Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Yes 'I don't feel English' is fine. But 'For Englishness to mean something it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity' is a load of bollocks. At the end of the day everyone has mixed ancestry.
And the things that are most identifiably English are either not dependent in those things at all - eg having an English accent, or being a fan of the England football team. Or in the case of 'heritage' aren't really 'English' historically - Stonehenge and the royal family.
"Three quarters (77%) of white people in England agree that ‘Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.’ Just 14% feel that ‘Only people who are white count as truly English.’ Two-thirds (68%) of ethnic minority citizens agree that being English is open to people of all backgrounds, while 19% feel that English identity is the preserve of white people."
All 4 of my grandparents were immigrants. I have no English blood whatsoever nor any generational links to the land but I feel English because I an a product of English culture. That is distinct from Scottish and Welsh culture in my experience.
It's a niche view to think otherwise, yet there appears to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate it quite recently. Part of that is an attempt to make a meaningful distinction between products of culture and raw ethnicity (which as noted many cannot really calculate).
I don't see why, it should be a good thing people of disparate backgrounds see themselves as products of english (or welsh, scottish, british etc) culture. Isn't the usual complaint that some people don't do that?
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Yes 'I don't feel English' is fine. But 'For Englishness to mean something it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity' is a load of bollocks. At the end of the day everyone has mixed ancestry.
And the things that are most identifiably English are either not dependent in those things at all - eg having an English accent, or being a fan of the England football team. Or in the case of 'heritage' aren't really 'English' historically - Stonehenge and the royal family.
"Three quarters (77%) of white people in England agree that ‘Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.’ Just 14% feel that ‘Only people who are white count as truly English.’ Two-thirds (68%) of ethnic minority citizens agree that being English is open to people of all backgrounds, while 19% feel that English identity is the preserve of white people."
British Future is a think tank dedicated to promoting a civic "British values" identity, so Mandy Rice-Davies applies to their research.
All 4 of my grandparents were immigrants. I have no English blood whatsoever nor any generational links to the land but I feel English because I an a product of English culture. That is distinct from Scottish and Welsh culture in my experience.
We’ve had monarchs less ‘English’ than that.
The whole argument is as absurd as the JD Vance nonsense about the Ukrainian American (I’m generously assuming he wansn’t just making that whole story up).
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Braverman is talking bollocks. But I don't think anyone will be surprised about that.
I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would be picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option, the US should have been sending weapons to Russia. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894789558648127693
How sick are these morons
No scale has been invented that can properly measure that.
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space
...so, it big?
It big
There is a numberphile youtube video that explains well an even bigger number than Grahams' number called Tree(3) . Whilst Grahams number can just about be expressed using extreme notation (albeit no one can come close to contemplating how big it actually is) Tree(3) is so big its not even really possible to write in notation
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”
Foreign Secretary @DavidLammy suggests that Trump has a veto on the Chagos Island deal
Hopefully a reporter will ask Trump his thoughts on the deal in the presser. Will be fun to see his reply.
If Labour are hoping Trump will veto it, then perhaps the worst thing he could do would be to say something complimentary about Starmer like: "If Sir Keir thinks it's a good deal, that's good enough for me."
I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would be picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option, the US should have been sending weapons to Russia. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894789558648127693
How sick are these morons
No scale has been invented that can properly measure that.
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space
...so, it big?
It big
Trump wants it renamed 'Trump Number'.
I'm personally worried for Judd Trump, the parish of Trumpington, the trumpet, and the firemen of Trumpton.
I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would be picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option, the US should have been sending weapons to Russia. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894789558648127693
How sick are these morons
No scale has been invented that can properly measure that.
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space
...so, it big?
It big
There is a numberphile youtube video that explains well an even bigger number than Grahams' number called Tree(3) . Whilst Grahams number can just about be expressed using extreme notation (albeit no one can come close to contemplating how big it actually is) Tree(3) is so big its not even really possible to write in notation
I love googling this stuff because the jargon is so incomprehensible to the layman it is almost hypnotic.
In mathematics, Kruskal's tree theorem states that the set of finite trees over a well-quasi-ordered set of labels is itself well-quasi-ordered under homeomorphic embedding
Any specialist subject can be the same, studying languages for example, but it is particularly profound with mathematics.
Looks like the Afghanistan cricket team are going to beat England's. That means England are out of the Champions Trophy.
Good. Just desserts.
Can you explain why? Its Afghanistan who shouldn't be there. Is what they are doing to women not worse than apartheid?
Because we are validating their position in international sport by playing against them. We should not be seeking to normalise their regime.
I understand where you are coming from, but ultimately you were attacking professional sportsmen representing their country. If the tournament allows Afghanistan in, the government doesn’t say ‘don’t go’, the ECB don’t say ‘don’t go’, then I don’t see why they should be the ones to take the stand.
Because they are responsible adults not children. They should take on that responsibility.
All 4 of my grandparents were immigrants. I have no English blood whatsoever nor any generational links to the land but I feel English because I an a product of English culture. That is distinct from Scottish and Welsh culture in my experience.
We’ve had monarchs less ‘English’ than that.
The whole argument is as absurd as the JD Vance nonsense about the Ukrainian American (I’m generously assuming he wansn’t just making that whole story up).
I think the last monarch who had all 8 great-grandparents from the British Isles was Elizabeth I?
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Yes 'I don't feel English' is fine. But 'For Englishness to mean something it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity' is a load of bollocks. At the end of the day everyone has mixed ancestry.
And the things that are most identifiably English are either not dependent in those things at all - eg having an English accent, or being a fan of the England football team. Or in the case of 'heritage' aren't really 'English' historically - Stonehenge and the royal family.
