Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
People see and hear what they want to. They pick a side and then reconcile that with their wishes.
It’s not uncommon to encounter Corbynites who tell you that he is actually a hardcore Remainer. Who would have instantly taken us back into the EU.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
He's a human being.
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
Did he not understand that Trump wants him to make stuff in the US, employing fellow Americans?
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
That America is gone.
I don't think so, I think it's just hibernating. Americans will remember eventually but it mat be too late for them to take back the mantle.
Who on Earth will trust them as we used to? It’s done.
They only way is if the constitution is changed so a clinically insane tyrant can't do this again. Foreign policy turned 180 degree overnight without Congress doing a thing. Indeed, most of congress claps like fucking circus seals. Which is actually disrespectful to seals frankly.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
What about New Zealand???
New Zealand has just sacked its UK High Commissioner for suggesting Donald Trump does not have a firm grasp of history.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
On your first point, the same is true of Turkey - the Ottoman Empire once bestrode the world, and Erdogan has explicitly referenced that past, and seems to have clear ambitions of a greater Turkey. His territorial ambitions are also more directly opposed to our interests given the strategic importance of our military base on Cyprus.
On your final point, broadly I agree, but we need to be careful that we are doing this, not doing stupid things like giving away Chagos as part of our military budget.
We're not giving them away. They're not ours. Legally. Which is why HMG started the negotiation to hand them back to their rightful owner. The US may not care about international law, but we do.
We have maintained administration over a US military base. We're diverging with the US as allies. If they lose Diego Garcia it's their problem not ours. With Trump now backing Putin are we not going to be decoupling ourselves anyway?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
He's a human being.
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
If he is now on the side of democracy and doing things big or small to turn America in the right direction, I think he should be welcomed and supported.
If not, my sympathy is with the people who did the right thing and are just as damaged by his choice.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
What about New Zealand???
Very deep in with China, sadly. I'd probably add Japan and Italy to the top of our second order allies list, shift them into the top grouping if the Tempest project gets the green light (which is really must now).
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Totally sympathise. And our USA friends need to know that in Europe one of our feelings is a profound sadness and solidarity with our friends.
But there is one more thing to say. What cannot be denied is that USA voters voted for Trump, and for an GOP congress, in the 100% full knowledge of what Trump had said in speech after speech; including tariffs, isolationism, making sure the Ukraine war was forced to an end, regarding Canada as an annexe with a governor as PM, and seeking to acquire Greenland.
They also knew (6 Jan) that Trump was a liar, rabble rouser and fraud who only believed in an electoral process when he won. They also knew that he never criticises Russia.
They have got what they voted for and what he stood for. Which was the bit those changing their minds didn't get?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
I'd be a liar to say I'm immune to schadenfreude. And there are certainly others I feel more sympathy for.
But I also remember some of the idiotic mistakes I've made.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Yes. To have come back a few days later, obviously not having engaged his own brain, with another load of nonsense quite obviously cut and paste from one of his pet AIs, is disappointing - and a sad comment on what may well be the future, of people taking the output of their AI as gospel without having thought about it themselves at all.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
He's a human being.
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
He's a tosser. We are all paying a price because of him and tossers like him. Some are paying with their lives.
Why should we care about him?
In particular ? Probably not much, unless he's in our circle of acquaintance.
But in general, absolutely we should. If you believe democracy is still a viable form of government, then you have to be open to your opponents changing their minds in the face if evidence. You might think him an idiot, but how does that make him any different from a large number of voters ?
The other point, of course, is that the damage Trump's policies do isn't confined to those who voted for him.
It's easy to confuse a lack of political engagement with stupidity, and there are very few people stupid enough to not understand what kind of individual Trump is.
My sympathy is limited because his behaviour has been exactly in line with what I and others expected. That lack of care will extend to Democrats too if they don't start to kick up a fuss - put your protests where your mouth is.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
I'd be a liar to say I'm immune to schadenfreude. And there are certainly others I feel more sympathy for.
But I also remember some of the idiotic mistakes I've made.
We’ve all made mistakes but I’m very happy to see that the vast majority of members in here be they right or left on their politics have found common ground on Ukraine .
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
He's a human being.
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
Did he not understand that Trump wants him to make stuff in the US, employing fellow Americans?
Americans can't afford to buy stuff made in the US. Same here. Have you seen how much British clothes cost? OK, so its high-end, but that's because production costs are also high-end.
Here's the simple truth. We need to consume less. Unchecked capitalism means that we have to consumer more and more. Wardrobe full of clothes you like? Buy more? Smartphone more than 18 months old? Buy another! Not buying new tech fast enough? Lets engineer in obsolescence.
Western countries could make all the stuff they used to. But it would be the end to Friedman Capitalism which has dominated our lives for the last 40+ years. And the people who own our economies think that would be bad for them. So we won't.
An example of stuff happening, where NZ takes action over something which would normally be not noticed at all. This is real fear operating. Plenty more to come.
All that US propaganda we’ve been fed for 50 years about leadership of the free world, the shining light on the hill, the new world, the land of liberty etc chokes. I couldn’t give less of a toss about their founding fathers or , as it turns out, ineffective constitution.
Personally I would like to see us promote our own story and mythology. For example , the Scottish enlightenment needs to be celebrated, but few have heard of it.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
What about New Zealand???
Very deep in with China, sadly. I'd probably add Japan and Italy to the top of our second order allies list, shift them into the top grouping if the Tempest project gets the green light (which is really must now).
In deep with China is the present. We're all in deep with China. Looking around my desk the following are made in China: laptop, monitor, keyboard, mouse, phone, headphones, webcam, label printer. That's just for starters.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
He's a human being.
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
He's a tosser. We are all paying a price because of him and tossers like him. Some are paying with their lives.
Why should we care about him?
In particular ? Probably not much, unless he's in our circle of acquaintance.
But in general, absolutely we should. If you believe democracy is still a viable form of government, then you have to be open to your opponents changing their minds in the face if evidence. You might think him an idiot, but how does that make him any different from a large number of voters ?
The other point, of course, is that the damage Trump's policies do isn't confined to those who voted for him.
It's easy to confuse a lack of political engagement with stupidity, and there are very few people stupid enough to not understand what kind of individual Trump is.
My sympathy is limited. And that will extend to Democrats too if they don't start to kick up a fuss.
The Dems still haven't figured out what happened.
On the other hand there will be special places in hell for the likes of Rubio who sold their souls to the orange devil.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
Trump is the great unifying factor. Watch as Europe comes together in ways that were politically impossible a few months ago. Watch as developed countries like Mexico and Canada band together to repel tariffs from the savages between them. Watch as the American constitution is hollowed out and finally set aside.
Trump wants America to become North Korea. That's fine, you get what you vote for. NATO is a relic of the cold war anyway, time to build something new. Or something old, when Europe used to be military power and the colonialists sat fighting each other.
For all that Ukraine is important, it is the canary in the coal mine. Europe is going to struggle to defend Ukraine with the US switching sides to join the Axis. But the needs of Ukraine show the needs of Europe. We may not be able to resist Putin in Ukraine, but their fight means we will resist him elsewhere. Trump too.
Ukraine has a million strong army, and a large, relatively modern defence industry. Depending on how much is eventually ceded to Russia, that will be added to the future Russian threat. Or to Europe's defences.
Our choice.
Without US military aid, or it being plugged, Ukraine could be in real trouble in as little as four months
An example of stuff happening, where NZ takes action over something which would normally be not noticed at all. This is real fear operating. Plenty more to come.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Nothing says warm and welcoming more than "You lost, get over it"!
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
A former politician observed yesterday, their view, when politicians screw up normally it leads to a bad outcomes that can be reversed or crashing an economy which eventually can be undone.
What Trump has done in the last week has ensured thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians die or are subjugated and that's not a normal screw up, that's evil, thankfully even Reform voters have seen the light.
