Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Ukraine matters – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,359
edited March 8 in General
Ukraine matters – politicalbetting.com

How important to Britain’s national interest, if at all, do you think the outcome of the war in Ukraine is?Very important: 37%Fairly important: 37%Not very important: 9%Not at all important: 4%yougov.co.uk/topics/polit…

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 29,399

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    The problem is Russia isn't likely to stop with Ukraine and everytime we tried to increase our support to Ukraine Putin has gone - don't these Nukes look great, we might use them...
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,569
    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,999

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Peace within Europe is important to Europeans.

    Peace within Africa not so important to Africans. There the "Big Man" can take what he wants - wealth, women, land, power without votes.

    I think we are right to be worried about a Big Man threatening what we hold dear.

    Or should hold dear, you Reform traitors.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,838
    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    Grok is good, and there's no denying it. The problem is that, while Grok is good, so is OpenAI, Deepseek, Anthropic and LLaMa.
  • rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    I'm genuinely agog at the length of the gap between the end of production of the old Model Y and the start of deliveries of the new Model Y.

    Supposedly Tesla have vast numbers of unsold cars that nobody wants. In reality they've sold everything they could make which leaves them with a gap of over 5 months on the Y

    I have no doubt at all that Musk's anticsd are depressing sales. But at the same time a 5 month availability gap on the best selling car in the world for the last 2 years running is going to make the numbers look really sick for the whole of H1
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,339
    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    His investors are sovereigns who benefit from America’s diminished status

    Think of it like better for the party you want to lose an election
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,290
    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    He sold twice as many Teslas to China as all of Europe last year - how much will his investors care about a drop in sales in one of the sleepier backwaters of the globe?
  • rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    His investors are sovereigns who benefit from America’s diminished status

    Think of it like better for the party you want to lose an election
    The valuation of the company is based on future tech - not building cars. The Big Bet is that future vehicles will be automated and AI. So Tesla have gone all in on automation and now all in on AI. Not sure that I agree, but that's the rationale behind the crazy market valuation.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,249
    In terms of its leaders’ outlook, Russia has not altered much since the time of the Mongols. The House of Rurik stressed its descent from Genghis Khan.

    Russia is always a threat to its neighbours.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,303
    Sean_F said:

    In terms of its leaders’ outlook, Russia has not altered much since the time of the Mongols. The House of Rurik stressed its descent from Genghis Khan.

    Russia is always a threat to its neighbours.

    Aye. While Europe went through feudalism then enlightenment and democracy, Russia's leadership was based on the Mongol approach of oppressing the underclass and extracting tribute. It's why mechanisation of agriculture and the end of serfdom took so much longer in Russia.
  • Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,001
    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    Grok is good, and there's no denying it. The problem is that, while Grok is good, so is OpenAI, Deepseek, Anthropic and LLaMa.
    And Grok had rules preventing certain criticisms of Musk. 'Free speech' and all that. ;)
    https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-xai-grok-misinformation-b2703388.html

    That is one good reason we need not just one AI system, but several, run by competing organisations...
  • boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,243

    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    His investors are sovereigns who benefit from America’s diminished status

    Think of it like better for the party you want to lose an election
    The valuation of the company is based on future tech - not building cars. The Big Bet is that future vehicles will be automated and AI. So Tesla have gone all in on automation and now all in on AI. Not sure that I agree, but that's the rationale behind the crazy market valuation.
    The valuation of Tesla follows similar financial principles as the valuation of bitcoin. Pluck a number from thin air and hope the next number is higher.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,001
    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    I have no idea who this Zemelensky chap I referred to is but I couldn’t edit. I also quite like the cut of his Jib, maybe he will stand against Zelensky one day.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    Grok is good, and there's no denying it. The problem is that, while Grok is good, so is OpenAI, Deepseek, Anthropic and LLaMa.
    And that is a feature, not a problem, for everyone not actually financially involved in one of these companies.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,081
    theProle said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    He sold twice as many Teslas to China as all of Europe last year - how much will his investors care about a drop in sales in one of the sleepier backwaters of the globe?
    @Reuters

    Tesla made a long-awaited update to its autopilot software in China to add a city navigation feature, but the move disappointed Chinese owners who said it fell short of Elon Musk's promises

    https://x.com/Reuters/status/1894274903215374703
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Nobody knows.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,569

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Waymo are miles and miles ahead of tesla on self driving
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,569
    theProle said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Tesla sales down 45% in Europe... twitter cratering and banks writing down their loans... his latest Grok model cost a fortune and still no better than competitors.... when are investors going to sour on Musk?

    He sold twice as many Teslas to China as all of Europe last year - how much will his investors care about a drop in sales in one of the sleepier backwaters of the globe?
    His China market share is also falling - he can't compete with Chinese companies in China.
    In US Dems are 3x more likely to buy an electric vehicle than Republicans - he's alienated most of his market. Tesla's valuation has always been crazy, but I think we may soon be at the point it all unravels.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,099
    edited February 25

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, pop-up roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    rkrkrk said:

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Waymo are miles and miles ahead of tesla on self driving
    Not if you believe the hype from the Muskovite shills.

    But Tesla has failed to deliver what is has promised time and time again. Worse, hardware that was absolutely promised to be able to do FSD cannot, meaning cars need to be updated - without knowing if the new hardware can do it.

