Thanks @Alanbrooke (for the last one too which I read but didn't have a chance to comment on).
Whilst I think the broad thrust (Republicans and Reform natural allies) is right, I suspect Trump won't be that interested.
Musk, perhaps. I think it's fair to say Twitter/X now sits alongside Putin as a threat to democracy worldwide and I'm sure the UK won't escape it's effects
"Musk, perhaps. I think it's fair to say Twitter/X now sits alongside Putin as a threat to democracy worldwide and I'm sure the UK won't escape it's effects"
Hey, I've been saying that for more than a year. I haven't heard many good arguments to the contrary.
The threat to democracy being that people might vote for policies and people you disapprove of?
No. Far from. If you note, I haven't commented saying that the American public got it wrong, or Trump cheated, or anything like that. I think the world's a more dangerous place,
The threat to democracy is multifold: one is that Musk is trying to control the narrative in a much more powerful way than classic media has been able for decades. He claims to be in favour of free speech; what he is really interested in is propagating his views to the masses.
Another is the way he was insinuating that the election was being fixed before the vote. As in January 6th, he and the MAGA greats are only interested in democracy if they are the winners. In that, they are very much like Putin.
Another is the way he highlights conspiracy theories that further his agenda; see the conversation this morning. Though I daresay you approve of that.
There are more, but I've stuff to do.
I think most people 6 months ago would have agreed that a government minister also owning a major social media company is an obvious conflict of interest that shouldn’t be allowed. And yet here we are now.
Thanks @Alanbrooke (for the last one too which I read but didn't have a chance to comment on).
Whilst I think the broad thrust (Republicans and Reform natural allies) is right, I suspect Trump won't be that interested.
Musk, perhaps. I think it's fair to say Twitter/X now sits alongside Putin as a threat to democracy worldwide and I'm sure the UK won't escape it's effects
For the sake of my sanity and my kids' education I'd quite like to see the UK and EU banning both TwiX and TikTok.
What hysterical nonsense
You don't have 2 zoned-out youngsters goggling at endless self-playing videos for hours on end. It's like a form of electronic barbiturate.
After "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and "Television is the opiate of the masses" we now have "X is the opiate of the masses".
Neither of my two go near X. It’s TikTok and Instagram.
Atheist Starmer about to dispose of the turbulent bishop.
I would have thought the Supreme Governor of the Church of England would have sacked Welby but KCIII has some bad history when it comes to dealing with child abusers.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s position is becoming increasingly untenable after Sir Keir Starmer piled on pressure for him to resign.
The Prime Minister said that victims of a historic abuse scandal had been let down “very, very badly”, after an independent review found that the Most Rev Justin Welby had failed to act on their behalf.
The archbishop is also facing a growing rebellion from his own bishops, The Telegraph can disclose.
Thanks @Alanbrooke (for the last one too which I read but didn't have a chance to comment on).
Whilst I think the broad thrust (Republicans and Reform natural allies) is right, I suspect Trump won't be that interested.
Musk, perhaps. I think it's fair to say Twitter/X now sits alongside Putin as a threat to democracy worldwide and I'm sure the UK won't escape it's effects
"Musk, perhaps. I think it's fair to say Twitter/X now sits alongside Putin as a threat to democracy worldwide and I'm sure the UK won't escape it's effects"
Hey, I've been saying that for more than a year. I haven't heard many good arguments to the contrary.
The threat to democracy being that people might vote for policies and people you disapprove of?
No. Far from. If you note, I haven't commented saying that the American public got it wrong, or Trump cheated, or anything like that. I think the world's a more dangerous place,
The threat to democracy is multifold: one is that Musk is trying to control the narrative in a much more powerful way than classic media has been able for decades. He claims to be in favour of free speech; what he is really interested in is propagating his views to the masses.
Another is the way he was insinuating that the election was being fixed before the vote. As in January 6th, he and the MAGA greats are only interested in democracy if they are the winners. In that, they are very much like Putin.