"Three quarters (77%) of white people in England agree that ‘Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.’ Just 14% feel that ‘Only people who are white count as truly English.’ Two-thirds (68%) of ethnic minority citizens agree that being English is open to people of all backgrounds, while 19% feel that English identity is the preserve of white people."
You just go to a supermarket and push a shopping trolley round, aiming to catch the feet of all the other customers. Everyone who says ‘sorry’ when you crush or scrape their foot is English.
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Yes 'I don't feel English' is fine. But 'For Englishness to mean something it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity' is a load of bollocks. At the end of the day everyone has mixed ancestry.
And the things that are most identifiably English are either not dependent in those things at all - eg having an English accent, or being a fan of the England football team. Or in the case of 'heritage' aren't really 'English' historically - Stonehenge and the royal family.
"Three quarters (77%) of white people in England agree that ‘Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.’ Just 14% feel that ‘Only people who are white count as truly English.’ Two-thirds (68%) of ethnic minority citizens agree that being English is open to people of all backgrounds, while 19% feel that English identity is the preserve of white people."
All 4 of my grandparents were immigrants. I have no English blood whatsoever nor any generational links to the land but I feel English because I an a product of English culture. That is distinct from Scottish and Welsh culture in my experience.
It's a niche view to think otherwise, yet there appears to be a concerted effort to rehabilitate it quite recently. Part of that is an attempt to make a meaningful distinction between products of culture and raw ethnicity (which as noted many cannot really calculate).
I don't see why, it should be a good thing people of disparate backgrounds see themselves as products of english (or welsh, scottish, british etc) culture. Isn't the usual complaint that some people don't do that?
“Ethnicity” is the term we use when talking about culture, not descent. Your ethnicity is what you think it is.
I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would be picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option, the US should have been sending weapons to Russia. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894789558648127693
How sick are these morons
No scale has been invented that can properly measure that.
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space
...so, it big?
It big
There is a numberphile youtube video that explains well an even bigger number than Grahams' number called Tree(3) . Whilst Grahams number can just about be expressed using extreme notation (albeit no one can come close to contemplating how big it actually is) Tree(3) is so big its not even really possible to write in notation
A mere bagatelle.
… The SSCG sequence begins slower than SCG, SSCG(0) = 2, SSCG(1) = 5, but then grows rapidly. SSCG(2) = 3 × 2(3 × 295) − 8 ≈ 3.241704 × 1035775080127201286522908640065. Its first and last 20 digits are 32417042291246009846...34057047399148290040. SSCG(2) has in total 35775080127201286522908640066 digits. SSCG(3) is much larger than both TREE(3) and TREETREE(3)(3), that is, you have TREE(3) different unique nodes...
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Yes 'I don't feel English' is fine. But 'For Englishness to mean something it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity' is a load of bollocks. At the end of the day everyone has mixed ancestry.
And the things that are most identifiably English are either not dependent in those things at all - eg having an English accent, or being a fan of the England football team. Or in the case of 'heritage' aren't really 'English' historically - Stonehenge and the royal family.
"Three quarters (77%) of white people in England agree that ‘Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.’ Just 14% feel that ‘Only people who are white count as truly English.’ Two-thirds (68%) of ethnic minority citizens agree that being English is open to people of all backgrounds, while 19% feel that English identity is the preserve of white people."
You just go to a supermarket and push a shopping trolley round, aiming to catch the feet of all the other customers. Everyone who says ‘sorry’ when you crush or scrape their foot is English.
That was the classic definition: an Englishman is the man who says sorry when you stand on his foot
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Yes 'I don't feel English' is fine. But 'For Englishness to mean something it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity' is a load of bollocks. At the end of the day everyone has mixed ancestry.
And the things that are most identifiably English are either not dependent in those things at all - eg having an English accent, or being a fan of the England football team. Or in the case of 'heritage' aren't really 'English' historically - Stonehenge and the royal family.
"Three quarters (77%) of white people in England agree that ‘Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.’ Just 14% feel that ‘Only people who are white count as truly English.’ Two-thirds (68%) of ethnic minority citizens agree that being English is open to people of all backgrounds, while 19% feel that English identity is the preserve of white people."
You just go to a supermarket and push a shopping trolley round, aiming to catch the feet of all the other customers. Everyone who says ‘sorry’ when you crush or scrape their foot is English.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Quite.
In fact, I suspect very few have "ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Unless the story is "I was born in Watford".
Friend of mine’s ancestor caught the reins of William the bastard’s horse one day and stopped it bolting. His descendants are still farming the land he was given as a reward
Trump: “They can’t. They can try, but they can’t… the numbers can never equal us… they can retaliate , but it cannot be a successful retaliation, because we just go cold turkey we dont buy any more and if that happens, we win”.
I hope the EU responds or at least stands up to him
Britain is your team, not the EU.
To be frank, I increasingly feel I don't have a team.
Take the aid/defence decision as one example. I can see it is good politics and has gone down well with you eminently sensible chaps on here. We probably need lots more decisions in this vein to blunt the appeal of Reform and the deranged fools the other side of the Atlantic.
And, if push came to shove, I'd fight for UK against an enemy.
Yet I would like to live in a society that was prepared to tighten our own belts at a time when money is needed, not remove it from the sorts of programmes that save and improve lives so remarkably cheaply (even if you factor in waste within the development field).
But you and anyone who feels like you is more than welcome to contribute to one of dozens of charities that are begging for your money to do just that. The government will even give you tax relief on the gift, unlike, say, parents who save the state sector money at their own expense, who are screwed over. And you can even decide which cause is the worthiest - condoms to Gaza, malaria medicine to Africa, food to Sudan, space programs to India, cataract removal in Ecuador or whatever.