    The Robotaxis shite has been promised by Musk before. In 2019 he promised them for 2020. If you cannot get your timescales right less than a year out...

    https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32159871/tesla-robo-taxis-still-coming-2020/

    These claims are nothing more than attempts to ramp the share price.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,786
    edited February 25

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Good morning

    Trump seemed confident of the deal though I do not trust a thing he says, but late last night a report on Sky from their Moscow correspondent on a speech Putin was making at the same time as the Trump - Macron meeting where Putin announced that he was in talks with Trump over a deal for the sale of Russian minerals to him and that a deal for the US - Russia and China to cut spending on defence by 50% [yes 50%] was in discussion

    How fast everything has changed and uncertainty abounds
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    rkrkrk said:

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Waymo are miles and miles ahead of tesla on self driving
    Best self-driving cars in 2025. Note these are cars you can buy, so not including taxis such as Waymo. Tesla are #3

    https://heycar.com/uk/guides/best-self-driving-cars

    Or top-10 autonomous vehicles from last year:
    https://evmagazine.com/top10/top-10-autonomous-vehicles
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,664
    Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).

    There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.

    Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.

    The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    There are two approaches to this: improve driver aids step-by-step to the extent that they slowly need fewer driver interactions, until you get full autonomy. A cautious, iterative approach. The other is to try to go for full autonomy from the outset, with driver only there as a safety aid.

    The traditional car manufacturers have generally gone for the former; the disrupters (e.g. Waymo) the latter.

    Tesla have done the former, but claim the latter. Because Musk is a liar.
  • Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,556
    Sean_F said:

    In terms of its leaders’ outlook, Russia has not altered much since the time of the Mongols. The House of Rurik stressed its descent from Genghis Khan.

    Russia is always a threat to its neighbours.

    Might have been different.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    " but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory."

    I claim b/s on that. And you are invested in ramping Tesla.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
  • Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People die, it's not the end of the world.

    People need to get over zero deaths bullshit. It was bad during Covid, it's insane now.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    You can’t willing give things away and then 3 years later say can you pay for the all the presents I’ve given you.
  • Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    " but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory."

    I claim b/s on that. And you are invested in ramping Tesla.
    I own zero shares in Tesla. I upset fanbois on my channel by calling out some of the crap. Next Friday's video slags off FSD in Europe with a "do not buy this" review" I'm what according to you?

    Watch the videos of FSD. It has made significant strides forward. Completely hands and feet off navigation from point to point by touching the start button. Through parking garages. City streets. Freeways. Snow-covered back lanes in the dark. Moving around construction crews and extracting itself from blocked in parking spots. This is what the more recent updates have delivered - even on the older hardware 3 vehicles like my own Model Y.

    Yes, the vehicles aren't completely fault free. But neither are Waymo. But it's coming.
  • eek said:

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    You can’t willing give things away and then 3 years later say can you pay for the all the presents I’ve given you.
    You've never been married then...
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    There are two approaches to this: improve driver aids step-by-step to the extent that they slowly need fewer driver interactions, until you get full autonomy. A cautious, iterative approach. The other is to try to go for full autonomy from the outset, with driver only there as a safety aid.

    The traditional car manufacturers have generally gone for the former; the disrupters (e.g. Waymo) the latter.

    Tesla have done the former, but claim the latter. Because Musk is a liar.
    Tesla is having to do the latter because they are failing to do the former - if they were you would hear owners excitedly talking about the latest version of the driving assistance software.

    Basically Tesla’s self driving is looking more and more like vapourware thanks to bad design choices
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    There are two approaches to this: improve driver aids step-by-step to the extent that they slowly need fewer driver interactions, until you get full autonomy. A cautious, iterative approach. The other is to try to go for full autonomy from the outset, with driver only there as a safety aid.

    The traditional car manufacturers have generally gone for the former; the disrupters (e.g. Waymo) the latter.

    Tesla have done the former, but claim the latter. Because Musk is a liar.
    The real question for Waymo is how much intervention from the remote operators is required.

    Their system is based around the operators dealing with outliers. The outlying cases were then supposed to feed into better software, so that over time, the operators would have to make fewer and fewer interventions. And the interventions would be at a higher level - rather than manually steering the car out if the issue, selecting an option of what to tell the car to do.

    They claim that the interventions are low and still falling. The truth of the level of intervention is the key here.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    " but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory."

    I claim b/s on that. And you are invested in ramping Tesla.
    I own zero shares in Tesla. I upset fanbois on my channel by calling out some of the crap. Next Friday's video slags off FSD in Europe with a "do not buy this" review" I'm what according to you?

    Watch the videos of FSD. It has made significant strides forward. Completely hands and feet off navigation from point to point by touching the start button. Through parking garages. City streets. Freeways. Snow-covered back lanes in the dark. Moving around construction crews and extracting itself from blocked in parking spots. This is what the more recent updates have delivered - even on the older hardware 3 vehicles like my own Model Y.

    Yes, the vehicles aren't completely fault free. But neither are Waymo. But it's coming.
    What's your channel called again? ;)

    "Watch the videos of FSD."