Trouble is that many Яeform voters have not seen the light. They are still their social media regurgitating Moscows propaganda, waiting and untouchable.
It's a process not an event.
Of course there'll be a few 'tankies' but they will be a minority.
and I wish I had your optimism. I was at an event on Sunday. There was a Яeform voter opining about corrupt Zelenskyy, he was delighted by Trump and thought our mainstream politicians were warmongering.
It’s not good. These guys are quite happy in their impenetrable bubbles.
The polling is clear. That's a big shift in one week, and it will continue.
British people don't like fascists, and Trump and Vance are fascists. We're not talking of fascism as a term of abuse, but real fascism, the type that leaves millions dead.
As to the rest, we, and our allies need to ramp up military spending, and steadily disengage from the USA. But, that should not mean embracing other hostile powers, as a counter to the USA. It would be just as shameful for us to side with China, if they seized Taiwan, as it would be to side with Russia over Ukraine.
Excellent, what’s your position on Яeform and our home grown Maga?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
People see and hear what they want to. They pick a side and then reconcile that with their wishes.
It’s not uncommon to encounter Corbynites who tell you that he is actually a hardcore Remainer. Who would have instantly taken us back into the EU.
They actually believe this. If Jenrick really did believe that Trump would be good for the UK he is clearly as unfit to hold office as Corbyn was.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Trumps actions are likely to lead to more Ukrainian deaths . My sympathy is with Ukrainians. Sorry the well is reserved for them. And horrible outcomes are losing friends and family because Trump is a fxcking traitor. I understand what you’re saying but my anger at what’s happening is currently obliterating any sympathies for the collateral damage caused by voting for Trump .
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Nothing says warm and welcoming more than "You lost, get over it"!
The post he’s responding to is hardly warm, welcoming or mature now, is it ?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Trumps actions are likely to lead to more Ukrainian deaths . My sympathy is with Ukrainians. Sorry the well is reserved for them. And horrible outcomes are losing friends and family because Trump is a fxcking traitor. I understand what you’re saying but my anger at what’s happening is currently obliterating any sympathies for the collateral damage caused by voting for Trump .
God bless you for your saintliness paraded on display here for all of us to see. Polishing your halo in public must give you such a frisson of joy.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
A former politician observed yesterday, their view, when politicians screw up normally it leads to a bad outcomes that can be reversed or crashing an economy which eventually can be undone.
What Trump has done in the last week has ensured thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians die or are subjugated and that's not a normal screw up, that's evil, thankfully even Reform voters have seen the light.
Trouble is that many Яeform voters have not seen the light. They are still their social media regurgitating Moscows propaganda, waiting and untouchable.
It's a process not an event.
Of course there'll be a few 'tankies' but they will be a minority.
and I wish I had your optimism. I was at an event on Sunday. There was a Яeform voter opining about corrupt Zelenskyy, he was delighted by Trump and thought our mainstream politicians were warmongering.
It’s not good. These guys are quite happy in their impenetrable bubbles.
The polling is clear. That's a big shift in one week, and it will continue.
British people don't like fascists, and Trump and Vance are fascists. We're not talking of fascism as a term of abuse, but real fascism, the type that leaves millions dead.
As to the rest, we, and our allies need to ramp up military spending, and steadily disengage from the USA. But, that should not mean embracing other hostile powers, as a counter to the USA. It would be just as shameful for us to side with China, if they seized Taiwan, as it would be to side with Russia over Ukraine.
Excellent, what’s your position on Яeform and our home grown Maga?
The Tories need to destroy them, correct?
Yes, they do, and they now have the opportunity to do so.
Brilliant. Only a few weeks ago Tories were saying their future was some kind of pact.
The country needs the Tory party to get off its knees, reject maga and the theological new right and remember what patriotic British conservatism is all about.
I say this with some diffidence, but it seems to me that patriotic British conservatism has been labelled as Far Right for too long to be acceptable now.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
People see and hear what they want to. They pick a side and then reconcile that with their wishes.
It’s not uncommon to encounter Corbynites who tell you that he is actually a hardcore Remainer. Who would have instantly taken us back into the EU.
They actually believe this. If Jenrick really did believe that Trump would be good for the UK he is clearly as unfit to hold office as Corbyn was.
Well quite given the Trumpdozer is doing exactly what he said he would.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
All that US propaganda we’ve been fed for 50 years about leadership of the free world, the shining light on the hill, the new world, the land of liberty etc chokes. I couldn’t give less of a toss about their founding fathers or , as it turns out, ineffective constitution.
Personally I would like to see us promote our own story and mythology. For example , the Scottish enlightenment needs to be celebrated, but few have heard of it.
Britain needs to rediscover the period in the eighteenth century when it was the intellectual centre of Europe, and finally shake off Victorian anti-intellectualism ; that"s what's allowed the less advanced, rather than more expansive, part of American mass culture to exert too much of an influence on us.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Totally sympathise. And our USA friends need to know that in Europe one of our feelings is a profound sadness and solidarity with our friends.
But there is one more thing to say. What cannot be denied is that USA voters voted for Trump, and for an GOP congress, in the 100% full knowledge of what Trump had said in speech after speech; including tariffs, isolationism, making sure the Ukraine war was forced to an end, regarding Canada as an annexe with a governor as PM, and seeking to acquire Greenland.
They also knew (6 Jan) that Trump was a liar, rabble rouser and fraud who only believed in an electoral process when he won. They also knew that he never criticises Russia.
They have got what they voted for and what he stood for. Which was the bit those changing their minds didn't get?
Why would you sympathise? They were presumably happy with the rest of his programme that means other people losing healthcare, jobs etc, they're just shocked because they weren't expecting to experience the negative consequences of their vote. People vote for policies not caring how it will impact on others in the expectation they'll be unaffected. US would be a different place if, for example, those campaigning against gun laws were shot instead of schoolkids. You could have a pardon system, school shooters get an unconditional pardon if they just take the kids hostage and agree to exchange them for Alex Jones and NRA committee members.
All that US propaganda we’ve been fed for 50 years about leadership of the free world, the shining light on the hill, the new world, the land of liberty etc chokes. I couldn’t give less of a toss about their founding fathers or , as it turns out, ineffective constitution.
Personally I would like to see us promote our own story and mythology. For example , the Scottish enlightenment needs to be celebrated, but few have heard of it.
WW1 14-18 Interwar 19-38 WW2 39-45 Cold war 46-91 Post cold war Pax Americana 92-24 End of end of history 25-> ?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
I propose that this comment be framed and placed on the site's banner.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Trumps actions are likely to lead to more Ukrainian deaths . My sympathy is with Ukrainians. Sorry the well is reserved for them. And horrible outcomes are losing friends and family because Trump is a fxcking traitor. I understand what you’re saying but my anger at what’s happening is currently obliterating any sympathies for the collateral damage caused by voting for Trump .
God bless you for your saintliness paraded on display here for all of us to see. Polishing your halo in public must give you such a frisson of joy.
Thank you ! Not sure why my post has caused such a drama . Many think the same and just don’t want to look bad and cruel . You should go onto Dem sites to see the level of bile aimed at their fellow US voters who supported Trump . My post was positively vanilla in comparison.
I'd like to see how the polls go after the spending review. Deep cuts to fund defence will prove a good test of the resolve of ordinary people to make sacrifices. I'm unsure how it will go.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
All that US propaganda we’ve been fed for 50 years about leadership of the free world, the shining light on the hill, the new world, the land of liberty etc chokes. I couldn’t give less of a toss about their founding fathers or , as it turns out, ineffective constitution.
Personally I would like to see us promote our own story and mythology. For example , the Scottish enlightenment needs to be celebrated, but few have heard of it.