Another is the way he highlights conspiracy theories that further his agenda; see the conversation this morning. Though I daresay you approve of that.
There are more, but I've stuff to do.
X simply isn't that powerful. I still believe the most powerful single medium in the country is the BBC News app push notification
Labour has long used American electoral advisors and the Conservatives Australian ones.
The LDs also use the Democrat's software.
Interesting article @Alanbrooke but the big difference is the election spending restrictions (although the Tories did increase the national limits, unreasonably in my opinion). But regardless of the recent increases they are still very low in comparison to the US, particularly at the local level.
As discussed yesterday Reform needs to learn, and more importantly be able to implement (which is a challenge), local campaigning techniques and for this they will need lots of local fit supporters, not lots of money (although a good dollop of that does help).
I think they are learning. Their literature presentation during the GE was good.
A very sensible objective, but doing it is far different from aspiring to do it. Unless you have the type of people that make up the activists in the LDs it just isn't possible. They could learn what to do, but doing it is another thing.
Alanbrooke's point - sauce for the goose - is quite correct. Does it matter? Does it matter if you substitute Russian interference for USA citizens helping Reform, or anyone else.
In a global internet age it is unavoidable anyway. So if it matters we are stuck with it.
I suggest it doesn't matter at all. Trump's victory on 5th November, which most UK people, including me, are fairly unsympathetic was marginal in votes but clear. What is not credible is that the 50%+ who voted Trump didn't know what they were doing because they had been bamboozled. They knew exactly what they were doing and thought it was the preferred option, with only two options available both of which would to most UK eyes be deeply sub optimal.
The question is not: Who is interfering? The question is whether the voters preponderantly know what they are doing when they vote. I suggest they do even, and especially, when liberals like me think they are wrong.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
I won't take the bet* as I don't know anything about it but would be interested in a neutral break down of the likely candidates if you or anyone else cares to make one.
* Yet, anyway. I don't mind being mugged for a charity bet necessarily, but I at least need to know if I'm being mugged
The thread suggests Farage has a chance of being PM. I doubt that very much... but let's hope not anyway.
That view is correct. The chance is fairly small but not nil. Possble route or routes can be identified. What he can't do as there is no route is be PM unless a very significant group of voters (34% is such a figure for Starmer) want him to be PM.
I was standing on the bridge in the Japanese Garden, at Batsford Arboretum a few weeks ago, imagining how much Lord Yabusighe would enjoy himself there, composing a Haiku which contrasted his inner tranquility with the screams of the barbarian being boiled alive.
I predict that Sue Gray will eventually return in an even more powerful role as Sue White.
Keir Starmer is planning to withdraw the offer to his former chief of staff Sue Gray of the post of nations and regions envoy amid concerns over what exactly the role would entail, the Guardian understands.
Sources said Gray, who is on a “short break” between roles after standing down almost six weeks ago, has been warned that the prime minister is likely to rescind the job offer before she has even taken it up.
Downing Street insiders are also believed to be concerned about the media attention that would follow Gray, which could make it more difficult for her to carry out the role effectively behind the scenes.
Are we back to Keir Starmer's problem with women? Sue Gray axed. Emily Thornberry axed. Angela Rayner axed till forced to un-axe the separately-elected deputy leader.
Well quite. But are there any non-twat bishops? There may be but I'm not aware of any. I think the chances of getting some brilliant and sparkling individuals into this particular role are limited.
I predict that Sue Gray will eventually return in an even more powerful role as Sue White.
Keir Starmer is planning to withdraw the offer to his former chief of staff Sue Gray of the post of nations and regions envoy amid concerns over what exactly the role would entail, the Guardian understands.
Sources said Gray, who is on a “short break” between roles after standing down almost six weeks ago, has been warned that the prime minister is likely to rescind the job offer before she has even taken it up.
Downing Street insiders are also believed to be concerned about the media attention that would follow Gray, which could make it more difficult for her to carry out the role effectively behind the scenes.