Ending foreign aid doesn't mean people are forbidden from doing it themselves, just that nobody is forced to contribute by legalised extortion, to programs they object to.
All 4 of my grandparents were immigrants. I have no English blood whatsoever nor any generational links to the land but I feel English because I an a product of English culture. That is distinct from Scottish and Welsh culture in my experience.
I have no particular family link to any culture other than Englishness, despite a strong suspicion of Arab grandparentage on one quarter and a large valley Welsh family that certainly influenced my father's generation on another quarter. Though those influences weren't really passed down as far as me, I strongly suspect I'm more closely related to the Welsh rugby union team than to the English one. Football, less so.
Trump: “They can’t. They can try, but they can’t… the numbers can never equal us… they can retaliate , but it cannot be a successful retaliation, because we just go cold turkey we dont buy any more and if that happens, we win”.
I hope the EU responds or at least stands up to him
Britain is your team, not the EU.
To be frank, I increasingly feel I don't have a team.
Take the aid/defence decision as one example. I can see it is good politics and has gone down well with you eminently sensible chaps on here. We probably need lots more decisions in this vein to blunt the appeal of Reform and the deranged fools the other side of the Atlantic.
And, if push came to shove, I'd fight for UK against an enemy.
Yet I would like to live in a society that was prepared to tighten our own belts at a time when money is needed, not remove it from the sorts of programmes that save and improve lives so remarkably cheaply (even if you factor in waste within the development field).
But you and anyone who feels like you is more than welcome to contribute to one of dozens of charities that are begging for your money to do just that. The government will even give you tax relief on the gift, unlike, say, parents who save the state sector money at their own expense, who are screwed over. And you can even decide which cause is the worthiest - condoms to Gaza, malaria medicine to Africa, food to Sudan, space programs to India or whatever.
Ending foreign aid doesn't mean people are forbidden from doing it themselves, just that nobody is forced to contribute by legalised extortion, to programs they object to.
You could equally argue the reverse - that you should feel welcome, for example, to go fight in Ukraine. The government should even pay the one way fare, etc. But it’s just a silly deflection from the substantive political argument.
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Yes 'I don't feel English' is fine. But 'For Englishness to mean something it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity' is a load of bollocks. At the end of the day everyone has mixed ancestry.
And the things that are most identifiably English are either not dependent in those things at all - eg having an English accent, or being a fan of the England football team. Or in the case of 'heritage' aren't really 'English' historically - Stonehenge and the royal family.
"Three quarters (77%) of white people in England agree that ‘Being English is open to people of different ethnic backgrounds who identify as English.’ Just 14% feel that ‘Only people who are white count as truly English.’ Two-thirds (68%) of ethnic minority citizens agree that being English is open to people of all backgrounds, while 19% feel that English identity is the preserve of white people."
You just go to a supermarket and push a shopping trolley round, aiming to catch the feet of all the other customers. Everyone who says ‘sorry’ when you crush or scrape their foot is English.
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Quite.
In fact, I suspect very few have "ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Unless the story is "I was born in Watford".
Friend of mine’s ancestor caught the reins of William the bastard’s horse one day and stopped it bolting. His descendants are still farming the land he was given as a reward
I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would be picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option, the US should have been sending weapons to Russia. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894789558648127693
How sick are these morons
No scale has been invented that can properly measure that.
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space
...so, it big?
It big
There is a numberphile youtube video that explains well an even bigger number than Grahams' number called Tree(3) . Whilst Grahams number can just about be expressed using extreme notation (albeit no one can come close to contemplating how big it actually is) Tree(3) is so big its not even really possible to write in notation
A mere bagatelle.
… The SSCG sequence begins slower than SCG, SSCG(0) = 2, SSCG(1) = 5, but then grows rapidly. SSCG(2) = 3 × 2(3 × 295) − 8 ≈ 3.241704 × 1035775080127201286522908640065. Its first and last 20 digits are 32417042291246009846...34057047399148290040. SSCG(2) has in total 35775080127201286522908640066 digits. SSCG(3) is much larger than both TREE(3) and TREETREE(3)(3), that is, you have TREE(3) different unique nodes...
Then off course, you could wonder about how large SSCG(TREE(3)) might be…
I am half Welsh - half English - my wife is Scottish over generations - our children and grandchildren are Welsh, so apart from Northern Ireland ,we have the UK covered
I am half Welsh - half English - my wife is Scottish over generations - our children and grandchildren are Welsh, so apart from Northern Ireland ,we have the UK covered
But my question is why does it even matter ?
It matters because of the Boriswave.
Mass immigration has called into question the customary casualness that the British admirably developed on these matters.
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
It's just crazy, I have no idea how recently my ancestors came to this island as I know little about our heritage (there is a rumour one great grandparent had the last name schwartz changed to Black, but I have no confirmation), so how am I meant to know if my ancestry is suitably Norman/Saxon/Romano British/Viking?
I have English, Welsh, Scots and Scots-Irish ancestors, albeit some from the British diaspora in the Antipodes. Can I be English by her definition? Or is my blood too diluted by those perfidious Celts?
tbf in my experience it's not uncommon for people born in England to parents with Asian or African roots to consider themselves British and not English. I haven't read the article, but if she is also saying that others with a similar background can't be English she is wrong, but she is entitled to feel that way about herself.
But if HYUFD's summary is correct and she talks about 'descendants of Romano British' then she is off her trolley.