    Yes. Many of which appear to be somewhat (ahem) carefully curated. I might suggest you look at the videos of FSD *failing*...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,216

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People die, it's not the end of the world.
    For those involved, it is.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,216
    Paging Elon.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y0g2gnjrqo
    At the urology department of Burnley General Hospital, 26-year-old Ryan (not his real name) is having a drug solution inserted through a catheter - part of his treatment for a condition known as ketamine bladder. This procedure will not completely reverse the damage inflicted by Ryan's previous addiction to the Class B drug, but it will help him manage the symptoms.
    Ketamine, a powerful horse tranquiliser and anaesthetic, is a licensed drug and can be prescribed medically. However, when misused, it can cause serious and sometimes permanent damage to the bladder. The hospital is watching Ryan for signs of kidney failure, too. He worries about finding a girlfriend and having children. But he is stoical when he talks about passing blood and having to urinate numerous times a day.
    "You could not be a ketamine addict for 30 years, 20 years," he says. "You'd die."
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,929

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Good morning

    Trump seemed confident of the deal though I do not trust a thing he says, but late last night a report on Sky from their Moscow correspondent on a speech Putin was making at the same time as the Trump - Macron meeting where Putin announced that he was in talks with Trump over a deal for the sale of Russian minerals to him and that a deal for the US - Russia and China to cut spending on defence by 50% [yes 50%] was in discussion

    How fast everything has changed and uncertainty abounds
    50% cut? As Russia is now a fully-geared up war economy that would take some managing.

    And the US military-industrial-complex is one powerful lobby.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,973
    Yer carnt even make public threats to assassinate the PM any more.

    https://x.com/reformexposed/status/1894074172613030259?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

  • Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    " but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory."

    I claim b/s on that. And you are invested in ramping Tesla.
    I own zero shares in Tesla. I upset fanbois on my channel by calling out some of the crap. Next Friday's video slags off FSD in Europe with a "do not buy this" review" I'm what according to you?

    Watch the videos of FSD. It has made significant strides forward. Completely hands and feet off navigation from point to point by touching the start button. Through parking garages. City streets. Freeways. Snow-covered back lanes in the dark. Moving around construction crews and extracting itself from blocked in parking spots. This is what the more recent updates have delivered - even on the older hardware 3 vehicles like my own Model Y.

    Yes, the vehicles aren't completely fault free. But neither are Waymo. But it's coming.
    What's your channel called again? ;)

    "Watch the videos of FSD."

    Yes. Many of which appear to be somewhat (ahem) carefully curated. I might suggest you look at the videos of FSD *failing*...
    Did I not say they are not completely fault free? But what they are doing is improving significantly and quickly. Curated? So they're fake? Or edited? When they post the entire trip video with no edits?

    As I said, I am skeptical about automation. But it's coming. The challenge is going to be when one of these automated vehicles is involved in a horrible mess and get legally instructed to shut the service down. In the litigious US that is also coming...
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,487
    edited February 25

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    edited February 25

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    " but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory."

    I claim b/s on that. And you are invested in ramping Tesla.
    I own zero shares in Tesla. I upset fanbois on my channel by calling out some of the crap. Next Friday's video slags off FSD in Europe with a "do not buy this" review" I'm what according to you?

    Watch the videos of FSD. It has made significant strides forward. Completely hands and feet off navigation from point to point by touching the start button. Through parking garages. City streets. Freeways. Snow-covered back lanes in the dark. Moving around construction crews and extracting itself from blocked in parking spots. This is what the more recent updates have delivered - even on the older hardware 3 vehicles like my own Model Y.

    Yes, the vehicles aren't completely fault free. But neither are Waymo. But it's coming.
    What's your channel called again? ;)

    "Watch the videos of FSD."

    Yes. Many of which appear to be somewhat (ahem) carefully curated. I might suggest you look at the videos of FSD *failing*...
    Did I not say they are not completely fault free? But what they are doing is improving significantly and quickly. Curated? So they're fake? Or edited? When they post the entire trip video with no edits?

    As I said, I am skeptical about automation. But it's coming. The challenge is going to be when one of these automated vehicles is involved in a horrible mess and get legally instructed to shut the service down. In the litigious US that is also coming...
    Yes, many are edited or curated. As for it being the whole trip: if you get an error, do the trip again.

    I'm not denying automation *may* come. What I'm arguing about is that the implementations we have at the moment are all very limited. Egregiously so in the case of Tesla, given their lies over the years.

    And that's the issue. Musk and Tesla's lies. That is what they are. Lies.

    Witness the Robotaxi shite I showed earlier from 2019. And there is much, much more.

    Edit: why do no other mainstream manufacturers with *better* systems need to lie like that? Why don't they need a bunch of Elon stans hyping up every breath their hero makes?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,737
    edited February 25
    Good morning everyone.

    A slightly perverse header, with its reference to Orville.

    Thought 1 - How kind of @TSE to pick up my Orville reference.

    Thought 2 - Has this gone before. The earliest I could find was by @SimonStClare to Orville being incinerated by Australians, like Joan of Arc, in a conversation about the famous Alex-Salmond-showing-his-jockstrap mannequin sacrificed at Lewes:

    I think in Perth, they once burnt Orville the Duck. – Where was the outrage then..? *
    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/459753/#Comment_459753

    It becomes problematic, because the algorithm confuses "Orville" with the end of "Torvill", so it runs into references to Ed Milliband being like Torvill and Dean.

    Thought 3 - Nonny-Nonny-Nigel in a Pampers advert, complete with pipe.

    At his point I gave up, revolted, and went in search of a boiled hegg.
    ------------------------

    * That same exchange contains @Andy_JS being ... @AndyJS :

    AndyJS said:
    Sussex police are investigating whether a crime has been committed with the burning of an Alex Salmond effigy in Lewes.

    They didn't burn it.

    http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/boom-lewes-did-blow-up-an-alex-salmond-effigy-1.668480

  • FossFoss Posts: 1,301
    edited February 25
    Nigelb said:

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People die, it's not the end of the world.
    For those involved, it is.
    Surely that would be an ecumenical matter?