Are we back to Keir Starmer's problem with women? Sue Gray axed. Emily Thornberry axed. Angela Rayner axed till forced to un-axe the separately-elected deputy leader.
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
Thanks @Alanbrooke (for the last one too which I read but didn't have a chance to comment on).
Whilst I think the broad thrust (Republicans and Reform natural allies) is right, I suspect Trump won't be that interested.
Musk, perhaps. I think it's fair to say Twitter/X now sits alongside Putin as a threat to democracy worldwide and I'm sure the UK won't escape it's effects
"Musk, perhaps. I think it's fair to say Twitter/X now sits alongside Putin as a threat to democracy worldwide and I'm sure the UK won't escape it's effects"
Hey, I've been saying that for more than a year. I haven't heard many good arguments to the contrary.
The threat to democracy being that people might vote for policies and people you disapprove of?
No. Far from. If you note, I haven't commented saying that the American public got it wrong, or Trump cheated, or anything like that. I think the world's a more dangerous place,
The threat to democracy is multifold: one is that Musk is trying to control the narrative in a much more powerful way than classic media has been able for decades. He claims to be in favour of free speech; what he is really interested in is propagating his views to the masses.
Another is the way he was insinuating that the election was being fixed before the vote. As in January 6th, he and the MAGA greats are only interested in democracy if they are the winners. In that, they are very much like Putin.
Another is the way he highlights conspiracy theories that further his agenda; see the conversation this morning. Though I daresay you approve of that.
There are more, but I've stuff to do.
X simply isn't that powerful. I still believe the most powerful single medium in the country is the BBC News app push notification
In this country? Perhaps - though I'd like to see data behind that assertion.
In the US? I think you're wrong: and it's got the addition of Musk's legion of weirdo fans, who will excuse him everything and amplify his every thought everywhere without criticism.
I'd like to see the data too, to see if my suspicion is correct
There are two differences between the US and the UK that bear noting:
First, Trump's favorability rating is not great in the UK. And by not great, I mean really bad. And Reform's support base already contains most British Trump fans. So being seen to be supported by Donald Trump isn't necessarily something that would bring in a whole bunch of extra vote.
Two, the UK electoral system is much more fragmented than the US, and tactical voting is a big thing. If the supporters of other parties gang up against you, you can be in real trouble. Would Labour voters support a Conservative to get rid of a Reform MP? Well, I think the answer is "quite probably". In South Basildon and Thurrock, James McMurdock got less than 31% of the vote and has just a 98 vote majority. Even if the Reform national vote share was up five points, it wouldn't take much tactical voting for him to lose his seat. Of the Reform MPs, only Nigel Farage and (probably) Lee Anderson are really safe.
What this means, I think, is that Reform has a bit of a hill to climb to gain power. Not only do they need to gain share, they also need to avoid a situation where voters pick the party most likely to beat them.
More generally, the US right is already engaged in Europe.
The Koch-funded Atlas Network is also targeting Europe The influence of the Atlas Network – a web of libertarian and ultraconservative think tanks funded by billionaires such as the Kochs – has been well documented in the US, the UK, and more recently Argentina following the election of Javier Milei. Its growing presence in the EU has been less examined. https://multinationales.org/en/investigations/the-atlas-network-france-and-the-eu/
So UK electoral law will limit their efforts, but it's certainly not going to prevent their giving assistance.
On poppies, I was forced to wear one at school which I never felt right about. And people that opposed it were made to feel like they were disrespecting others.
I still feel a bit like that today at times. If people want to wear a poppy that’s up to them but people should not feel bad if they don’t.
On the trans stuff, I found little to disagree with about what was posted.
But I did have one question, if gender is not a helpful thing, when people think they are something else, what do we say they have? Are you saying we should invent a new description for this process?
I do think there are only two sexes. But genders is still something I am not sure about.
There are those who will say “actually she’s a man” and call them a man instead of a woman. To he honest they are sexually a man but I think getting what they want to be called on purpose is just rude. But equally people getting offended often on behalf of others for getting pronouns wrong are equally a problem.