She says, "For Englishness to mean something substantial, it must be rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity – not just residence or fluency. [...] I don’t feel English because I have no generational ties to English soil, no ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Nor do a buttload of white english people (depending on how far we define 'generational'), not to the extent they can prove it without deeper family research. Are we sure how many will be left? A great many, to be sure, but a lot less than she probably thinks.
Quite.
In fact, I suspect very few have "ancestral stories tied to the towns or villages of this land."
Unless the story is "I was born in Watford".
Friend of mine’s ancestor caught the reins of William the bastard’s horse one day and stopped it bolting. His descendants are still farming the land he was given as a reward
Is it in Watford?
The Quantocks
Well, what do you expect? They did a DNA on a Cheddar Gorge cave burial and the nearest hit was a teacher in a nearby school. And my friend who lives nearby looks just like the caveperson photofit. Now that's ancestral.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Of course Chagos Deal will come out the defence budget, it’s a no brainer, is it even a question to ask and non answer give? All the British Tax Payer gets from Chagos deal is security and defence of the realm, not budget holiday destination, so what other budget could it possibly come out of?
I thought you'd seen the light on the Chagos Deal - I suppose Starmer cheerleading is a bigger priority for you than facts.
Nope. I’m not supporting the deal. I’m not supporting Starmer. I’m commenting on the politics of it today.
1. Whether Chagos deal provides security to UK or not is irrelevant - if it becomes a deal, it’s a defence deal, is my point. The only budget it can be charged to is defence. So the purpose in asking a government keen to achieve the deal, what budget it comes from, is to extract refusal to answer. 2. It gets refuse to answer with only possible answer - defence - is a government on the back foot, making it good work from Kemi and a strong PMQ from her. 3. Trump will 100% back the deal, as the winners from the deal are US, India, and Mauritius, a triumvirate of like minded buddies. The only question mark is how Trump will now improve the deal further in Mauritius favour, at expense of UK. Trump likes most the previous administrations cosying with India, though looks to rebrand the good bits with his own name. 4. UK PM at PMQs cannot publicly say the deal is actually all about furthering UK security interests, by giving US and India what they want and keeping them sweet, even though it’s the truth. That India calls off its slander and pressure on us over “no Mauritius deal”, US control of island and waters without messy ownership, India get a free stab into British colonialism. 5. Last Chagos deal got us cheaper defence procurement from US, I’m not sure Starmer can publicly admit this bit either if part of the new deal, as it’s a rather abstract sweetener or stipend.
That’s my take out from today’s bit of politics.
Broadly I do give some value to this gloomy prognosis, though I cherish a lingering hope that Trump will decide to stick it to Starmer and shitcan the deal.
It's basically another complete waste of defence spend, like Trident but without the veneer of usefulness. Next time we're being invaded, what do we do, wave the Chagos deal at them? Before trying to fire a Trident missile at them as an encore and it turns tail and heads back to Florida?
90M a year is maintenance cost of 1 UK aircraft carrier. I agree with you Lucky, 90M a year to Mauritius seems an insane amount of money for UK taxpayer to fork out - a straightforward case of Labour government must be bonkers.
But I’m confident my research and analysis - that this whole Chagos thing never that straightforward at any point - is spot on. But I can only prove my argument with a tick in the box from Donald Trump. In which instance I might write a header TRUMP PROVES MOONRABBIT RIGHT for those who don’t understand my crazy, gloomy analysis.
But trying to get into Trumps brain of what he likes and don’t like is harder psychoanalysis than divining a General Election date. With Trumps brain, it’s not just the material thing about the transaction which excites, but the context it’s set in that titillates him. Like slavery can be an economic return on balance sheet, AND a power trip at the same time. This time it’s not just USA we are giving a power trip to, but joining a pair of lovers for a three in the bed.
We know materially what happened in the 1960’s to Chagos - place was nothing to do with British Empire, but we came to be owning it and ethnically cleansing it for a US base. So what has changed in this context since doing this, that makes US not like this Chagos deal?
My conclusions, aside from the material, the Context has to be exactly the same, or why else have both US and India been involved in making this deal, still dressed up as UK decision making, like cosplay, just an act?
Amongst the cheesy to and thro of Westminster/Fleet Street politics that is so here and now, and where we easily get mugged of the truth, questions like, why did we do what we did in the first place, was it France said non to the US, UK said yes, we’ll do it for you for cheaper cutting edge weapons - this question never gets asked. Why do you think we came to take ownership from France in 1960s and so quickly grant all but a bit of it independence?
Nor the question does this Chagos deal look to a future of India influence and control of the Ocean that bears its name? That doesn’t get asked either. Is this new Chagos deal what India demands for US security partnership - Or a sweetener towards that?
But Trump wouldn't care about a US security partnership with India. He is a Palmerstonian President - no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies. So much of America's foreign policy is based on enmity to Russia, and Trump appears to be ripping that up, so why would he also be beholden to sucking up to India? And why did Starmer and the Biden administration race to get this deal through before Trump acceded? (It's the hope that gets you)
The second bit first, are we sure they rushed to get this deal signed off and ratified as you suggested, or always planned for Trump to decide? Has it not felt like a holding pattern waiting on Trump for a long time? Are we sure Labour will be gutted if Trump kills it? I’m not getting a vibe they will be gutted. Do we think our government and Biden democrats have ever had doubt Trump would approve it? We’ll never know except if he does approve it, it renders any concerns he wouldn’t as unfounded.
Your first bit - you peer into the mind and motivations of Trump looking for consistency - is more of an abstract answer, both in that you don’t have evidence Trump wants no external allies, versus I don’t have much evidence he does, apart from suspecting he might feel part of a club with like minded dictators, especially those who praise him, so might do things for them they ask him for. I do believe he cares not just for material things from a deal, but titillation from the context to it too. That’s his psyche and how to play him. His most ruffled moment of the election campaign was Harris doubting the size of his crowds. If you win the election (materially) does it matter the size of the crowds (the context). It does to him.