    More seriously, we're starting to get papers that suggest that Waymo cars are, in the same operating environment, causing less damage than regular drivers.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
    Long, long term that’s the answer but short term how do you get there while human drivers are still on the road and who pays for the insurance when the software goes wrong
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    Foss said:

    Nigelb said:

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People die, it's not the end of the world.
    For those involved, it is.
    Surely that would be an ecumenical matter?

    More seriously, we're starting to get papers that suggest that Waymo cars are, in the same operating environment, causing less damage than regular drivers.
    I hope the papers compare like-with-like though. The same type of journies with the same age of car. Otherwise they can be pretty meaningless - a bit like comparing accidents per mile on motorways and rural roads.

    I really want autonomous cars. It'd be blooming useful.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,199

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.

    Why are we there?

    At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America:
    1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals
    2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals
    3. Makes peace with Russia
    4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions

    I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,507

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    There are two approaches to this: improve driver aids step-by-step to the extent that they slowly need fewer driver interactions, until you get full autonomy. A cautious, iterative approach. The other is to try to go for full autonomy from the outset, with driver only there as a safety aid.

    The traditional car manufacturers have generally gone for the former; the disrupters (e.g. Waymo) the latter.

    Tesla have done the former, but claim the latter. Because Musk is a liar.
    The real question for Waymo is how much intervention from the remote operators is required.

    Their system is based around the operators dealing with outliers. The outlying cases were then supposed to feed into better software, so that over time, the operators would have to make fewer and fewer interventions. And the interventions would be at a higher level - rather than manually steering the car out if the issue, selecting an option of what to tell the car to do.

    They claim that the interventions are low and still falling. The truth of the level of intervention is the key here.
    Also, the Waymo approach requires mm-level accurate mapping of the city roads I believe. Which is why they haven’t rolled it out to more than a single digit number of cities - carrying out the mapping (and keeping it up to date) is expensive.

    Self driving in general seems to have been stuck in the “deeply impressive, but not actually /there/ yet” pit of doom for years at this point.
  • boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Good morning

    Trump seemed confident of the deal though I do not trust a thing he says, but late last night a report on Sky from their Moscow correspondent on a speech Putin was making at the same time as the Trump - Macron meeting where Putin announced that he was in talks with Trump over a deal for the sale of Russian minerals to him and that a deal for the US - Russia and China to cut spending on defence by 50% [yes 50%] was in discussion

    How fast everything has changed and uncertainty abounds
    50% cut? As Russia is now a fully-geared up war economy that would take some managing.

    And the US military-industrial-complex is one powerful lobby.
    That is why I repeated it - seemed surreal
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,911

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.

    Why are we there?

    At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America:
    1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals
    2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals
    3. Makes peace with Russia
    4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions

    I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
    But at least our politicians can pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves on their virtue and burnish their haloes.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,507

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.

    Why are we there?

    At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America:
    1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals
    2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals
    3. Makes peace with Russia
    4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions

    I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
    Looks like the EU isn’t going to just stand on the sidelines letting Trump make all the running: https://www.politico.eu/article/critical-minerals-rare-earths-deal-eu-not-donald-trump/
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.

    Why are we there?

    (Snip)
    Because Putin's Russia is an expansionist imperialist and fascistic state. He has made his desires known, and if he went for them, there is a time when we would find ourselves at war with them. Better to stop the expansion now than in five years' time.

    He also hates Britain, and has attacked us in nasty ways before (Litvinenko, Salisbury etc).

    Then there's the moral issue: why should countries who do not want to live under the thumb of a fascist state have to?

    Do you want to?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,737

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Good morning

    Trump seemed confident of the deal though I do not trust a thing he says, but late last night a report on Sky from their Moscow correspondent on a speech Putin was making at the same time as the Trump - Macron meeting where Putin announced that he was in talks with Trump over a deal for the sale of Russian minerals to him and that a deal for the US - Russia and China to cut spending on defence by 50% [yes 50%] was in discussion

    How fast everything has changed and uncertainty abounds
    50% cut? As Russia is now a fully-geared up war economy that would take some managing.

    And the US military-industrial-complex is one powerful lobby.
    Everyone's playing the angles, to try and dodge whatever the voices in Trump's head say next.

    Sir Keir has his defence deal with the Treasury locked in first, so he can talk to the self-obsessed one about it, to see if he can swerve tariffs - whilst starting to do quietly what needs to be done re:defence, which they have been doing steadily since last July. *

    One hopes that when the Defence Review materialises, the Treasury will be bent over and BFONTed, but I'm not holding my breath.

    * They are afaics gradually burying the legacy of the Cameron 2010-2012 -20% increase in defence spending. There are still things to be unwound like the pilot training chastity belt, and we have to see whether changes will actually work.

    And, TBF, things the Headless Chicken Party had been doing in certain respects for some time through a couple of decent Defence Secretaries, the pre-election lying-their-heads-off period notwithstanding.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872
    Experiencing Trump and Putin negotiating must be fun, in a dark way. Two liars with loose connections to reality, both of whom think they are the stronkiest men in the world.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 557
    Discussions about 'deals' or perfect deals or big beautiful deal are the same as discussions about removing the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. It's never the deal that the problem, it's the ability to make the deal or change in legislation work.

    You have endless examples of the law of unintended consequences when political sound bites become legislation. Some are almost impossible to realise in real life. See sending goods to Northern Ireland.

    Lots of discussion on here about the right/wrong policies but a bit light on what happens when translated into a real world situation.
  • TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    In terms of its leaders’ outlook, Russia has not altered much since the time of the Mongols. The House of Rurik stressed its descent from Genghis Khan.

    Russia is always a threat to its neighbours.

    Might have been different.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
    Yes, worse.