I wonder if for services and so on, it would be best to have a trans category, is there any thought on this?
When I were a boy, we called them tomboys and cissies.
The thread suggests Farage has a chance of being PM. I doubt that very much... but let's hope not anyway.
I'd expect that the possibility of that happening would provoke quite a vigorous counter-reaction, in a way that hasn't - surprisingly, given Jan 6th and the rest - come about in the US.
Government media operation getting a bit better, waits until the moment Bishop gets bashed to announce Sue Gray is off.
Welby couldn't survive after that CH4 interview, it was Prince Andrew level car crash. Several times in an answer to a question, stating well I didn't do x, only for Cathy Newman to say well here is the evidence to say the opposite.
His reputation would be so much higher if he had just resigned when the report came out and the pressure started.
Now his legacy will be stained.
How can intelligent people make such mistakes: as he did in the first place, and then not just doing the honourable thing?
That's sinful human nature for you. We all tend to mentally minimise the bad things we do, we all tend to maximise our importance to the institution. And things always look different in the bunker (or the crypt in this case). When he said last week that he considered resigning then, and took advice from senior colleagues, I believe him. It's just that it was terrible advice.
At its best, the church is built on that insight- we're all inclined to degrees of rubbishness and moral cowardice, and doing the right thing requires courage and effort. But that doesn't make the failures any better.
Alanbrooke's point - sauce for the goose - is quite correct. Does it matter? Does it matter if you substitute Russian interference for USA citizens helping Reform, or anyone else.
In a global internet age it is unavoidable anyway. So if it matters we are stuck with it.
I suggest it doesn't matter at all. Trump's victory on 5th November, which most UK people, including me, are fairly unsympathetic was marginal in votes but clear. What is not credible is that the 50%+ who voted Trump didn't know what they were doing because they had been bamboozled. They knew exactly what they were doing and thought it was the preferred option, with only two options available both of which would to most UK eyes be deeply sub optimal.
The question is not: Who is interfering? The question is whether the voters preponderantly know what they are doing when they vote. I suggest they do even, and especially, when liberals like me think they are wrong.
I think it does matter.
US politics is funded to an extent which makes it a very different beast to what we have here. While electoral law limits what they can do directly, there are plenty of think tanks and 'foundations' which could interfere with our politics, in a manner which the visit of a few irritating Brits for a couple of weeks at election time doesn't even begin to resemble.
The "sauce for the goose" stuff suggests some kind of equivalence, which is quite misleading, IMO.
His reputation would be so much higher if he had just resigned when the report came out and the pressure started.
Now his legacy will be stained.
How can intelligent people make such mistakes: as he did in the first place, and then not just doing the honourable thing?
You have to remember that the contents of the report will not have been news to him, and so will not have come as the shock as it did to people reading about it for the first time.
So he's had years of excusing his failures to himself, or else he would never have taken up the post in the first place. It takes time for people to change their mind, and even longer about themselves.
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
Alanbrooke's point - sauce for the goose - is quite correct. Does it matter? Does it matter if you substitute Russian interference for USA citizens helping Reform, or anyone else.
In a global internet age it is unavoidable anyway. So if it matters we are stuck with it.
I suggest it doesn't matter at all. Trump's victory on 5th November, which most UK people, including me, are fairly unsympathetic was marginal in votes but clear. What is not credible is that the 50%+ who voted Trump didn't know what they were doing because they had been bamboozled. They knew exactly what they were doing and thought it was the preferred option, with only two options available both of which would to most UK eyes be deeply sub optimal.
The question is not: Who is interfering? The question is whether the voters preponderantly know what they are doing when they vote. I suggest they do even, and especially, when liberals like me think they are wrong.
I think it does matter.
US politics is funded to an extent which makes it a very different beast to what we have here. While electoral law limits what they can do directly, there are plenty of think tanks and 'foundations' which could interfere with our politics, in a manner which the visit of a few irritating Brits for a couple of weeks at election time doesn't even begin to resemble.