To say, Indian Ocean is a long way away and what goes on and through is no interest to UK, does fly in the face of an existing base on Chagos to check Chinese influence and control. As I said what I am trying to do, is place the proposed deal away from narrow party political point scoring into its history book written in 50 years from now context - the base was created after the ethnic cleansing by us - we wouldn’t have gone down such route for no reason or gain? has the need for that history and the base ever gone away? and will requirement to keep this part of trade route from East to West Indian, and away from China, become of even greater importance in the coming century?
"Every driver’s personal information to be made available to police Labour’s Crime and Policing Bill to give forces access to data of 50 million motorists" (£)
Suella calls herself British Asian in that article, apparently only descendants of Normans and Saxons and at a push Romano British and Vikings who settled here can be English is the basis of her argument
What about the Welsh tribes here before all those peoples came here, aren’t they even more English?
The Vikings didn’t even exist as Vikings for very long before identifying as British Vikings.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Yes, I'm half Russian by birth and grew up mostly in Vienna and Copenhagen, but I actually feel very English. Crude indicators tend not to work.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Ryan Giggs was always Welsh, he was never eligible to play for England.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Yes, I'm half Russian by birth and grew up mostly in Vienna and Copenhagen, but I actually feel very English. Crude indicators tend not to work.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Yes, I'm half Russian by birth and grew up mostly in Vienna and Copenhagen, but I actually feel very English. Crude indicators tend not to work.
Born in Wales, but after 3 days there brought up in Yorkshire and feeling perfectly English. But don’t have European white skin, and one parents immediate ancestry is Hong Kong, which was British colony since deal that ended Opium Wars, and County of China before that for like ever. Other parents ancestry is farming in Lower Saxony for like ever. So rather than English I am British Asian German?
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Yes, I'm half Russian by birth and grew up mostly in Vienna and Copenhagen, but I actually feel very English. Crude indicators tend not to work.
Born in Wales, but after 3 days there brought up in Yorkshire and feeling perfectly English. But don’t have European white skin, and one parents immediate ancestry is Hong Kong, which was British colony since deal that ended Opium Wars, and County of China before that for like ever. Other parents ancestry is farming in Lower Saxony for like ever. So rather than English I am British Asian German?
What motivates Swella to talk such shit?
The belief there is a market for it.
Which there is, but I don't think it's as big as the recent push to re-normalise this sort of thing on twitter would have them believe.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Yes, I'm half Russian by birth and grew up mostly in Vienna and Copenhagen, but I actually feel very English. Crude indicators tend not to work.
Born in Wales, but after 3 days there brought up in Yorkshire and feeling perfectly English. But don’t have European white skin, and one parents immediate ancestry is Hong Kong, which was British colony since deal that ended Opium Wars, and County of China before that for like ever. Other parents ancestry is farming in Lower Saxony for like ever. So rather than English I am British Asian German?
What motivates Swella to talk such shit?
You might be distantly related to our Royal family, then ?
This RFI seeks responses that address development pathways for very large (defined as 500 meters or greater in primary dimension) bio-mechanical space structures. Responses should directly address the following five items:
Use case – the use-case for envisioned large bio-mechanical space structures Co-engineering – sights from both the structural/mechanical point of view, and the biological engineering point of view, to arrive at the envisioned useful structure Feedstock – how feedstock will be provided (and relocated if necessary) to the continuously growing edge. Value proposition – order of magnitude estimation of the mass ratio between traditional (non-biological) materials and biological materials, with a strong preference for as little traditional material as feasible Scope of Proof-of-Concept Experiment – Ground-based proofs of concept that address factors specific to the space environment and go from inception to notional finished structure A workshop is being planned for April 2025 for the purpose of reviewing and discussing current and future research relevant to this RFI and assessing new methods to prove the potential of future very large bio-mechanical structures in space.
Responses to this RFI are due by 27 March 2025 via email to DARPA-SN-25-51@darpa.mil
I disagree with Braverman, I think you can become English no matter where you come from.
But exactly how do I “become” it, other than living here since birth and taking a lie detector test to prove I bemoan English Cricket losses just as much as the most English cricket fan also does?
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Ryan Giggs was always Welsh, he was never eligible to play for England.
Ah yes, my mistake I thought he was as played for England schoolboys. Still. Same applies to say, John Sheridan.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Yes, I'm half Russian by birth and grew up mostly in Vienna and Copenhagen, but I actually feel very English. Crude indicators tend not to work.
Born in Wales, but after 3 days there brought up in Yorkshire and feeling perfectly English. But don’t have European white skin, and one parents immediate ancestry is Hong Kong, which was British colony since deal that ended Opium Wars, and County of China before that for like ever. Other parents ancestry is farming in Lower Saxony for like ever. So rather than English I am British Asian German?
What motivates Swella to talk such shit?
You might be distantly related to our Royal family, then ?
I am sure on a board of fellow nerds, there will be some other aficionados of Bostrom's simulation argument (https://simulation-argument.com/).
Whilst indulging in a gentle lament that I no longer have enough free hours in my life to play Civilization, it struck me that, when I did have time to play, I would sometimes build my civilisation up to a peak of performance, such that all different avenues of winning were open to me (winning the space race, diplomatic victory etc) and then, just for the fun of it, go on a relentless military rampage, combined with burning all my diplomatic bridges at once, just to see if my civilisation could wipe out all the others before anyone else build their space ship to Alpha Centauri.