    Being in NATO wouldn't have stopped Russia invading other countries but would have allowed Russia to block any NATO action.
  • Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    " but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory."

    I claim b/s on that. And you are invested in ramping Tesla.
    I own zero shares in Tesla. I upset fanbois on my channel by calling out some of the crap. Next Friday's video slags off FSD in Europe with a "do not buy this" review" I'm what according to you?

    Watch the videos of FSD. It has made significant strides forward. Completely hands and feet off navigation from point to point by touching the start button. Through parking garages. City streets. Freeways. Snow-covered back lanes in the dark. Moving around construction crews and extracting itself from blocked in parking spots. This is what the more recent updates have delivered - even on the older hardware 3 vehicles like my own Model Y.

    Yes, the vehicles aren't completely fault free. But neither are Waymo. But it's coming.
    What's your channel called again? ;)

    "Watch the videos of FSD."

    Yes. Many of which appear to be somewhat (ahem) carefully curated. I might suggest you look at the videos of FSD *failing*...
    Did I not say they are not completely fault free? But what they are doing is improving significantly and quickly. Curated? So they're fake? Or edited? When they post the entire trip video with no edits?

    As I said, I am skeptical about automation. But it's coming. The challenge is going to be when one of these automated vehicles is involved in a horrible mess and get legally instructed to shut the service down. In the litigious US that is also coming...
    Yes, many are edited or curated. As for it being the whole trip: if you get an error, do the trip again.

    I'm not denying automation *may* come. What I'm arguing about is that the implementations we have at the moment are all very limited. Egregiously so in the case of Tesla, given their lies over the years.

    And that's the issue. Musk and Tesla's lies. That is what they are. Lies.

    Witness the Robotaxi shite I showed earlier from 2019. And there is much, much more.

    Edit: why do no other mainstream manufacturers with *better* systems need to lie like that? Why don't they need a bunch of Elon stans hyping up every breath their hero makes?
    Which better systems are there? Not Waymo - cars need extensive modification. Not Ford Blue Drive - works in very limited circumstances. Possibly BYD though even that is currently vapourware. You said "if you get an error, do the trip again". And then the do over shows it working flawlessly when *nobody is claiming it works fault free all the time*.

    As for techbro stans, surely its very simple. Tech stocks are a ponzi scheme. You need to bring in early investors. You then need the price to rise so that (a) the early investors get a return and (b) more investors come in. The sillier companies never make a profit and all the money in circulation is from investors - ponzi. The better ones make a profit from bits and lose a fortune from others. None of the companies offering instant delivery are offering a viable business model. So you need to ramp.

    Strip all the future automation away and Tesla would be worth a tenth of the value. Still a very good car company, still revolutionising car manufacturing so that you can make healthy profits. But without the AI automation guff. And don't get me started on the robot. I assume that somewhere inside Tesla there must be a Martin Curry character in despair at the attention Gerald is giving to the C5...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,872

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    " but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory."

    I claim b/s on that. And you are invested in ramping Tesla.
    I own zero shares in Tesla. I upset fanbois on my channel by calling out some of the crap. Next Friday's video slags off FSD in Europe with a "do not buy this" review" I'm what according to you?

    Watch the videos of FSD. It has made significant strides forward. Completely hands and feet off navigation from point to point by touching the start button. Through parking garages. City streets. Freeways. Snow-covered back lanes in the dark. Moving around construction crews and extracting itself from blocked in parking spots. This is what the more recent updates have delivered - even on the older hardware 3 vehicles like my own Model Y.

    Yes, the vehicles aren't completely fault free. But neither are Waymo. But it's coming.
    What's your channel called again? ;)

    "Watch the videos of FSD."

    Yes. Many of which appear to be somewhat (ahem) carefully curated. I might suggest you look at the videos of FSD *failing*...
    Did I not say they are not completely fault free? But what they are doing is improving significantly and quickly. Curated? So they're fake? Or edited? When they post the entire trip video with no edits?

    As I said, I am skeptical about automation. But it's coming. The challenge is going to be when one of these automated vehicles is involved in a horrible mess and get legally instructed to shut the service down. In the litigious US that is also coming...
    Yes, many are edited or curated. As for it being the whole trip: if you get an error, do the trip again.

    I'm not denying automation *may* come. What I'm arguing about is that the implementations we have at the moment are all very limited. Egregiously so in the case of Tesla, given their lies over the years.

    And that's the issue. Musk and Tesla's lies. That is what they are. Lies.

    Witness the Robotaxi shite I showed earlier from 2019. And there is much, much more.

    Edit: why do no other mainstream manufacturers with *better* systems need to lie like that? Why don't they need a bunch of Elon stans hyping up every breath their hero makes?
    Which better systems are there? Not Waymo - cars need extensive modification. Not Ford Blue Drive - works in very limited circumstances. Possibly BYD though even that is currently vapourware. You said "if you get an error, do the trip again". And then the do over shows it working flawlessly when *nobody is claiming it works fault free all the time*.

    (Snip)
    I gave two independent lists below.
  • algarkirk said:

    Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).

    There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.

    Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.

    The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.

    I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
    Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278
    Problem is most Reform voters have a more favourable view of Trump and less favourable view of Zelensky than other parties voters.

    So it is unlikely to make difference to their current support though it could limit the capacity of Farage to get the voters he needs to become PM.

    Gill is no longer a member of Reform
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
    On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
  • Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People die, it's not the end of the world.