The "sauce for the goose" stuff suggests some kind of equivalence, which is quite misleading, IMO.
It's not "could interfere", it's "do interfere". For reference, the BBC documentary last night about immigration in which Sir Andrew Green was platformed without any challenge or gentle questioning about who funds his "independent body" (which absolutely refuses to disclose its funding) which has poisoned the discourse over UK migration and the EU for the last 20 odd years.
I've subscribed to her channel because her other videos are great too. The joys of gardening leave and nap time!
That's very American - all that rising inflection, music, stop-go jokes, likes and whatevers - but she makes the point well: Democrats are really struggling to treat men with respect as individuals.
"Trump gained support from every racial group except white people, where he lost one percentage point when compared to 2020. You're going to chalk that up to racism?"
Government media operation getting a bit better, waits until the moment Bishop gets bashed to announce Sue Gray is off.
Welby couldn't survive after that CH4 interview, it was Prince Andrew level car crash. Several times in an answer to a question, stating well I didn't do x, only for Cathy Newman to say well here is the evidence to say the opposite.
You have to understand that he “meant and emoted” doing the right thing, not that he actually *did* the right thing
It’s homeopathic decision making.
And it’s very rude to suggest that just because he didn’t do X, he didn’t do X.
I've subscribed to her channel because her other videos are great too. The joys of gardening leave and nap time!
That's very American - all that rising inflection, music, stop-go jokes, likes and whatevers - but she makes the point well: Democrats are really struggling to treat men with respect as individuals.
Yes, it's very American in it's presentation but it was a US election after all. She makes a brilliant point that the party offering nothing for men lost men's votes and people shouldn't be acting shocked that the party who kept incessantly telling men that "the future is female" got abandoned.
What makes the video a step above everyone else, though, is that she uploaded it before the election and was willing to put her head above the parapet with an opinion that the left in the US doesn't want to hear.
Likelihood is they replace him with somebody even more in that mould.
He's not in that mould - ex-HTB, guided in his vocation by Windy Millar, and the down the line transgender lobby have been as cross about him as the Telegrunt.
If you think that, you are going to run out of language when the next one is from the Anglo-Catholic / Liberal Anglo-Catholic wing.
Shell has won an appeal against a major climate ruling ordering the oil supermajor to slash its carbon emissions.
A Court of Appeal in The Hague overturned a May 2021 ruling demanding Shell cut its CO2 emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 from 2019 levels, instead of the 20 per cent reduction planned by the firm.
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
I suspect Musk has a very good idea what the cause can do for him, in money terms.
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
I suspect Musk has a very good idea what the cause can do for him, in money terms.
So he's being strategic rather than transactional? Smart guy.
I've subscribed to her channel because her other videos are great too. The joys of gardening leave and nap time!
That's very American - all that rising inflection, music, stop-go jokes, likes and whatevers - but she makes the point well: Democrats are really struggling to treat men with respect as individuals.
Yes, it's very American in it's presentation but it was a US election after all. She makes a brilliant point that the party offering nothing for men lost men's votes and people shouldn't be acting shocked that the party who kept incessantly telling men that "the future is female" got abandoned.
What makes the video a step above everyone else, though, is that she uploaded it before the election and was willing to put her head above the parapet with an opinion that the left in the US doesn't want to hear.
If you are selling Identity Politics, being surprised by the Out Groups not voting for you is really something.
First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.
Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.
I cannot even blame auto-correct.
Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?
Yes, but they love me.
Erroneously....
Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?
If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.
Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.
Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.
The average is very low according to the average person...
I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?
(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)
In both cases people in the lowest decile are the most noticeable and so skews perception of the average downwards.
People cite that result as an example of people having inflated opinions of themselves, but I think it's the other way round - they have too low an opinion of everyone else.
If people notice driving in the lowest decile of ability, and judge that the average is only a little above that level - say at the 20th percentile of the true distribution - then if they have an accurate perception of their own driving ability in relation to that point, you will accurately have 80% of people judging that they have above average driving ability.