Britain needs to rediscover the period in the eighteenth century when it was the intellectual centre of Europe, and finally shake off Victorian anti-intellectualism ; that"s what's allowed the less advanced, rather than more expansive, part of American mass culture to exert too much of an influence on us.
There’s more to us than the Beatles, WW2, Victorians and Empire. Freedom was not invented in America.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
All that US propaganda we’ve been fed for 50 years about leadership of the free world, the shining light on the hill, the new world, the land of liberty etc chokes. I couldn’t give less of a toss about their founding fathers or , as it turns out, ineffective constitution.
Personally I would like to see us promote our own story and mythology. For example , the Scottish enlightenment needs to be celebrated, but few have heard of it.
Britain needs to rediscover the period in the eighteenth century when it was the intellectual centre of Europe, and finally shake off Victorian anti-intellectualism ; that"s what's allowed the less advanced, rather than more expansive, part of American mass culture to exert too much of an influence on us.
There’s more to us than the Beatles, WW2, Victorians and Empire. Freedom was not invented in America.
Indeed, although I would the Beatles in the category of a refinement and improvement of something coming from America. In the 1960's.British popular culture advanced American popular culture, and broadened it.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Nothing says warm and welcoming more than "You lost, get over it"!
The post he’s responding to is hardly warm, welcoming or mature now, is it ?
I am sure Jenrick has landed where he has is entirely for personal gain. However everything he is saying now resonates with the British voter. No one cares that just six weeks ago he attended Trump's inauguration.
He has an opportunity because for good or ill Starmer remains equivocal regarding Trump's evil. Now this may be pragmatic, but to the uninitiated and myself, Starmer looks like a traitor for letting Trump's misbehaviour go unchecked. Jenrick looks like he has captured the mood of the nation. I can't understand why the self-styled World King and defender of Ukraine hasn't condemned Trump.
An example of stuff happening, where NZ takes action over something which would normally be not noticed at all. This is real fear operating. Plenty more to come.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
I'd like to see how the polls go after the spending review. Deep cuts to fund defence will prove a good test of the resolve of ordinary people to make sacrifices. I'm unsure how it will go.
I think most Western countries will fund defence spending via deficits.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Nothing says warm and welcoming more than "You lost, get over it"!
The post he’s responding to is hardly warm, welcoming or mature now, is it ?
I am sure Jenrick has landed where he has is entirely for personal gain. However everything he is saying now resonates with the British voter. No one cares that just six weeks ago he attended Trump's inauguration.
He has an opportunity because for good or ill Starmer remains equivocal regarding Trump's evil. Now this may be pragmatic, but to the uninitiated and myself, Starmer looks like a traitor for letting Trump's misbehaviour go unchecked. Jenrick looks like he has captured the mood of the nation. I can't understand why the self-styled World King and defender of Ukraine hasn't condemned Trump.
I would be surprised if as many as 20% of people know who Robert Jenrick is, though they may have a vague recollection of him ordering that Disney characters be painted over in children's homes. The current polling suggests most voters do not see Starmer as a traitor.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Trumps actions are likely to lead to more Ukrainian deaths . My sympathy is with Ukrainians. Sorry the well is reserved for them. And horrible outcomes are losing friends and family because Trump is a fxcking traitor. I understand what you’re saying but my anger at what’s happening is currently obliterating any sympathies for the collateral damage caused by voting for Trump .
God bless you for your saintliness paraded on display here for all of us to see. Polishing your halo in public must give you such a frisson of joy.
"More joy in heaven over one sinner who repents" etc does need the "repent" bit.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
There is one interesting dynamic playing out right now, markets are pricing the cost of tariffs directly into USD which just keeps falling. It is the opposite of what I (and I think most others) expected and it makes for a double inflationary impact. I think most people expected for USD to strengthen by 10-12% which would take the edge off tariffs for American consumers but right now USD is down about 6% and falling. American consumers are going to be paying 20-25% more of their hard earned cash for imports of basic goods and close to 15% more dollars for Canadian petroleum products which will send gas prices in the north of the US skyrocketing.
It feels, to me, that the markets have called Trump's bluff. If the dynamic of selling off USD continues the US is heading for a major, major crisis. This is the first time I've ever thought that US global economic hegemony might be sunsetting. I don't think Trump and MAGA isolationists realise just how much it benefits the US economy.
A bit of US-lead market chaos is probably good for Reeves' position tho'.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Trumps actions are likely to lead to more Ukrainian deaths . My sympathy is with Ukrainians. Sorry the well is reserved for them. And horrible outcomes are losing friends and family because Trump is a fxcking traitor. I understand what you’re saying but my anger at what’s happening is currently obliterating any sympathies for the collateral damage caused by voting for Trump .
God bless you for your saintliness paraded on display here for all of us to see. Polishing your halo in public must give you such a frisson of joy.
Thank you ! Not sure why my post has caused such a drama . Many think the same and just don’t want to look bad and cruel . You should go onto Dem sites to see the level of bile aimed at their fellow US voters who supported Trump . My post was positively vanilla in comparison.
And that isn't really going to help either. Dems ought to be welcoming Robert's neighbour with open arms. They still have a tendency to push people away.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I am bone idle, of that there is no doubt! Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
A former politician observed yesterday, their view, when politicians screw up normally it leads to a bad outcomes that can be reversed or crashing an economy which eventually can be undone.
What Trump has done in the last week has ensured thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians die or are subjugated and that's not a normal screw up, that's evil, thankfully even Reform voters have seen the light.
Trouble is that many Яeform voters have not seen the light. They are still their social media regurgitating Moscows propaganda, waiting and untouchable.
It's a process not an event.
Of course there'll be a few 'tankies' but they will be a minority.
and I wish I had your optimism. I was at an event on Sunday. There was a Яeform voter opining about corrupt Zelenskyy, he was delighted by Trump and thought our mainstream politicians were warmongering.
It’s not good. These guys are quite happy in their impenetrable bubbles.
The polling is clear. That's a big shift in one week, and it will continue.
British people don't like fascists, and Trump and Vance are fascists. We're not talking of fascism as a term of abuse, but real fascism, the type that leaves millions dead.
As to the rest, we, and our allies need to ramp up military spending, and steadily disengage from the USA. But, that should not mean embracing other hostile powers, as a counter to the USA. It would be just as shameful for us to side with China, if they seized Taiwan, as it would be to side with Russia over Ukraine.
Excellent, what’s your position on Яeform and our home grown Maga?
The Tories need to destroy them, correct?
Yes, they do, and they now have the opportunity to do so.
Brilliant. Only a few weeks ago Tories were saying their future was some kind of pact.
The country needs the Tory party to get off its knees, reject maga and the theological new right and remember what patriotic British conservatism is all about.
In that case I am not sure Jenrick is your man.
He blows with the wind.
I wonder what Thatcher, Churchill would have done these past few weeks. It would have been really tough for them given their closeness to the US. I imagine they would be in the same place as Starmer.
Sacrilege it may be, and Churchill certainly saved the country, but the more negative side of the Churchillian inheritance is partly why we're in this position.
His links with Roosevelt may have been indispensable, but he never entirely understood the American foreign policy mindset, and always confused American interests with entirely our own, with his American mother.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
That America is gone.
I don't think so, I think it's just hibernating. Americans will remember eventually but it mat be too late for them to take back the mantle.
The thing is, US society is split down the middle. There's a huge swathe of Americans, notably on the coasts but in every major city, that think like us and other Europeans - broadly rational, educated, open, outwards looking. Then there's a larger group, of assorted religious fanatics, racists and the profoundly ignorant - these are people who would vote for Trump even if he came over to their house and took a dump on the carpet. In the middle there is a whole load of people who are too busy working to even look up and see what's happening. As long as gasoline prices are kept down they'll be happy with whatever. This swing group might vote with the first group sometimes, and the second group other times. So we may get a swing back from extreme MAGA at some point. But it should be obvious to everyone in Europe and the broader West that the US is no longer a reliable ally. I also wonder how long those first two groups can cohabit in the same country. There is a profound clash of values.