    People need to get over zero deaths bullshit. It was bad during Covid, it's insane now.
    Agree. There is never a call to ban domestic gas when some-one dies in a gas explosion.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,737
    HYUFD said:

    Problem is most Reform voters have a more favourable view of Trump and less favourable view of Zelensky than other parties voters.

    So it is unlikely to make difference to their current support though it could limit the capacity of Farage to get the voters he needs to become PM.

    Gill is no longer a member of Reform

    Can we narrow that down to factions or fractions within Reform voters?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Good morning

    Trump seemed confident of the deal though I do not trust a thing he says, but late last night a report on Sky from their Moscow correspondent on a speech Putin was making at the same time as the Trump - Macron meeting where Putin announced that he was in talks with Trump over a deal for the sale of Russian minerals to him and that a deal for the US - Russia and China to cut spending on defence by 50% [yes 50%] was in discussion

    How fast everything has changed and uncertainty abounds
    50% cut? As Russia is now a fully-geared up war economy that would take some managing.

    And the US military-industrial-complex is one powerful lobby.
    That is why I repeated it - seemed surreal
    The Russian economy is in the shitter. Not spending sagans on rebuilding 1980s equipment and a handful of new weapons would be a win for Putin.

    The Chinese economy is having issues.

    The American economy…. Well…
  • Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.

    However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472
    HYUFD said:

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
    On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
    People kill and main other people everyday. Obviously we need to ban people.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Peace within Europe is important to Europeans.

    Peace within Africa not so important to Africans. There the "Big Man" can take what he wants - wealth, women, land, power without votes.

    I think we are right to be worried about a Big Man threatening what we hold dear.

    Or should hold dear, you Reform traitors.
    In reality African nations are less concerned about war on our continent as the UN vote showed last night and we are less concerned too about war on theirs.

    Most African leaders are elected too now
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,021

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Good morning

    Trump seemed confident of the deal though I do not trust a thing he says, but late last night a report on Sky from their Moscow correspondent on a speech Putin was making at the same time as the Trump - Macron meeting where Putin announced that he was in talks with Trump over a deal for the sale of Russian minerals to him and that a deal for the US - Russia and China to cut spending on defence by 50% [yes 50%] was in discussion

    How fast everything has changed and uncertainty abounds
    A deal is pretty irrelevant if nobody can trust Trump or Putin to honour it for more than 5 minutes.

    It won't be worth the paper it's written on. Ukraine have had "cast iron" agreements with Putin before and he will simply shred them once he gets what he wants. Ditto Trump.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    In terms of its leaders’ outlook, Russia has not altered much since the time of the Mongols. The House of Rurik stressed its descent from Genghis Khan.

    Russia is always a threat to its neighbours.

    Might have been different.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
    Yes, worse.

    Being in NATO wouldn't have stopped Russia invading other countries but would have allowed Russia to block any NATO action.
    No, it wouldn’t.

    NATO vetos only apply to *some* things, such as new applicants.

    NATO was deliberately designed as the opposite to earlier, rigid treaty systems. Sub groupings and other alliances are actually encouraged - see the UK + Northern European states stuff.

    This is a treaty system that encompasses Turkey and Greece. Two countries that have a semi-cold war going on between each other.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,664

    algarkirk said:

    Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).

    There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.

    Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.

    The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.

    I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
    Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
    Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.

    Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Peace within Europe is important to Europeans.

    Peace within Africa not so important to Africans. There the "Big Man" can take what he wants - wealth, women, land, power without votes.

    TIA, Danny.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,737
    edited February 25

    algarkirk said:

    Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).

    There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.

    Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.

    The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.

    I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
    That, I think, may be quite variable by location.

    And I'm not sure how it would vary.

    Here, with the Leeanderthal Man, I think that 'dunno's who would support him by inertia, especially if there is a 'he helped me' or 'I can't stand THAT' factor.

    Do we have a model for where Reform are the "none of the above" vote?

    One factor I would speculate about is areas with either way below average or way above average visibly ethnic minority population. For the first, tropes stick because there is little personal experience tp deomstrate that they are mainly untrue, whilst for the other it's "look at all those Mosques 'threatening your Britishness'".

    Here in North Notts, the most detectible minority is probably Polish (eg Polish on the login screen at my GP), who have been a subject of tactical political demonisation in the past.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,278

    Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.

    However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.

    So a state pensioner with no private pension and income below minimum wage gets hit but big corporations and top earners and those in million pound houses aren't hit.

    If Labour wants to go under 20% that is the way
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472

    Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.

    However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.

    They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.

    If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.

    The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 5,382

    Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.

    However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.

    When there are three big parties not two, "tied" is a little different.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047
    Sean_F said:

    In terms of its leaders’ outlook, Russia has not altered much since the time of the Mongols. The House of Rurik stressed its descent from Genghis Khan.

    Russia is always a threat to its neighbours.

    It also has a paranoia of being surrounded, dating from the same.
  • Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.

    However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.

    They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.

    If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.

    The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
    They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.

    The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,507
    HYUFD said:

    Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.

    However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.

    So a state pensioner with no private pension and income below minimum wage gets hit but big corporations and top earners and those in million pound houses aren't hit.

    If Labour wants to go under 20% that is the way
    You’re quite right: they should have eliminated council tax & stamp duty at the same time & replaced them with a 0.75% property tax. (Replace 0.75% with figure necessary to make up the deficit).

    That way the oldies squatting in their 5-bed properties in central London might have some actual incentive to move out to somewhere cheaper & those houses can be occupied by the families that actually need the space.