The outcome is the same, but the source of the error is subtly different with what I think are important consequences. It's the same sort of effect as seen in the polling questions about how positive people are about the economic prospects for the country/their family.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
Hmm, the C of E is not the same thing as the Episcopalian or Anglican Communion, much as some folk would like to claim otherwise. Worth being sure both of you know what you [edit] want to bet for. [Edit: it mightg be the modern equivalent of the Bishop of Colenso who gets the gig.]
First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.
Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.
I cannot even blame auto-correct.
Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?
Yes, but they love me.
Erroneously....
Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?
If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.
Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.
Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.
The average is very low according to the average person...
I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?
(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)
I've never done an IQ test. Does that make me smart, stupid or just lazy?
Too clever to be bothered with such trivialities, I would think.
[Declaration of interest: I've not done one either]
My first IQ-style test was done at primary school. I can't remember if it was technically an IQ test, but we were given a score and told the average was 100. Again, I cannot remember my score.
First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.
Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.
I cannot even blame auto-correct.
Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?
Yes, but they love me.
Erroneously....
Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?
If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.
Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.
Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.
The average is very low according to the average person...
I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?
(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)
I've never done an IQ test. Does that make me smart, stupid or just lazy?
You sure you didn't get slipped one at school? Plus: to some folk, not doing one would make you just plain nonexistent. Or so one would guess from the way they talk about IQs and their genetic constituent.
Sky Sports Premier League @SkySportsPL David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester. From skysports.com 11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.
France to deliver 600 AASM bombs to 🇺🇦Ukraine before the end of 2024. It is also planned to increase the production of these aerial bombs in 2025 to 1200 units both for the needs of Ukraine and for the needs of France https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1856267379497443769
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.
Tesla's share price nearly a dollar since the election. This is nothing to do with the quality of their cars, or their solar offerings. It is to do with the fact Musk now has a certain amount of influence or control within the incoming US government.
Musk is now considerably richer than he was a week ago. And the world is a much more dangerous place.
First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.
Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.
I cannot even blame auto-correct.
Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?
Yes, but they love me.
Erroneously....
Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?
If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.
Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.
Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.
The average is very low according to the average person...
I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?
(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)
I've never done an IQ test. Does that make me smart, stupid or just lazy?
You sure you didn't get slipped one at school? Plus: to some folk, not doing one would make you just plain nonexistent. Or so one would guess from the way they talk about IQs and their genetic constituent.
I don't think so. I don't remember ever doing anything that looked like (what I think) an IQ test looks like. Although, to be fair, my idea of what an IQ test looks like is from snippets I've seen online.
It is a problem, to be sure. How can I judge myself and my relative value in society?
First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.
Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.
I cannot even blame auto-correct.
Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?
Yes, but they love me.
Erroneously....
Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?
If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.
Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.
Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.
The average is very low according to the average person...
I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?
(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)
I've never done an IQ test. Does that make me smart, stupid or just lazy?
I did 3 or 4 in the late 80s as part of of job interviews when I wanted to move on. We weren't told the scores but as I accepted one of the jobs and later did interviewing I knew what the minimum score I got was, unless they employed me out of pity.
First day back at work in twelve days and a chat with HR is looming all because of a typo.
Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.
I cannot even blame auto-correct.
Would it be reasonable to assume you know the HR staff very well?
Yes, but they love me.
Erroneously....
Would it shock you to learn that I manage a team of 26, 18 of whom are females?
If you've been responsible for recruitment into your team... that doesn't shock me at all.
Nearly half of them used to work for me elsewhere but decided they wanted to work for me again.
Half the population has under-average IQ, so that'd explain it.
The average is very low according to the average person...
I wonder if IQ goes like driving skills - 80% convinced they (we) are above average?
(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago .)
I've never done an IQ test. Does that make me smart, stupid or just lazy?
You sure you didn't get slipped one at school? Plus: to some folk, not doing one would make you just plain nonexistent. Or so one would guess from the way they talk about IQs and their genetic constituent.