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
He doesn't want to understand. Like many of us, he has a fixed worldview, and everything that happens has to be contorted into that worldview, rather than having his worldview shifted.
That's something that can happen to all of us. In fact, it's probably the case for me as well on some things.
Based on this Yougov charts Trump's Yougov favourable rating of 15% is closer to the 12% UKIP voteshare in 2015 while Farage's favourable rating of 26% is much closer to the current Reform poll rating.
So Farage doesn't want to get too close to Trump if he wants to try and get most seats at the next GE
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
Doesn't that say more about Leon than about arts graduates in general?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Considering how unlikely it is that @RCS1000 friend follows this site, I think he remains in blissful ignorance.
Worth noting that Californias electoral vote went to Harris so this persons vote did not help get Trump elected (though his vote for HoR may have made a difference).
It's best not to mock such people to their faces though, but rather to get them to question themselves. "If you had your vote over again, would you vote the same way?" And then leave it there whatever his response. If Harris, job done, if still Trump then just let the seed grow rather than start an argument.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Trumps actions are likely to lead to more Ukrainian deaths . My sympathy is with Ukrainians. Sorry the well is reserved for them. And horrible outcomes are losing friends and family because Trump is a fxcking traitor. I understand what you’re saying but my anger at what’s happening is currently obliterating any sympathies for the collateral damage caused by voting for Trump .
God bless you for your saintliness paraded on display here for all of us to see. Polishing your halo in public must give you such a frisson of joy.
Thank you ! Not sure why my post has caused such a drama . Many think the same and just don’t want to look bad and cruel . You should go onto Dem sites to see the level of bile aimed at their fellow US voters who supported Trump . My post was positively vanilla in comparison.
Given the large number of christians who are enthusiastic Trump supporters, being unchristian is no bad thing.
The real point is that people might change their vote but they haven't really changed. If the people mentioned above's business survives but their competitors don't, meaning they eventually profit they'll probably vote even more enthusiastically for Trump/his successor next time. The public sentiment that came out of WW2, "I don't want it to be them, in different circumstances it could just as easily be me", has faded and life is much worse for it.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
A former politician observed yesterday, their view, when politicians screw up normally it leads to a bad outcomes that can be reversed or crashing an economy which eventually can be undone.
What Trump has done in the last week has ensured thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians die or are subjugated and that's not a normal screw up, that's evil, thankfully even Reform voters have seen the light.
Trouble is that many Яeform voters have not seen the light. They are still their social media regurgitating Moscows propaganda, waiting and untouchable.
It's a process not an event.
Of course there'll be a few 'tankies' but they will be a minority.
and I wish I had your optimism. I was at an event on Sunday. There was a Яeform voter opining about corrupt Zelenskyy, he was delighted by Trump and thought our mainstream politicians were warmongering.
It’s not good. These guys are quite happy in their impenetrable bubbles.
The polling is clear. That's a big shift in one week, and it will continue.
British people don't like fascists, and Trump and Vance are fascists. We're not talking of fascism as a term of abuse, but real fascism, the type that leaves millions dead.
As to the rest, we, and our allies need to ramp up military spending, and steadily disengage from the USA. But, that should not mean embracing other hostile powers, as a counter to the USA. It would be just as shameful for us to side with China, if they seized Taiwan, as it would be to side with Russia over Ukraine.
Excellent, what’s your position on Яeform and our home grown Maga?
The Tories need to destroy them, correct?
Yes, they do, and they now have the opportunity to do so.
Brilliant. Only a few weeks ago Tories were saying their future was some kind of pact.
The country needs the Tory party to get off its knees, reject maga and the theological new right and remember what patriotic British conservatism is all about.
I say this with some diffidence, but it seems to me that patriotic British conservatism has been labelled as Far Right for too long to be acceptable now.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning! I think that the reasons this has happened are how the terms "patriotic" and "conservatism" are framed.
The latter is easy - Tory governments since 2015 haven't been conservative. The othering of conservatism by Conservative politicians started in earnest under Cameron. Fruitcakes and Loonies - of course they must be far right because we Conservatives are the patriotic right and these loonies are to the right of us.
As for patriotism, its a label which gets endlessly misapplied. There are very few political actors of whichever party who are not patriots, acting in the best interests of their country as they see it. Patriotism has become weaponised as a stick to try and beat the other side with.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Totally sympathise. And our USA friends need to know that in Europe one of our feelings is a profound sadness and solidarity with our friends.
But there is one more thing to say. What cannot be denied is that USA voters voted for Trump, and for an GOP congress, in the 100% full knowledge of what Trump had said in speech after speech; including tariffs, isolationism, making sure the Ukraine war was forced to an end, regarding Canada as an annexe with a governor as PM, and seeking to acquire Greenland.
They also knew (6 Jan) that Trump was a liar, rabble rouser and fraud who only believed in an electoral process when he won. They also knew that he never criticises Russia.
They have got what they voted for and what he stood for. Which was the bit those changing their minds didn't get?
Why would you sympathise? They were presumably happy with the rest of his programme that means other people losing healthcare, jobs etc, they're just shocked because they weren't expecting to experience the negative consequences of their vote. People vote for policies not caring how it will impact on others in the expectation they'll be unaffected. US would be a different place if, for example, those campaigning against gun laws were shot instead of schoolkids. You could have a pardon system, school shooters get an unconditional pardon if they just take the kids hostage and agree to exchange them for Alex Jones and NRA committee members.
Why would I sympathise? Simple. Because a lot of good people are having a hard time, because we hang together, because I would like good outcomes instead of bad, because I do stupid things too and so on.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
Which 'centrist dads' are you referring to?
I don't see any 'splendid indifference' to Gaza. In fact, I see a lot of damnation of both Hamas and the Israeli government, and a lot of sympathy for the poor people on the ground.
But where your comparison fails is that the Gaza-Israel situation is morally ambiguous. Hamas did an evil act in 2023, and one that *any* state would have had to respond to. Hamas are not innocents. But the Israeli reaction has been crass and bloody. There is no 'good' side to pick in that conflict, aside from the innocents on the ground. There's just bad and more bad, depending on whether you swerve more to pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian.
Whereas Ukraine is about as morally unambiguous as you can get - unless you're a left-wing or right-wing shitbag. Russia is in the wrong. Ukraine is in the right. And that makes it much easier to discuss and hang your coat on the 'good' side.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
Doesn't that say more about Leon than about arts graduates in general?
That's why I specified SOME arts graduates. We saw it a lot in how MSM reported on covid too.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
Doesn't that say more about Leon than about arts graduates in general?
That's why I specified SOME arts graduates. We saw it a lot in how MSM reported on covid too.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
No Australia and Canada and NZ are first as we share the King as our head of state with them and our language and similar ancestry.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
A former politician observed yesterday, their view, when politicians screw up normally it leads to a bad outcomes that can be reversed or crashing an economy which eventually can be undone.
What Trump has done in the last week has ensured thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians die or are subjugated and that's not a normal screw up, that's evil, thankfully even Reform voters have seen the light.
Trouble is that many Яeform voters have not seen the light. They are still their social media regurgitating Moscows propaganda, waiting and untouchable.
It's a process not an event.
Of course there'll be a few 'tankies' but they will be a minority.
and I wish I had your optimism. I was at an event on Sunday. There was a Яeform voter opining about corrupt Zelenskyy, he was delighted by Trump and thought our mainstream politicians were warmongering.
It’s not good. These guys are quite happy in their impenetrable bubbles.
The polling is clear. That's a big shift in one week, and it will continue.