    This move would, obviously, have no electoral downsides whatsoever.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,299
    OllyT said:

    boulay said:

    On Donald’s “deal of the century” for the minerals, wouldn’t it be better if Zemelensky offered publicly that the US get rights until they have covered an audited cost of aid/weapons sent and they can offset the cost of providing security to Ukraine plus a profit once the initial bill is paid off.

    Surely nobody decent (haha) could object to this - the US gets their money back and future protection of the Ukraine is an income generator.

    Yes, I know that Trump wouldn’t go for it because he’s a greedy shyster but it would add to highlighting that globally.

    Are we close to a deal? Or is it just the US side claiming we are to apply pressure? The statements from Ukraine were pretty non-committal...
    Good morning

    Trump seemed confident of the deal though I do not trust a thing he says, but late last night a report on Sky from their Moscow correspondent on a speech Putin was making at the same time as the Trump - Macron meeting where Putin announced that he was in talks with Trump over a deal for the sale of Russian minerals to him and that a deal for the US - Russia and China to cut spending on defence by 50% [yes 50%] was in discussion

    How fast everything has changed and uncertainty abounds
    A deal is pretty irrelevant if nobody can trust Trump or Putin to honour it for more than 5 minutes.

    It won't be worth the paper it's written on. Ukraine have had "cast iron" agreements with Putin before and he will simply shred them once he gets what he wants. Ditto Trump.
    More a steal than a deal.
  • Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (23-24 Feb)

    Ref: 25% (-2 from 16-17 Feb)
    Lab: 24% (-1)
    Con: 22% (+1)
    Lib Dem: 16% (+2)
    Green: 8% (-1)
    SNP: 3% (=)


    https://x.com/yougov/status/1894318885240803708?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,556

    TOPPING said:

    Sean_F said:

    In terms of its leaders’ outlook, Russia has not altered much since the time of the Mongols. The House of Rurik stressed its descent from Genghis Khan.

    Russia is always a threat to its neighbours.

    Might have been different.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

    https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
    Yes, worse.

    Being in NATO wouldn't have stopped Russia invading other countries but would have allowed Russia to block any NATO action.
    It would have stopped them because the green spaghetti monster would have prostrated itself in their path and forbidden any further forward movement.
  • Reform are - my gut feeling says - overhyped. They will likely score some key wins in the next while but they will not be forming the next government at this stage. Allying with Trump and Putin is a strategic blunder.

    Look at recent polls, it is quite clear Trump’s economic strategy is failing. Reform offering more of that will come to be seen as a big error.

    I may yet be wrong but for now, I’m sticking with Labour re-elected in some form.
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).

    There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.

    Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.

    The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.

    I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
    Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
    Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.

    Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
    In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:

    We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax
    We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers
    We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living
    We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves
    We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops
    Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.

    None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.

    The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.

    Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
  • Also, just one other thing before I go. The “ace” Labour still has to play is on the EU.
  • Labour is apparently the worst government in history and yet is still tied in the majority of polls. I do think their strategy of getting the unpopular stuff out of the way early was right.

    However, they should have also used that burned political capital to get rid of the triple lock for good.

    They are on core vote. As is the Conservative Party.

    If they can’t change the mood music by getting some actual results, they are heading for an epic pounding.

    The nation’s voters don’t see the genius in being told that their taxes are going up and bin collections are moving from bi-weekly to once a month. Yes, this may or may not be the fault of the national government, but that’s who gets the blame.
    They ARE getting results though. Waiting lists are dropping.

    The nation’s voters will look at the options available and it’s either Reform or Labour. Labour will almost certainly be re-elected.
    Almost certainly true, but with a majority of 17 rather than 174. If they're lucky.

    Labour's problem is that they think they can make incremental changes to a broken system and have it pay off. They can't, and it won't. You're mentioning waiting lists - they won't get the credit for wait times being slightly shorter when you can't see a GP and hospitals remain in crisis with a drastic shortage of beds and medical staff.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,636

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (23-24 Feb)

    Ref: 25% (-2 from 16-17 Feb)
    Lab: 24% (-1)
    Con: 22% (+1)
    Lib Dem: 16% (+2)
    Green: 8% (-1)
    SNP: 3% (=)


    https://x.com/yougov/status/1894318885240803708?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    The Kemi-back starts here!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,299
    edited February 25

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.

    Why are we there?

    At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America:
    1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals
    2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals
    3. Makes peace with Russia
    4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions

    I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
    There's no UK interest in preventing Russia swallowing up Ukraine?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,314
    edited February 25

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Reform face a serious choice, if it is correct that USA continues down its bizarre path to oligarchic gangster autocracy. Just look, for one example, at who now heads FBI - both head and deputy. (Here's hoping the backlash is effective).

    There are votes for a party linked with Trumpism, but also an upper limit. Also, as with Germany, others won't play with them in the playground.

    Germany is like us in that there is such a thing as the 'democratic centre'. They are combining - ignore the window dressing - to ensure the isolation of extremes as long as they can.

    The last UK GE was run by a simple silent slogan 'anyone but the Tory'. Farage's danger is that elections now have the silent slogan 'Anyone bur Reform.

    I'd like you to be right, but I'm not sure you are. I do a fair amount of canvassing, as I've done for most of the last 50 years. I don't remember a time with more voters adrift. They aren't generally very hostile, contrary to some assumptions, they just have no idea who to choose to represent them. A fair number of those will give Reform a shot, simply because they've not tried them before. There are some "Anyone but Reform" voters, but a minority.
    Its far worse than lets give Reform a shot. Hate them or hate them, Reform are carefully crafting a narrative which touches on the concerns of disconnected voters and offers simple and clear solutions. OK, in the real world they are neither simple nor solutions, but the voters in question don't know that.
    Yes. Reform despite all that face a choice. The tradition of not voting for the authoritarian right, or left, is quite strong. Farage's semi-admission into the playground rests on his disavowal of NF/BNP/EDL etc, and only using dog whistle tactics - which of course Tories have done in the past too.

