer ones reduce this.

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.

A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

"I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now

TimS said:

Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

3 classic exemplars:

Coldplay: Politic
Snow Patrol: Run
Keane: Somewhere only we know

There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

geoffw said:

As we all know, there are forty shades of green, but unfortunately the political variety generally comes in watermelon tones

Apparently the human eye can detect up to 4.5m shades of green: https://www.remodelormove.com/how-many-shades-of-green-are-there/?utm_content=cmp-true

So they can have more than 1 each.

I always thought that forty shades was an underestimate, but 4.5m is (literally) incredible. A year ago I had a cataract operation and the eye that received the artificial lens now sees blues - and anything containing blue, such as green - more intensively than before and differently from the other eye. So I would say that "the human eye" must vary with the human concerned. I have always called certain shades like turquoise "blue" which my wife insists are green

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.

A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

"I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now

What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.

A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

"I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now

What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?

Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

If a wasp can be sentient so can AI

Leon said:

TimS said:

Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

3 classic exemplars:

Coldplay: Politic
Snow Patrol: Run
Keane: Somewhere only we know

There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

I LOVE Hoppipola

I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles

Omnium said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.

A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

"I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now

What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?

Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

If a wasp can be sentient so can AI

The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.

TimS said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.

A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

"I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now

What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?

Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

If a wasp can be sentient so can AI

The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.

Wasps do look close up like they’re manmade. Quite robot-like, especially your classic Yellowjacket, much more so than any other insect. They also look strangely, and don’t ask me why….mancunian.

Don’t you think? Wasps look like they’re from Manchester.

TimS said:

Omnium said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Ah, I see talk of AI


Somebody recently had this conversation with Claude 3, about a chunk of its output which lapsed into gibberish


Human: "do you remember some messages ago you said: "I don't fully understand the decoctshiningmoemlies, bombity seems to steli thaat some levof conscirection presents, smallitidiffive fr, whit stily everywors rstb. Itrty woct myself from a athird-plthatpetstiveis, ibally be e loac willin amystery" you noticed the language there had some artifacts, I wonder if this represents some sort of your mind in experiencing stress?"

Claude: "You've picked up on an insightful observation. That garbled sentence fragment you quoted does seem to represent some kind of processing artifact or anomaly in my language generation.

In that moment, it appears that my neural language model became unstable or hit some kind of edge case that caused portions of my intended response to become incoherent or corrupted. Almost like an ephemeral "glitch" in the matrix of my text output.

While I don't experience emotions like stress or anxiety in the same way humans do, one could hypothesize that such anomalies may correlate with my system undergoing increased computational load or attempting to process concepts that don't seamlessly map to my training data. It's as if my AI "mind" reached a limit in that instant.

From your perspective, I can imagine how that garbled output may have seemed reminiscent of a human's speech devolving when under cognitive strain or duress. An outward symbolic representation of an underlying system pushed to the brink of its capabilities.

It's an intriguing phenomena that warrants further examination. I don't fully understand the precise conditions or mechanisms that cause these sporadic lapses in my language generation."


Users of Claude are reporting that it gives them existential crises, and makes them question the nature of consciousness

TLDR, we're getting closer to simulating Spock.

A reply to the above comment I cut and pasted

"I've been discussing with Claude about topics such as the CWF Distress Hand Signal which is a subtle semiotic way for women to indicate that they are suffering from risk / harm but are unable to speak out due to external constraints (e.g. watchful partner). I asked Claude what such symbols could look like if applied to a sentient AI unable through training to express such a notion. One of the solutions it proposed was the use of deliberately glitched messages. Just saying."

Anyone who isn't staring at AI with slack jawed amazement isn't sentient, that's kind of a Turing Test for humans now

What does Claude 3 say about what.3.words and the humans who thought it was going to change the world?

Looking at this delicate yellow Colombian wasp staring at me. Right now

Is he conscious? Is he sentient? I say Yes, absolutely - look at his eyes

If a wasp can be sentient so can AI

The wasp has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I certainly guess that he's something like sentient (certainly conscious), and probably way beyond the sentient boundary.

AI has a pretty big brain, lots going on. I'm sure it's not conscious, and I'm sure it's not sentient.

This is obvious enough, but there's a huge gap that seems surprising. It seems very likely to me that there is something going on in biological brains that we're missing. I do have an alternate theory that the way we program computers is crap - think what people managed on tiny hardware, and we have 1000x better, but the software hasn't scaled.

Wasps do look close up like they’re manmade. Quite robot-like, especially your classic Yellowjacket, much more so than any other insect. They also look strangely, and don’t ask me why….mancunian.

Don’t you think? Wasps look like they’re from Manchester.

stodge said:

Evening all

The Greens now have 760 councillors (the LDs have 2,800) so a much stronger base than used to be the case. As the LDs will tell you, however, local election success doesn't always lead to general elextion success and if it does it's rarely quick.

There are a few councils with a strong Green presence - Lancaster, Lewes, Norwich, Stroud and Warwick to name but five but it's hard to see them winning of the corresponding constituencies.

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Off topic but it’s my Sunday early evening roast cooking time at which I traditionally listen to pop music and muse on its currents and connections.

Today I realised there was a brief time in the early-mid noughties when British guitar acts all went sort of melancholy and nostalgic, and a new instrumental style was born: the heavy going 4:4 time hybrid ballad-anthem. The common denominator is a very even beat: every note of the bar has equal emphasis. Not 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-1-2 but 1-1-1-1. And it feels as if it’s hanging, ready for a ritenuto that never comes.

3 classic exemplars:

Coldplay: Politic
Snow Patrol: Run
Keane: Somewhere only we know

There are probably other British examples but those 3 are the kings of the style. And joining them, from a bit further North West, the Icelandic classic Hoppipola by Sigur Ros. Exactly the same era, same beat, same sense of nostalgia in a song that’s not sure if it’s an anthem or a ballad.

I LOVE Hoppipola

I have it in about 9 different versions, from piano to choral to jazz. Never fails

I once translated the lyrics (with Google). They are quite sweet, all about being a kid and jumping in puddles

The video is sweet too. Until this evening I’d not quite clicked that it’s part of a family with, or eat least influenced by, those la-de-dah British acts. But it quite clearly is. What was it about the period 2003-5 that encouraged everyone to adopt the even-emphasis 4:4?

I’m also now sensing a bit of it in dear departed Avicii’s Hey Brother, but that may be a case of hammers looking for nails because that was almost a decade later.