British people don't like fascists, and Trump and Vance are fascists. We're not talking of fascism as a term of abuse, but real fascism, the type that leaves millions dead.
As to the rest, we, and our allies need to ramp up military spending, and steadily disengage from the USA. But, that should not mean embracing other hostile powers, as a counter to the USA. It would be just as shameful for us to side with China, if they seized Taiwan, as it would be to side with Russia over Ukraine.
Excellent, what’s your position on Яeform and our home grown Maga?
The Tories need to destroy them, correct?
Yes, they do, and they now have the opportunity to do so.
Brilliant. Only a few weeks ago Tories were saying their future was some kind of pact.
The country needs the Tory party to get off its knees, reject maga and the theological new right and remember what patriotic British conservatism is all about.
In that case I am not sure Jenrick is your man.
He blows with the wind.
I wonder what Thatcher, Churchill would have done these past few weeks. It would have been really tough for them given their closeness to the US. I imagine they would be in the same place as Starmer.
Churchill was in almost precisely this position and spent the best part of two years trying to overcome official American neutrality until that twerp Hitler declared war on the United States for no sensible reason at all. Churchill gave up a bunch of foreign bases to America and almost bankrupted the country in order to defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
That America is gone.
I don't think so, I think it's just hibernating. Americans will remember eventually but it mat be too late for them to take back the mantle.
The thing is, US society is split down the middle. There's a huge swathe of Americans, notably on the coasts but in every major city, that think like us and other Europeans - broadly rational, educated, open, outwards looking. Then there's a larger group, of assorted religious fanatics, racists and the profoundly ignorant - these are people who would vote for Trump even if he came over to their house and took a dump on the carpet. In the middle there is a whole load of people who are too busy working to even look up and see what's happening. As long as gasoline prices are kept down they'll be happy with whatever. This swing group might vote with the first group sometimes, and the second group other times. So we may get a swing back from extreme MAGA at some point. But it should be obvious to everyone in Europe and the broader West that the US is no longer a reliable ally. I also wonder how long those first two groups can cohabit in the same country. There is a profound clash of values.
Its held together for a long time, and I see no reason for it to stop now. Inertia is a wonderful thing, and if MAGA can restrain itself there is no reason at all that the traitorous libs can't be subsumed into the project.
And that is the big if. I'm only an observer from a long way away, but I don't see any restraint in MAGA. The Reichstag speech the other night demonstrated that - with a doubling down afterwards looking for legal sanction against traitors in Congress. Universities being told that campus protests are illegal. They are protecting the constitution by removing it chunk by chunk.
Once they set off down that route it's hard to see a way back to the long-standing uneasy equilibrium between red and blue.
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I am bone idle, of that there is no doubt! Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow?
You are absolutely right about IQ, but it is Leon who keeps going on about it. By the way even though it is pointless I am absolutely sure yours is not under 100.
and as a p.s. to my own analysis above, I have of course underestimated the probability significantly, by limiting my scenario to one generation in time, of the early 1500s. In the generation above, there will have been fewer descendants and more ancestors, and in the generation following, more descendants and fewer ancestors, and none of those will need to have paired up either, for me not to be a descendant of the Dark Ages guy.
You don’t need to do the maths to see that the chances of that not being the case head quickly towards zero.
Wait, you’re STILL going at it <<< checks grandfather clock >>> TWELVE HOURS LATER??
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands
Sounds like IP theft to me.
It's not: it's perfectly legal to copy the style of a designer, which is why there there are hundreds of jackets made my myriad companies that bear a startling resemblance to Chanel.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
Not that old hackneyed line. Right now centrists dads,mums, childfree, left and right are united in outrage at Ukraine (3hrs from London), Canada, trade wars and, yes, Gaza.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
Agree with that . There’s really little that Europe can do re Gaza , Israel has limitless backing from Trump.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Trumps actions are likely to lead to more Ukrainian deaths . My sympathy is with Ukrainians. Sorry the well is reserved for them. And horrible outcomes are losing friends and family because Trump is a fxcking traitor. I understand what you’re saying but my anger at what’s happening is currently obliterating any sympathies for the collateral damage caused by voting for Trump .
God bless you for your saintliness paraded on display here for all of us to see. Polishing your halo in public must give you such a frisson of joy.
Thank you ! Not sure why my post has caused such a drama . Many think the same and just don’t want to look bad and cruel . You should go onto Dem sites to see the level of bile aimed at their fellow US voters who supported Trump . My post was positively vanilla in comparison.
Given the large number of christians who are enthusiastic Trump supporters, being unchristian is no bad thing.
The real point is that people might change their vote but they haven't really changed. If the people mentioned above's business survives but their competitors don't, meaning they eventually profit they'll probably vote even more enthusiastically for Trump/his successor next time. The public sentiment that came out of WW2, "I don't want it to be them, in different circumstances it could just as easily be me", has faded and life is much worse for it.
Being 'Christian' is about the largest identifiable grouping in the human race. There are over a billion Roman Catholics alone, and to claim the 'Christian' identity requires no actual commitment to any particular thing. The people huddling in the Catholic church in Gaza are Christians too. This doesn't tell me that Roman catholic Vance is a good person.
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
He's a human being.
I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.
Another human being who was happy to vote for Trump even after all the evidence in front of him. Trump said he was going to do tariffs . Many people voted for Trump and were happy to rubberstamp the immigrant hate . They cheered on and thought the bad things would happen to others .
Now they’re whining that bad things are happening to them . I dont give a flying fig if they lose their businesses and homes .
Actions have consequences. They voted for him and own it !
A lot of voters are low-information. It's easy to live inside a media bubble where much of what you hear is the same CRISIS which you must fix NOW by voting how they want you to vote.
We saw this with Brexit, where farming and fishing voted for Brexit to remove trade barriers only to have bigger trade barriers imposed. We're seeing this with US business. Inside the bubble the problem is caused by liberals/socialists and the solution is easy and quick. In practice the real world is complex and slow.
Trump has just announced a 1 month moratorium on auto part tariffs. As if that will make any difference. Their problem is that - as we faced with Boris and the ERG in charge - the people setting policy are low-information.
Fishermen voted to end the CFP and get more control over their waters not to remove trade barriers, the NFU backed Remain
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
He doesn't want to understand. Like many of us, he has a fixed worldview, and everything that happens has to be contorted into that worldview, rather than having his worldview shifted.
That's something that can happen to all of us. In fact, it's probably the case for me as well on some things.
Everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance to some extent, it's just more pronounced in some people than others.
and as a p.s. to my own analysis above, I have of course underestimated the probability significantly, by limiting my scenario to one generation in time, of the early 1500s. In the generation above, there will have been fewer descendants and more ancestors, and in the generation following, more descendants and fewer ancestors, and none of those will need to have paired up either, for me not to be a descendant of the Dark Ages guy.
You don’t need to do the maths to see that the chances of that not being the case head quickly towards zero.
Wait, you’re STILL going at it <<< checks grandfather clock >>> TWELVE HOURS LATER??
More to the point, you're still going at it FOUR DAYS later, and still you don't understand it.
There's little doubt that Starmer is at last showing what he's good at and his lawyerly studies are coming to the fore as they did with last years far right protests but I believe we're starting to see some real leadership.
The Cote d'Azur isn't the best place to gauge the political scene but I'm getting a distinct feeling of camaraderie between the British and French. At last we have a common enemy. No more Gallic shrugs. This is the real thing. Even the Americans here seem to loathe him.
In the reign of Tony Blair Britain was the cool place to be. Could the Macron/Starmer combo be heralding the second coming?
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
He doesn't want to understand. Like many of us, he has a fixed worldview, and everything that happens has to be contorted into that worldview, rather than having his worldview shifted.
That's something that can happen to all of us. In fact, it's probably the case for me as well on some things.