I don't think so. I don't remember ever doing anything that looked like (what I think) an IQ test looks like. Although, to be fair, my idea of what an IQ test looks like is from snippets I've seen online.
It is a problem, to be sure. How can I judge myself and my relative value in society?
Comments
I would have thought the Supreme Governor of the Church of England would have sacked Welby but KCIII has some bad history when it comes to dealing with child abusers.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s position is becoming increasingly untenable after Sir Keir Starmer piled on pressure for him to resign.
The Prime Minister said that victims of a historic abuse scandal had been let down “very, very badly”, after an independent review found that the Most Rev Justin Welby had failed to act on their behalf.
The archbishop is also facing a growing rebellion from his own bishops, The Telegraph can disclose.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/12/kings-college-cambridge-dean-archbishop-canterbury-resign/
Financial Conduct Authority says the lender failed to scrutinise transactions worth £51bn over four years
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/metro-bank-fined-167m-for-failure-to-monitor-possible-money-laundering-kr7dqqgq8
Guardian take on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/12/metro-bank-fined-potential-money-laundering-fca
Wanted to use the word erroneous but somehow the word erogenous appeared.
I cannot even blame auto-correct.
In a global internet age it is unavoidable anyway. So if it matters we are stuck with it.
I suggest it doesn't matter at all. Trump's victory on 5th November, which most UK people, including me, are fairly unsympathetic was marginal in votes but clear. What is not credible is that the 50%+ who voted Trump didn't know what they were doing because they had been bamboozled. They knew exactly what they were doing and thought it was the preferred option, with only two options available both of which would to most UK eyes be deeply sub optimal.
The question is not: Who is interfering? The question is whether the voters preponderantly know what they are doing when they vote. I suggest they do even, and especially, when liberals like me think they are wrong.
* Yet, anyway. I don't mind being mugged for a charity bet necessarily, but I at least need to know if I'm being mugged
Edit: Now on BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cj505ygdp17t
TSESheldon called into HR.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKva71Y0H8A
I was standing on the bridge in the Japanese Garden, at Batsford Arboretum a few weeks ago, imagining how much Lord Yabusighe would enjoy himself there, composing a Haiku which contrasted his inner tranquility with the screams of the barbarian being boiled alive.
Now his legacy will be stained.
How can intelligent people make such mistakes: as he did in the first place, and then not just doing the honourable thing?
There actually seem to be proportionately more X users here than in the US: https://www.searchlogistics.com/learn/statistics/twitter-user-statistics/
"My GF has left me", "I'm Hispanic and my workmates want me deported" etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz8ibLQaoo
First, Trump's favorability rating is not great in the UK. And by not great, I mean really bad. And Reform's support base already contains most British Trump fans. So being seen to be supported by Donald Trump isn't necessarily something that would bring in a whole bunch of extra vote.
Two, the UK electoral system is much more fragmented than the US, and tactical voting is a big thing. If the supporters of other parties gang up against you, you can be in real trouble. Would Labour voters support a Conservative to get rid of a Reform MP? Well, I think the answer is "quite probably". In South Basildon and Thurrock, James McMurdock got less than 31% of the vote and has just a 98 vote majority. Even if the Reform national vote share was up five points, it wouldn't take much tactical voting for him to lose his seat. Of the Reform MPs, only Nigel Farage and (probably) Lee Anderson are really safe.
What this means, I think, is that Reform has a bit of a hill to climb to gain power. Not only do they need to gain share, they also need to avoid a situation where voters pick the party most likely to beat them.
There's been a certain investment in Farage, as this suggests.
Farage given free team of US PR advisers by former Bannon aide’s firm
Reform UK leader received support for his American activities after becoming an MP but has not declared the services as a benefit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/17/farage-given-free-team-of-us-pr-advisers-by-former-bannon-aides-firm
And Bannon has previous form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Movement_(right-wing_populist_group)
More generally, the US right is already engaged in Europe.