Is there not extremely compelling circumstantial evidence that we are currently within a simulation in which our future-human player has decided to see whether USA can replicate my rather destructive whims?
I'm not sure whether this adds to my evening's melancholy or dissipates it. But I have a glass of Lagavulin next to me so all is not quite lost yet.
As a true nerd the only Bostrom I have heard of is Arthur Bostrom who played the ‘Good Moaning’ PC in Allo Allo.
Nick Bostrom makes a reasonably convincing argument that it is statistically far more likely that our world is a computer simulation being run by future humans with rather more computing power than us, rather than the real thing.
It's quite comforting at times such as this.
Isn't there a major flaw there....how did those future humans get there to run a simulation when all their ancestors were part of a computer simulation?
Labour want Trump to kill the Chagos deal. So that’s that then.
The Canadian Tories are what is in store for Reform should they ally with Trump any further.
It's Labour visibly dancing to Trump's tune.
I think they are making a mistake in trying to reuse the New Labour playbook. Back then they could rely on both the tribal Labour vote and the ideological left having nowhere else to go, but that no longer holds and they risk just looking like a poor man's Reform and not appealing to anyone.
It is the same trap the Conservatives have already fallen into, shipping votes to Reform on one side, LibDems on the other.
It used to be https://www.youtube.com/@rsmithson1000 but there are no videos newer than six years old, so it is possible he forgot the password and had to start a new channel.
Simon Hart's book – Ungovernable, the Political Diaries of a Chief Whip – has landed.
From almost exactly two years ago, Saturday 25th February, 2023:-
There is no sign of BoJo who, like a submarine, seems only too happy to sink beneath the surface when things like this go badly. (One of our new female whips described him as ‘like a foreskin, he always disappears when things get hard’.)
It used to be https://www.youtube.com/@rsmithson1000 but there are no videos newer than six years old, so it is possible he forgot the password and had to start a new channel.
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English. I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
In theory of course you can have debates around Englishness as an 'ethnic identity' in theory, but in practice you can end up in dark, racist places.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Ryan Giggs was always Welsh, he was never eligible to play for England.
Ah yes, my mistake I thought he was as played for England schoolboys. Still. Same applies to say, John Sheridan.
It used to be https://www.youtube.com/@rsmithson1000 but there are no videos newer than six years old, so it is possible he forgot the password and had to start a new channel.
All six years old though and I'm pretty sure there have been more recent videos somewhere.
ETA although that page says last update was 2023 but also that the videos are six years old, but 2023 was not six years ago. Hmm. Wait for the man himself!
"Every driver’s personal information to be made available to police Labour’s Crime and Policing Bill to give forces access to data of 50 million motorists" (£)
Strange one - that's afaics a repeat of the previous Government's proposal from the Criminal Justice Bill 2024.
Two issues:
1 - What was the Telegraph's position back in Jan 2024? TBF that's just thinking that the Telegraph is a cesspit.
2 - More seriously, the proposal on this is for police to have access to DVLA information, such as mugshots, in the investigation of crime, whilst currently it is aiui limited to investigation of motoring offences. I'm fine with that, and it seems to be a good idea to fight crime which should be in place already.
What I question is that it is framed that the usages of that information can be framed in regulations.
That feels too loose, and has a feel of potential access creep about it, just like RIPA back around 2000.
The backgrounds they all use are weird (I use a fridge with "Same chaos different day" on it).
Here, one has a wall the colour of Madame Vasso's giant blue cleansing pyramid (see Sarah Ferguson), and I'm sure the white bearded one (as opposed to the other bearded one) has a row of Billy Bookcases from Ikea.
Tuesday, 7th March [2023] For some reason the issue of Politically Exposed Persons [PEP] came up in Cabinet, prompting Jeremy Hunt to admit he had been refused a Monzo account. I have also been caught out by this and found it impossible to open a new account as well. This can’t have been the intention yet no one wants to fight it.
No wonder Britain is in the state it is if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not trusted to open a bank account.
The backgrounds they all use are weird (I use a fridge with "Same chaos different day" on it).
Here, one has a wall the colour of Madame Vasso's giant blue cleansing pyramid (see Sarah Ferguson), and I'm sure the white bearded one (as opposed to the other bearded one) has a row of Billy Bookcases from Ikea.
Glass-fronted too, which keeps the dust off. Clever.
I am sure on a board of fellow nerds, there will be some other aficionados of Bostrom's simulation argument (https://simulation-argument.com/).
Whilst indulging in a gentle lament that I no longer have enough free hours in my life to play Civilization, it struck me that, when I did have time to play, I would sometimes build my civilisation up to a peak of performance, such that all different avenues of winning were open to me (winning the space race, diplomatic victory etc) and then, just for the fun of it, go on a relentless military rampage, combined with burning all my diplomatic bridges at once, just to see if my civilisation could wipe out all the others before anyone else build their space ship to Alpha Centauri.
Is there not extremely compelling circumstantial evidence that we are currently within a simulation in which our future-human player has decided to see whether USA can replicate my rather destructive whims?
I'm not sure whether this adds to my evening's melancholy or dissipates it. But I have a glass of Lagavulin next to me so all is not quite lost yet.
As a true nerd the only Bostrom I have heard of is Arthur Bostrom who played the ‘Good Moaning’ PC in Allo Allo.
Nick Bostrom makes a reasonably convincing argument that it is statistically far more likely that our world is a computer simulation being run by future humans with rather more computing power than us, rather than the real thing.
It's quite comforting at times such as this.
Isn't there a major flaw there....how did those future humans get there to run a simulation when all their ancestors were part of a computer simulation?