Everyone suffers from cognitive dissonance to some extent, it's just more pronounced in some people than others.
The real trick is to recognise it when it's happening to you.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?
I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?
We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.
Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.
Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.
He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.
Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.
I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).
If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.
They had 8 years to convert but were happy to ignore everything that Trump has done . And it’s too late now we have Trump for the next 4 years . I feel sorry for those that didn’t vote for Trump and will suffer , those that did deserve to feel as much pain as possible . Only then might they wake up .
This might sound rather un-Christian and lacking forgiveness but that’s where I’m at .
This attitude is why the left struggles so much, it's completely unwelcoming to those had the temerity to leave "paradise" or realise they made a mistake. It's mean spirited and in this particular case I'm sure that the guy who runs this business has many people employed who are going to lose their jobs too if his company goes under, kids that will go hungry and families evicted from their homes. Regardless of how people voted, these are all horrible outcomes on a personal level, revelling in it because you disagree with the way someone voted just feels wrong, very bad karma.
Considering how unlikely it is that @RCS1000 friend follows this site, I think he remains in blissful ignorance.
Worth noting that Californias electoral vote went to Harris so this persons vote did not help get Trump elected (though his vote for HoR may have made a difference).
It's best not to mock such people to their faces though, but rather to get them to question themselves. "If you had your vote over again, would you vote the same way?" And then leave it there whatever his response. If Harris, job done, if still Trump then just let the seed grow rather than start an argument.
One should welcome political converts like parable of the prodigal son.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
No Australia and Canada and NZ are first as we share the King as our head of state with them and our language and similar ancestry.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
NATO is dead - we haven't yet formally wound it up but as Article 5 no longer applies then the whole concept of mutual defence is over. That then imperils the five eyes intelligence group and so on and so on.
My response to who is first is all of them. UK / Canada / Australia / NZ are the Four Eyes intelligence group. UK is in rNATO as are France et al, with Japan, S Korea, Singapore and others as strategic allies.
With the shuttering of NATO and Five Eyes, we need to rapidly evolve the alliance and that means everyone.
Starmer announced support for Ukraine in a way that boosts our economy. Germany is lifting its borrowing cap and will be investing in ways that boosts its economy. War footing economies can be very effective - many allied economies have been stagnant for a long time. The end of NATO is a political jolt but can also be a positive economic one.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am now ramping the idea that we need to invest heavily in defence. But we do, and we need investment in our economy. Its an opportunity we have to grasp in this new phase of our world order.
Based on this Yougov charts Trump's Yougov favourable rating of 15% is closer to the 12% UKIP voteshare in 2015 while Farage's favourable rating of 26% is much closer to the current Reform poll rating.
So Farage doesn't want to get too close to Trump if he wants to try and get most seats at the next GE
I doubt it'll be Farage's views on Trump that stop people voting Reform in 2029, even if Trump is somehow still in power then.
It'll be the government's failure to get a grip on, or reverse, immigration, continuing stagnation in living standards, further wokeness and the inability of the Conservatives to make headway that will deliver him the votes.
If those factors are somehow countered, or lose their salience, Reform will struggle.
and as a p.s. to my own analysis above, I have of course underestimated the probability significantly, by limiting my scenario to one generation in time, of the early 1500s. In the generation above, there will have been fewer descendants and more ancestors, and in the generation following, more descendants and fewer ancestors, and none of those will need to have paired up either, for me not to be a descendant of the Dark Ages guy.
You don’t need to do the maths to see that the chances of that not being the case head quickly towards zero.
Wait, you’re STILL going at it <<< checks grandfather clock >>> TWELVE HOURS LATER??
More to the point, you're still going at it FOUR DAYS later, and still you don't understand it.
I’ve got you writing entire theses, at 7am (and still deeply flawed) I consider this my greatest triumph (of the week, anyway)
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
Agree with that . There’s really little that Europe can do re Gaza , Israel has limitless backing from Trump.
But we can effect events in Ukraine .
I agree there's a limit to what Europe can do re Gaza, but we can do more than we're currently doing.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
You’re absolutely right to zero in on the exponential math - it’s a seductive idea, you old Ventnor pooch-screwer. If you double your ancestors each generation (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc.), by 33 generations (roughly 1,000 years back to Rollo’s time), you’d theoretically have 2^33, or about 8.6 billion ancestors. That’s way more than the population of Europe then (30–40 million), suggesting everyone’s family tree overlaps massively, including with Rollo. So why isn’t everyone a direct descendant? That, @ianb2, is where the confounders - those pesky real-world wrinkles! - break your simplistic maths. Here’s what throws it off:
The exponential model assumes every ancestor is unique, but in reality, family trees collapse because people marry cousins or within small communities. By 1,000 years ago, you’re related to the same people multiple times over - your 8.6 billion slots don’t mean 8.6 billion different individuals. Rollo might be in that collapsed pool for some, but only if your ancestors crossed paths with his descendants (mostly Norman nobility). If your lineage stayed in, say, rural Bulgaria, no
2 Geographic and Social Isolation
Rollo’s influence was concentrated in Normandy, then spread via noble marriages. Peasants, who were most of the population, rarely mingled with aristocracy or moved far. Isolated groups - like the Sami in Scandinavia, Basques in Spain, or dog-preferrers anywhere - no
3 Lineage Extinction
Not every child has kids. Some people find it hard to make any friends, and are forced to have only pets. Likewise some of Rollo’s descendants died out - wars, plagues (like the Black Death), or just bad luck pruned branches
4 Uneven Reproductive Success
Nobles like Rollo had more kids who survived (wealth, power, better food). Peasants often didn’t - famine, disease, zoophilia, or celibacy (monks, nuns) cut their lines short. Rollo’s descendants dominate the surviving noble gene pool, but the broader population? Nope
5 Time and Specificity
By 33 generations, you share ancestors with tons of people from 900 CE - but which ones? Rollo’s just one guy. The “everyone’s related” idea works for a generic ancestor pool, not a specific person
6 Migration and Barriers
Europe had walls - literal and cultural. Mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), seas, and less attractive dogs slowed gene flow. Rollo’s line didn’t hop the Carpathians. Soz boz Mr B2
Why the Math Fails
The 2^33 figure is a maximum potential, not a reality. For Rollo to be a direct ancestor, your lineage needs a clear, unbroken chain through his kids, their kids, etc., intersecting your tree. The math suggests shared ancestry with someone from his era, but pinning it to Rollo requires he or his heirs hooked up with your specific forefathers So no, the brute maths is seductive: like that Labrador at the end of your road - but it is wrong
You’re just an idiot, and cutting and pasting long chunks from an AI doesn’t prove otherwise. Did you miss that the maths and the DNA both give the same answer?
I know it will make no difference because @leon as you say is an idiot, but I found the following delicious from Adam Rutherford:
The European genetic isopoint is a thousand years ago, and the global isopoint - from whom everyone alive today is descended - comes out at 14th century BC, so about 3,500 years ago.
Also:
If we could draw a perfect family tree for every European, a minimum of one branch from every single European would flow through one individual about 600 years ago
And of course this is for all Europeans from Russia to the UK and Finland to Greece not just GB so the GB isopoint would obviously be under 1000 years ago.
But here is the delicious point. It is from his book:
'How to argue with a Racist'.
Indeed. And the debate illustrates the blindspots we have with numbers - the redoubling of a penny into £millions over a month or the grains of rice on a chessboard story surprise, because we can’t get our heads around exponentiality, once the numbers rise beyond what we can easily imagine.
An alternative way of reframing the original question is this:
We can imagine that, over centuries, a person could easily have at least 5,000 descendants. Similarly, we can imagine that if we go back a few centuries, each of us will have at least 5,000 ancestors. Both are easily imaginable given four or five centuries to play with.