    Both Reform voters and Reform possibles are split. Many are of course populist 'strong man' extremists glad to have a party to support. But many are not. They are ordinary UK punters who belive (wrongly) that complex problems have simple solutions, fed up with mainstream politics just as millions of Americans were fed up with Democrats.
    In the British system the "strong man" isn't needed. Elect a majority government and they can largely do as they see fit. Reform's pitch could be as simple as:

    We need significant reforms of health, education, social services and tax
    We need to get value for money - so much of your money is being wasted by bureaucracy and silly agendas like equality officers
    We need to make work pay, and that means cutting the cost of living
    We need to restore pride in our communities, our country and in ourselves
    We need to stop our town and cities falling into disrepair by fixing the pavements and roads and reopening the shops
    Elect a Reform government and we'll cut the waste and the fraud which We All Know is there, and make our country fit for purpose again.

    None of these are remotely easy. Many are contradictory. But there is enough truth in each point to sound compelling, especially if it can tie in with the massive fraud and waste which these voters believe is there to cut.

    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" asked Michael Howard, to be answered with "oh hell no" by the electorate. But reverse it - "We're thinking what YOU'RE thinking" and Reform can absolutely smash it.

    The key to it? Labour's pledge card. 5 things we'd do. Simplistic but ambitious. Easy to attack but hard to disprove. On continuous repeat until they become ingrained. Once the pledges become the truth, its practically impossible to disarm them with facts.

    Very very few people can ever pull this off. Blair did. Farage can.
    Eek. Please @RochdalePioneers don't make posts like this. I'm struggling to think of a better post for Reform to use to campaign on. It is excellent and horrendously disturbing at the same time.
  • HYUFD said:

    Like Uber, the Tesla bet is that they will have a nationwide network of driverless cars available soon.

    Although Uber seem to have wisely decided this isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    Elon on the other hand, has been promising full self driving since 2012, every year.

    Never going to happen.

    Around here even most humans aren't safe to drive a car and navigate the potholes, stray animals, fallen trees, overgrown hedges, flooded roads, random roadworks, tractors, cyclists, walkers, random objects literally fallen off the back of a lorry, etc., etc.
    The other end of it is that Waymo is rolling out its service. They took the approach of limiting the problem to solve.

    They seem to have self driving working, for what they are asking it to do.
    I'm bemused by the whole concept of automated driving - do we need it. If we do, Waymo is a cul-de-sac. Tesla have been well behind the please invest spin from Gerald, but when you look at the recent progress made its clear that development is now on rapid trajectory.

    That is the problem - I don't think legislators and regulators are ready. Waymo fits adapted cars with bubble protrusions to drive around selected cities. Tesla takes stock cars to drive around those cities and in-between them. But who is liable when a fully automated car kills someone - as it will?
    Cars being “driven” hands off, have already killed people.

    Law is accreting around this issue.

    The idea that this issue will stop self driving, is already disproven.
    People kill and maim other people every day whilst allegedly in control of cars. Banning humans from driving is the only way.
    On that grounds motorcyclists and cyclists have also killed people so you would have to ban them too
    Yup, ban 'em all.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,299

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (23-24 Feb)

    Ref: 25% (-2 from 16-17 Feb)
    Lab: 24% (-1)
    Con: 22% (+1)
    Lib Dem: 16% (+2)
    Green: 8% (-1)
    SNP: 3% (=)


    https://x.com/yougov/status/1894318885240803708?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    Yep, that's it. They've peaked. Goodbye RUK, nice knowing you.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    kinabalu said:

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.

    Why are we there?

    At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America:
    1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals
    2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals
    3. Makes peace with Russia
    4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions

    I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
    There's no UK interest in preventing an aggressive expansionist Russia swallowing up Ukraine?
    Not if you believe we are safe on an island, don’t care about the rest of Europe, can’t grasp how bad the refugee situation could be and that Russia is going to stop expanding before they get here
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,472
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ukraine could be any place. Lets all be brutally honest here - the important part is *who* invaded them. Russia invades, we're very concerned. A war between two other small countries a long way off? Less bothered - as we demonstrate time and time agains in Africa.

    Ukraine is very important because the aggressor is *Russia*.

    Exactly. But we have no interest. We never have had, and we never will do.

    Why are we there?

    At the moment we're progressing toward a situation where Trump's America:
    1. Gets rich on Ukrainian minerals
    2. Gets Europe to do all the military heavy lifting to guard America's minerals
    3. Makes peace with Russia
    4. Europe still sanctions Russia and is still shivering due to energy sanctions

    I mean do we have 'easy mark' written across our forehead?
    There's no UK interest in preventing an aggressive expansionist Russia swallowing up Ukraine?
    Not if you believe we are safe on an island, don’t care about the rest of Europe, can’t grasp how bad the refugee situation could be and that Russia is going to stop expanding before they get here
    “A quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing”
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,432
    Cookie said:

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (23-24 Feb)

    Ref: 25% (-2 from 16-17 Feb)
    Lab: 24% (-1)
    Con: 22% (+1)
    Lib Dem: 16% (+2)
    Green: 8% (-1)
    SNP: 3% (=)


    https://x.com/yougov/status/1894318885240803708?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    The Kemi-back starts here!
    Though Davey is gaining faster...
This discussion has been closed.