I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would be picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option, the US should have been sending weapons to Russia. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894789558648127693
How sick are these morons
No scale has been invented that can properly measure that.
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space
...so, it big?
It big
There is a numberphile youtube video that explains well an even bigger number than Grahams' number called Tree(3) . Whilst Grahams number can just about be expressed using extreme notation (albeit no one can come close to contemplating how big it actually is) Tree(3) is so big its not even really possible to write in notation
I love googling this stuff because the jargon is so incomprehensible to the layman it is almost hypnotic.
In mathematics, Kruskal's tree theorem states that the set of finite trees over a well-quasi-ordered set of labels is itself well-quasi-ordered under homeomorphic embedding
Any specialist subject can be the same, studying languages for example, but it is particularly profound with mathematics.
This sounds rather like a sop to Mr Chump's windmills brainstorm, and a stirring opportunity for the Telegrunt, tbh. Chump first got excited about wind farms and birds when someone built one in the sea next to his golf course in 2011.
Is the pilot study continuing to November 2029 by any chance?
(Update: I see it is a four year project. Bingo - maybe, or at least conveniently. There are going to be a lot of tactical pilots running until the end of 2029. The scheme will run for four years, and test a variety of paint jobs, including striped turbines and all-black design. )
I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind would be picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option, the US should have been sending weapons to Russia. https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894789558648127693
How sick are these morons
No scale has been invented that can properly measure that.
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space
...so, it big?
It big
There is a numberphile youtube video that explains well an even bigger number than Grahams' number called Tree(3) . Whilst Grahams number can just about be expressed using extreme notation (albeit no one can come close to contemplating how big it actually is) Tree(3) is so big its not even really possible to write in notation
I love googling this stuff because the jargon is so incomprehensible to the layman it is almost hypnotic.
In mathematics, Kruskal's tree theorem states that the set of finite trees over a well-quasi-ordered set of labels is itself well-quasi-ordered under homeomorphic embedding
Any specialist subject can be the same, studying languages for example, but it is particularly profound with mathematics.
Quite ...
In mathematics, Kruskal's tree theorem states that the set of finite trees over a well-quasi-ordered set of labels is itself well-quasi-ordered under homeomorphic embedding
Don't tell the US Government; those last 2 words will make them ban Maths.
Reflecting on that despicable Gaza video Trump posted, as I’d been wandering what it reminded me of. And I realised it is the aesthetic straight out of the coffee table book Dictators’ Homes by Peter York, mixed with a dose of Turkmenbashi.
The book is a hideous classic. Full page spreads of the distinctly non-IKEA interiors of the presidential palaces of the likes of Mobutu, Saddam, Ceausescu and Noriega. There seems to be something about being a narcissistic autocrat that correlates with exceptionally bad taste and a love of lurid kitsch.
Lulu Lytle wallpaper and soft furnishings doubtless abound.
Just a reminder that the Cons likely have no potential allies in the Canadian Commons. Being the largest party will probably do them no good unless they have an overall majority. Why do they have few or no potential allies? Because they are numpties.
Comments
I don't see why, it should be a good thing people of disparate backgrounds see themselves as products of english (or welsh, scottish, british etc) culture. Isn't the usual complaint that some people don't do that?
The whole argument is as absurd as the JD Vance nonsense about the Ukrainian American (I’m generously assuming he wansn’t just making that whole story up).
In mathematics, Kruskal's tree theorem states that the set of finite trees over a well-quasi-ordered set of labels is itself well-quasi-ordered under homeomorphic embedding
Any specialist subject can be the same, studying languages for example, but it is particularly profound with mathematics.
… The SSCG sequence begins slower than SCG, SSCG(0) = 2, SSCG(1) = 5, but then grows rapidly. SSCG(2) = 3 × 2(3 × 295) − 8 ≈ 3.241704 × 1035775080127201286522908640065. Its first and last 20 digits are 32417042291246009846...34057047399148290040. SSCG(2) has in total 35775080127201286522908640066 digits. SSCG(3) is much larger than both TREE(3) and TREETREE(3)(3), that is, you have TREE(3) different unique nodes...
Absurd not to call, for example, Lewis Hamilton, English.
I know I was arguing last week that there is an English ethnic identity which is worth preserving, but it seems to me that Englishness as a label can be comfortably broader than that.
And also, narrower: I was always happy to describe myself as British, but never English. I don’t feel English, and there I am not English.
Ending foreign aid doesn't mean people are forbidden from doing it themselves, just that nobody is forced to contribute by legalised extortion, to programs they object to.
But it’s just a silly deflection from the substantive political argument.
His surname is Huguenot.
This is not me arguing by the way that mere residence or self-identification makes you English.
Seems to me the word English carries several connotations which sometimes conflict with one another.
We could do with a Venn diagram.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssLC4U7u9t8
I suppose I should bugger off elsewhere?
Suella is welcome to join me.
I am half Welsh - half English - my wife is Scottish over generations - our children and grandchildren are Welsh, so apart from Northern Ireland ,we have the UK covered
But my question is why does it even matter ?
Mass immigration has called into question the customary casualness that the British admirably developed on these matters.
Like I have a friend with a Polish name from one grandparent, she's as 'English' as it's possible to be. Fairly posh and from Surrey. Doesn't do anything 'Polish' - it would be absurd to say she's not 'English'. Most people in the country have some kind of mixed heritage from somewhere that isn't 'English'. Look at the number of Scottish, Welsh, or Irish surnames. How do they count towards an English ethnicity?
So in practice you're basically judging whether someone's heritage from another country is visible - i.e. their skin colour is different and/or are culturally different. Which leads to judging people on that rather than where they grew up.