So let’s take a midpoint in the more than ten centuries between ourselves and a figure from the Dark Ages - during the reign of Henry VIII, say. Living in Britain at that time are say five million people, which will include those 5,000 descendants of our Dark Ages guy and also our own 5,000 ancestors.
The only way that we are not related to them is if none of those first 5,000 paired up with any of the second 5,000.
Here we run into another bit of maths that people can struggle with, most often encountered at school as the birthday paradox - ‘how many people do you need to have a 50:50 chance of two of them having the same birthday?’, to which the answer is a surprisingly low 23. Because unlikely events - any two people sharing a birthday - quickly become more likely if they only need to happen once out of a growing number of permutations.
So, back to the era of that medieval Trump, and the maths for those 5,000 ancestors looking for partners among five million souls is that, marrying at random, the chances of at least one of them pairing up with at least one of the 5,000 descendants is over 99%. QED.
I am afraid this is all going to be way beyond poor old Leon.
Yes it did puncture the high IQ claims. Just trundling off loads of random links without being able to determine whether they are sound. I thought @IanB2 hit the spot after all those AI links the other day, although it was a bit cruel, but then leon does it to everyone else:
Quoting Ian: 'Anyhow, PB’ers who were here this morning already witnessed a superlative demonstration of where a combination of AI and sub-par human intelligence can take you. It wasn’t pretty.'
And sadly that is where we may end up as AI takes hold and humans lose their ability to challenge what is presented to them.
Did it puncture high IQ claims or just show how extremely limited IQ is as a measure of anything other than a very specific type of intelligence? I admit I have skin in the game as I am certain my IQ is well below 100, but it really doesn't seem to have done me any harm at all. I just do not have the mental capacity or stamina to do an IQ test. I look at the questions and my mind glazes over.
Maybe you're just lazy?
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
I think it just shows how little some arts graduates understand of maths or science. @Leon is a storyteller, fantasist and sensationalist. He doesn't have the concentration and self discipline for real understanding.
Doesn't that say more about Leon than about arts graduates in general?
That's why I specified SOME arts graduates. We saw it a lot in how MSM reported on covid too.
It's not really arts graduates v science graduates, though this is a handy shorthand. It's people who can think mathematically v people who can't. The former group is very small. It doesn't fit the human brain. Rather arrogantly, I place myself in it. Sorry. Maths was my best subject at school but I didn't do it an university.
But even my brain often instinctively wants to make a billion about twice a million and I have to concentrate in order for it not to.
This isn't unusual. People's brains instinctively think logarithmically rather than instinctively. You have to educate them out of it. If you asked someone with no mathematical education whatsoever (like a small child) what half of nine is, they would say three.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
It's certainly a striking illustration of Donald Trump's warped mindset. Gagging to provide "whatever it takes" to the cause of Israeli aggression. Won't give a dicky bird to the cause of Ukrainian defence.
Based on this Yougov charts Trump's Yougov favourable rating of 15% is closer to the 12% UKIP voteshare in 2015 while Farage's favourable rating of 26% is much closer to the current Reform poll rating.
So Farage doesn't want to get too close to Trump if he wants to try and get most seats at the next GE
I doubt it'll be Farage's views on Trump that stop people voting Reform in 2029, even if Trump is somehow still in power then.
It'll be the government's failure to get a grip on, or reverse, immigration, continuing stagnation in living standards, further wokeness and the inability of the Conservatives to make headway that will deliver him the votes.
If those factors are somehow countered, or lose their salience, Reform will struggle.
I've made the exact same point. We are mostly reasonably well off successful people living inside an information bubble. The target market for Reform are either not like us, or have been captured inside a different disinformation bubble.
Either way, our moral panic about Trump is not shared by Reform voters. It *could* be if Trump turns on the west, but in that scenario the strongest denouncer will be Farage.
Punters will be voting on themselves, their family, their community. Reform will be speaking their language, showing understanding and offering solutions. That these "solutions" won't work doesn't matter as Labour and Tory solutions have also failed.
I make this point often on my YouTube channel when the self-righteous comes on banging on about the evils of EV / Musk etc. What I think isn't necessarily what other people think. I have that basic level of self-awareness, but so many others do not. Which is why they conflate the latest moral panic possessing them - Brexit, Corbyn, Gaza, Boris, Trump etc - with how everyone must be thinking.
What's worrying for me with the "age of the US" coming to an end is that it will be China that inherits the mantle. Whatever one thinks of Trump and MAGA the US is founder upon principles of freedom and that, until recently, has been what they exported to the world. In a world where China is exporting it's values unchallenged the world will become a colder, more paranoid place and feel much less friendly outside of our core allies.
Who are our core allies? The US clearly isn't one.
Australia, Canada, France and Poland in that order I'd say then a bunch of second order allies in Europe.
I would put the Nordics and the Netherlands ahead of Australia and Canada, both of which have much higher priorities than the UK in their own neck of the woods.
No Australia and Canada and NZ are first as we share the King as our head of state with them and our language and similar ancestry.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
NATO is dead - we haven't yet formally wound it up but as Article 5 no longer applies then the whole concept of mutual defence is over. That then imperils the five eyes intelligence group and so on and so on.
My response to who is first is all of them. UK / Canada / Australia / NZ are the Four Eyes intelligence group. UK is in rNATO as are France et al, with Japan, S Korea, Singapore and others as strategic allies.
With the shuttering of NATO and Five Eyes, we need to rapidly evolve the alliance and that means everyone.
Starmer announced support for Ukraine in a way that boosts our economy. Germany is lifting its borrowing cap and will be investing in ways that boosts its economy. War footing economies can be very effective - many allied economies have been stagnant for a long time. The end of NATO is a political jolt but can also be a positive economic one.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am now ramping the idea that we need to invest heavily in defence. But we do, and we need investment in our economy. Its an opportunity we have to grasp in this new phase of our world order.
Worth noting that while Starmer's public position is the inviolability of the USA/NATO deal, his best friend Macron is charged with a slightly different position, reflecting of course the UK's true stance, as the Guardian reports his words:
He further said said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our [nuclear] deterrent” but stressed any use of France’s nuclear weapons would remain only in the hands of the French president.
Macron said in his address: “I want to believe the US will stay by our side. But we have to be ready if that isn’t the case.
“Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow, and yes the threat from the east is returning. And the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”
Comments
It’s not uncommon to encounter Corbynites who tell you that he is actually a hardcore Remainer. Who would have instantly taken us back into the EU.
But we are getting way ahead of ourselves.
We have maintained administration over a US military base. We're diverging with the US as allies. If they lose Diego Garcia it's their problem not ours. With Trump now backing Putin are we not going to be decoupling ourselves anyway?
If not, my sympathy is with the people who did the right thing and are just as damaged by his choice.
But there is one more thing to say. What cannot be denied is that USA voters voted for Trump, and for an GOP congress, in the 100% full knowledge of what Trump had said in speech after speech; including tariffs, isolationism, making sure the Ukraine war was forced to an end, regarding Canada as an annexe with a governor as PM, and seeking to acquire Greenland.
They also knew (6 Jan) that Trump was a liar, rabble rouser and fraud who only believed in an electoral process when he won. They also knew that he never criticises Russia.
They have got what they voted for and what he stood for. Which was the bit those changing their minds didn't get?
But I also remember some of the idiotic mistakes I've made.
My sympathy is limited because his behaviour has been exactly in line with what I and others expected. That lack of care will extend to Democrats too if they don't start to kick up a fuss - put your protests where your mouth is.
Here's the simple truth. We need to consume less. Unchecked capitalism means that we have to consumer more and more. Wardrobe full of clothes you like? Buy more? Smartphone more than 18 months old? Buy another! Not buying new tech fast enough? Lets engineer in obsolescence.