The Koch-funded Atlas Network is also targeting Europe
The influence of the Atlas Network – a web of libertarian and ultraconservative think tanks funded by billionaires such as the Kochs – has been well documented in the US, the UK, and more recently Argentina following the election of Javier Milei. Its growing presence in the EU has been less examined.
https://multinationales.org/en/investigations/the-atlas-network-france-and-the-eu/
So UK electoral law will limit their efforts, but it's certainly not going to prevent their giving assistance.
How are we defining "woman"?
Welby couldn't survive after that CH4 interview, it was Prince Andrew level car crash. Several times in an answer to a question, stating well I didn't do x, only for Cathy Newman to say well here is the evidence to say the opposite.
At its best, the church is built on that insight- we're all inclined to degrees of rubbishness and moral cowardice, and doing the right thing requires courage and effort. But that doesn't make the failures any better.
US politics is funded to an extent which makes it a very different beast to what we have here.
While electoral law limits what they can do directly, there are plenty of think tanks and 'foundations' which could interfere with our politics, in a manner which the visit of a few irritating Brits for a couple of weeks at election time doesn't even begin to resemble.
The "sauce for the goose" stuff suggests some kind of equivalence, which is quite misleading, IMO.
So he's had years of excusing his failures to himself, or else he would never have taken up the post in the first place. It takes time for people to change their mind, and even longer about themselves.
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
https://samharris.substack.com/p/the-reckoning
Add your terms !
It’s homeopathic decision making.
And it’s very rude to suggest that just because he didn’t do X, he didn’t do X.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/12/ftse-100-markets-latest-news-uk-wages-reeves-trump-crypto/
What makes the video a step above everyone else, though, is that she uploaded it before the election and was willing to put her head above the parapet with an opinion that the left in the US doesn't want to hear.
If you think that, you are going to run out of language when the next one is from the Anglo-Catholic / Liberal Anglo-Catholic wing.
You cared enough to comment.
You don't seem over it. Never mind.
The useless Harris cost me £20
Shell has won an appeal against a major climate ruling ordering the oil supermajor to slash its carbon emissions.
A Court of Appeal in The Hague overturned a May 2021 ruling demanding Shell cut its CO2 emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 from 2019 levels, instead of the 20 per cent reduction planned by the firm.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/shell-wins-appeal-against-landmark-court-ruling-on-emissions-cuts/ar-AA1tWFDL?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=4a5dc73abc46441e8a0a9a782b0bb6b6&ei=12
{Diogenes has entered the chat, carrying plucked chicken}
And isn’t this site about commenting ! As for over it , yes it was very disappointing but not a shock given the polls .
(Me: about 150 last time I did an IQ test, which was some time ago
(Though memory != IQ)
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/1856274157429837862
People cite that result as an example of people having inflated opinions of themselves, but I think it's the other way round - they have too low an opinion of everyone else.
If people notice driving in the lowest decile of ability, and judge that the average is only a little above that level - say at the 20th percentile of the true distribution - then if they have an accurate perception of their own driving ability in relation to that point, you will accurately have 80% of people judging that they have above average driving ability.
The outcome is the same, but the source of the error is subtly different with what I think are important consequences. It's the same sort of effect as seen in the polling questions about how positive people are about the economic prospects for the country/their family.
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
[Declaration of interest: I've not done one either]
https://news.sky.com/story/man-arrested-after-reports-of-person-carrying-knives-outside-houses-of-parliament-13253184
https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1329205998989565952
Sky Sports Premier League
@SkySportsPL
David Coote will no longer be the video assistant referee for Sunday's Premier League game between Liverpool and leaders Leicester.
From skysports.com
11:33 PM · Nov 18, 2020
Retired Taiwanese air defense batteries could represent nearly a third of Ukraine’s shield against Russian aerial attacks.
https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1856313539155374431
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1856267379497443769
Musk is now considerably richer than he was a week ago. And the world is a much more dangerous place.
It is a problem, to be sure. How can I judge myself and my relative value in society?
"A supernatural being others are unable to see told me to do it"