If you qualified to play for the England football team at birth then you can be English (you could of course renounce it in favour of another identity, like say, Ryan Giggs).
Are we sure Labour will be gutted if Trump kills it? I’m not getting a vibe they will be gutted.
Do we think our government and Biden democrats have ever had doubt Trump would approve it? We’ll never know except if he does approve it, it renders any concerns he wouldn’t as unfounded.
Your first bit - you peer into the mind and motivations of Trump looking for consistency - is more of an abstract answer, both in that you don’t have evidence Trump wants no external allies, versus I don’t have much evidence he does, apart from suspecting he might feel part of a club with like minded dictators, especially those who praise him, so might do things for them they ask him for. I do believe he cares not just for material things from a deal, but titillation from the context to it too. That’s his psyche and how to play him. His most ruffled moment of the election campaign was Harris doubting the size of his crowds. If you win the election (materially) does it matter the size of the crowds (the context). It does to him.
To say, Indian Ocean is a long way away and what goes on and through is no interest to UK, does fly in the face of an existing base on Chagos to check Chinese influence and control. As I said what I am trying to do, is place the proposed deal away from narrow party political point scoring into its history book written in 50 years from now context - the base was created after the ethnic cleansing by us - we wouldn’t have gone down such route for no reason or gain? has the need for that history and the base ever gone away? and will requirement to keep this part of trade route from East to West Indian, and away from China, become of even greater importance in the coming century?
"Every driver’s personal information to be made available to police
Labour’s Crime and Policing Bill to give forces access to data of 50 million motorists" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/26/drivers-personal-information-made-available-police/
The Vikings didn’t even exist as Vikings for very long before identifying as British Vikings.
What motivates Swella to talk such shit?
Which there is, but I don't think it's as big as the recent push to re-normalise this sort of thing on twitter would have them believe.
DARPA – Request for Information – Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures
https://defencescienceinstitute.com/news/darpa-request-for-information-large-bio-mechanical-space-structures/
DARPA is interested in exploring the feasibility of ‘growing’ biological structures of unprecedented size in microgravity.
This RFI seeks responses that address development pathways for very large (defined as 500 meters or greater in primary dimension) bio-mechanical space structures. Responses should directly address the following five items:
Use case – the use-case for envisioned large bio-mechanical space structures
Co-engineering – sights from both the structural/mechanical point of view, and the biological engineering point of view, to arrive at the envisioned useful structure
Feedstock – how feedstock will be provided (and relocated if necessary) to the continuously growing edge.
Value proposition – order of magnitude estimation of the mass ratio between traditional (non-biological) materials and biological materials, with a strong preference for as little traditional material as feasible
Scope of Proof-of-Concept Experiment – Ground-based proofs of concept that address factors specific to the space environment and go from inception to notional finished structure
A workshop is being planned for April 2025 for the purpose of reviewing and discussing current and future research relevant to this RFI and assessing new methods to prove the potential of future very large bio-mechanical structures in space.
Responses to this RFI are due by 27 March 2025 via email to DARPA-SN-25-51@darpa.mil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEfxDOzJAHQ
From almost exactly two years ago, Saturday 25th February, 2023:-
There is no sign of BoJo who, like a submarine, seems only too happy to sink beneath the surface when things like this go badly. (One of our new female whips described him as ‘like a foreskin, he always disappears when things get hard’.)
Experts told Sky News that a lack of core funding for GP practices means there is not enough money to recruit - at a time when demand for appointments has reached an all-time high.
https://news.sky.com/story/lack-of-jobs-forcing-gps-to-work-as-uber-drivers-13317540
ETA although that page says last update was 2023 but also that the videos are six years old, but 2023 was not six years ago. Hmm. Wait for the man himself!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMwsGIhtj6Q
Two issues:
1 - What was the Telegraph's position back in Jan 2024? TBF that's just thinking that the Telegraph is a cesspit.
2 - More seriously, the proposal on this is for police to have access to DVLA information, such as mugshots, in the investigation of crime, whilst currently it is aiui limited to investigation of motoring offences. I'm fine with that, and it seems to be a good idea to fight crime which should be in place already.
What I question is that it is framed that the usages of that information can be framed in regulations.
That feels too loose, and has a feel of potential access creep about it, just like RIPA back around 2000.
Here, one has a wall the colour of Madame Vasso's giant blue cleansing pyramid (see Sarah Ferguson), and I'm sure the white bearded one (as opposed to the other bearded one) has a row of Billy Bookcases from Ikea.
Tuesday, 7th March [2023]
For some reason the issue of Politically Exposed Persons [PEP] came up in Cabinet, prompting Jeremy Hunt to admit he had been refused a Monzo account. I have also been caught out by this and found it impossible to open a new account as well. This can’t have been the intention yet no one wants to fight it.
No wonder Britain is in the state it is if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not trusted to open a bank account.
New Post!
Also, why would they bother?
Pilot scheme launched following Donald Trump raising concerns with Prime Minister about ‘windmills in the North Sea’ killing avian wildlife
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/02/26/wind-turbines-paint-black-donald-trump-birds-keir-starmer/ (£££)
The Daily Express reported it a month ago::
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2002169/wind-turbines-painted-black-save-birds
Is the pilot study continuing to November 2029 by any chance?
(Update: I see it is a four year project. Bingo - maybe, or at least conveniently. There are going to be a lot of tactical pilots running until the end of 2029.
The scheme will run for four years, and test a variety of paint jobs, including striped turbines and all-black design. )
Full piece: https://archive.is/20250226164405/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/02/26/wind-turbines-paint-black-donald-trump-birds-keir-starmer/
Don't tell the US Government; those last 2 words will make them ban Maths.