Western countries could make all the stuff they used to. But it would be the end to Friedman Capitalism which has dominated our lives for the last 40+ years. And the people who own our economies think that would be bad for them. So we won't.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/06/phil-goff-donald-trump-comments-new-zealand-high-commissioner-removed-chatham-house-ntwnfb
Personally I would like to see us promote our own story and mythology. For example , the Scottish enlightenment needs to be celebrated, but few have heard of it.
On the other hand there will be special places in hell for the likes of Rubio who sold their souls to the orange devil.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/world/americas/ukraine-us-weapons-suspension.html?campaign_id=51&emc=edit_mbe_20250306&instance_id=149213&nl=morning-briefing:-europe-edition®i_id=221882697&segment_id=192674&user_id=565c1b804dcd1b7fd2985ae5816491d3
Good morning, everyone.
I think that shows a major flaw in Jenrick.
influence on us.
People vote for policies not caring how it will impact on others in the expectation they'll be unaffected.
US would be a different place if, for example, those campaigning against gun laws were shot instead of schoolkids. You could have a pardon system, school shooters get an unconditional pardon if they just take the kids hostage and agree to exchange them for Alex Jones and NRA committee members.
Interwar 19-38
WW2 39-45
Cold war 46-91
Post cold war Pax Americana 92-24
End of end of history 25-> ?
He has an opportunity because for good or ill Starmer remains equivocal regarding Trump's evil. Now this may be pragmatic, but to the uninitiated and myself, Starmer looks like a traitor for letting Trump's misbehaviour go unchecked. Jenrick looks like he has captured the mood of the nation. I can't understand why the self-styled World King and defender of Ukraine hasn't condemned Trump.
This may change though down the line .
More seriously, you are of course right that IQ and what one might call practical intelligence are some way apart.
The trouble for Leon is that the sort of sums we've been doing for his geneological puzzle are a lot closer to requiring traditional IQ than practical intelligence (although he's shown little of either, as blindly trusting these AI search engines to solve problems for him isn't very intelligent).
Dems ought to be welcoming Robert's neighbour with open arms. They still have a tendency to push people away.
Sounds like IP theft to me.
His links with Roosevelt may have been indispensable, but he never entirely understood the American foreign policy mindset, and always confused American interests with entirely our own, with his American mother.
I also wonder how long those first two groups can cohabit in the same country. There is a profound clash of values.
That's something that can happen to all of us. In fact, it's probably the case for me as well on some things.
So Farage doesn't want to get too close to Trump if he wants to try and get most seats at the next GE
Trump already appears to have cut Europe loose, and if Starmer is still riding two horses to avoid trade tariffs, he is wasting his time.
Worth noting that Californias electoral vote went to Harris so this persons vote did not help get Trump elected (though his vote for HoR may have made a difference).
It's best not to mock such people to their faces though, but rather to get them to question themselves. "If you had your vote over again, would you vote the same way?" And then leave it there whatever his response. If Harris, job done, if still Trump then just let the seed grow rather than start an argument.
The real point is that people might change their vote but they haven't really changed. If the people mentioned above's business survives but their competitors don't, meaning they eventually profit they'll probably vote even more enthusiastically for Trump/his successor next time.
The public sentiment that came out of WW2, "I don't want it to be them, in different circumstances it could just as easily be me", has faded and life is much worse for it.
The latter is easy - Tory governments since 2015 haven't been conservative. The othering of conservatism by Conservative politicians started in earnest under Cameron. Fruitcakes and Loonies - of course they must be far right because we Conservatives are the patriotic right and these loonies are to the right of us.
As for patriotism, its a label which gets endlessly misapplied. There are very few political actors of whichever party who are not patriots, acting in the best interests of their country as they see it. Patriotism has become weaponised as a stick to try and beat the other side with.
I don't see any 'splendid indifference' to Gaza. In fact, I see a lot of damnation of both Hamas and the Israeli government, and a lot of sympathy for the poor people on the ground.
But where your comparison fails is that the Gaza-Israel situation is morally ambiguous. Hamas did an evil act in 2023, and one that *any* state would have had to respond to. Hamas are not innocents. But the Israeli reaction has been crass and bloody. There is no 'good' side to pick in that conflict, aside from the innocents on the ground. There's just bad and more bad, depending on whether you swerve more to pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian.
Whereas Ukraine is about as morally unambiguous as you can get - unless you're a left-wing or right-wing shitbag. Russia is in the wrong. Ukraine is in the right. And that makes it much easier to discuss and hang your coat on the 'good' side.
The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
Then the non US NATO nations, then Japan and S Korea and Singapore then while Trump remains in office the US is the current order of our closest allies
The last repayment was made 61 years after the end of the war, in 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6215847.stm
And that is the big if. I'm only an observer from a long way away, but I don't see any restraint in MAGA. The Reichstag speech the other night demonstrated that - with a doubling down afterwards looking for legal sanction against traitors in Congress. Universities being told that campus protests are illegal. They are protecting the constitution by removing it chunk by chunk.
Once they set off down that route it's hard to see a way back to the long-standing uneasy equilibrium between red and blue.
That doesn't mean Gaza and the West Bank are forgotten, just parked for the moment.
But we can effect events in Ukraine .
The Cote d'Azur isn't the best place to gauge the political scene but I'm getting a distinct feeling of camaraderie between the British and French. At last we have a common enemy. No more Gallic shrugs. This is the real thing. Even the Americans here seem to loathe him.
In the reign of Tony Blair Britain was the cool place to be. Could the Macron/Starmer combo be heralding the second coming?
My response to who is first is all of them. UK / Canada / Australia / NZ are the Four Eyes intelligence group. UK is in rNATO as are France et al, with Japan, S Korea, Singapore and others as strategic allies.
With the shuttering of NATO and Five Eyes, we need to rapidly evolve the alliance and that means everyone.
Starmer announced support for Ukraine in a way that boosts our economy. Germany is lifting its borrowing cap and will be investing in ways that boosts its economy. War footing economies can be very effective - many allied economies have been stagnant for a long time. The end of NATO is a political jolt but can also be a positive economic one.
I absolutely hate the fact that I am now ramping the idea that we need to invest heavily in defence. But we do, and we need investment in our economy. Its an opportunity we have to grasp in this new phase of our world order.
It'll be the government's failure to get a grip on, or reverse, immigration, continuing stagnation in living standards, further wokeness and the inability of the Conservatives to make headway that will deliver him the votes.
If those factors are somehow countered, or lose their salience, Reform will struggle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zltpK2KiaQ
But even my brain often instinctively wants to make a billion about twice a million and I have to concentrate in order for it not to.
This isn't unusual. People's brains instinctively think logarithmically rather than instinctively. You have to educate them out of it. If you asked someone with no mathematical education whatsoever (like a small child) what half of nine is, they would say three.
China is largely seen as a peacable manufacturer, trader, and mercenary businessman.
Either way, our moral panic about Trump is not shared by Reform voters. It *could* be if Trump turns on the west, but in that scenario the strongest denouncer will be Farage.
Punters will be voting on themselves, their family, their community. Reform will be speaking their language, showing understanding and offering solutions. That these "solutions" won't work doesn't matter as Labour and Tory solutions have also failed.
I make this point often on my YouTube channel when the self-righteous comes on banging on about the evils of EV / Musk etc. What I think isn't necessarily what other people think. I have that basic level of self-awareness, but so many others do not. Which is why they conflate the latest moral panic possessing them - Brexit, Corbyn, Gaza, Boris, Trump etc - with how everyone must be thinking.
He further said said he had decided “to open the strategic debate on the protection of our allies on the European continent by our [nuclear] deterrent” but stressed any use of France’s nuclear weapons would remain only in the hands of the French president.
Macron said in his address: “I want to believe the US will stay by our side. But we have to be ready if that isn’t the case.
“Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow, and yes the threat from the east is returning. And the innocence of these 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall is over.”