“So far, the best part of Trump’s tariff on India for buying russian oil is that it’s prompted Indian officials to call out how much russian oil other countries are buying, finally spotlighting the problem.”
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive. Then we had austerity on government spending (even though borrowing for government was extremely cheap), which means that every element of what drives economic output has been suppressed.
There were absolutely insane savings rates by rich households during the pandemic as consumption collapsed. Did that drive brilliant economic growth? Nope. Interest rates then went up to take account of supply side inflation, but poor people still need to spend on essentials and rich people have shedloads of savings to deploy, so it took ages to work, all while making investment less attractive throughout.
Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess.
I imagine Governor Newsom has done his Presidential chances no harm by his reponse to the threateed Texas gerrymander - which is in turn to threaten have California lead a mass of blue states in a similar effort to eradicate the opposition from Congress.
The squealing from Republicans at this threat is a thing to behold....
I think you need to check the 2024 results to see how much the Dems have already gerrymandered their states.
The balance of gerrymandering (and vote rigging) benefited the Dems in 2024.
Which is why the GOP only had a House majority of 5 despite their 3% lead in the popular vote.
To be honest I know little about this so I am reluctant to stick my oar in, but I thought California used an independent organisation to set the boundaries and aren't some of these extreme cases a result of FPTP.
Having said all of that the gerrymandering is rife in the States and by both sides and shouldn't happen. By chance they do seem generally to cancel one another out, but that is no excuse.
They’ve all been at it for more than a century, accompanied by the usual American extremist language when anyone tries to do anything that might favour their own side.
The chaos in Texas this week is possibly the greatest example in recent memory of how silly the whole concept has become, both sides acting for nakedly partisan reasons while extolling their own virtue.
Is it really correct to refer to the USA as a democracy?
Yes, even if you don't like who most US voters have currently elected
I'm thinking about the fiddling of the FPTP constituencies. Plenty of democracies have leaders I don't really care for...... Argentina for example.
Whilst PR gives you Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu...
I don't think FPTP would've avoided Netanyahu. Israel is an unusual country with deep political divisions.
I imagine Governor Newsom has done his Presidential chances no harm by his reponse to the threateed Texas gerrymander - which is in turn to threaten have California lead a mass of blue states in a similar effort to eradicate the opposition from Congress.
The squealing from Republicans at this threat is a thing to behold....
I think you need to check the 2024 results to see how much the Dems have already gerrymandered their states.
The balance of gerrymandering (and vote rigging) benefited the Dems in 2024.
Which is why the GOP only had a House majority of 5 despite their 3% lead in the popular vote.
To be honest I know little about this so I am reluctant to stick my oar in, but I thought California used an independent organisation to set the boundaries and aren't some of these extreme cases a result of FPTP.
Having said all of that the gerrymandering is rife in the States and by both sides and shouldn't happen. By chance they do seem generally to cancel one another out, but that is no excuse.
Disentangling the electoral disparities produced by FPTP, and those which are a result of deliberate gerrymandering, isn't easy - but if you're getting computers to redraw your electoral maps outside of the normal cycle, in response to a call by Trump to find him more seats, it's not particularly hard.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive..
Is that really true ?
For example, if HS2 had gone ahead without the political havering, and hadn't been ridiculously overspecced, construction might be close to completion by now. Ditto Northern Rail, or nuclear, or an upgraded electric grid, or any one of a dozen other things.
(edit) Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess. Can't really argue with that.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive. Then we had austerity on government spending (even though borrowing for government was extremely cheap), which means that every element of what drives economic output has been suppressed.
There were absolutely insane savings rates by rich households during the pandemic as consumption collapsed. Did that drive brilliant economic growth? Nope. Interest rates then went up to take account of supply side inflation, but poor people still need to spend on essentials and rich people have shedloads of savings to deploy, so it took ages to work, all while making investment less attractive throughout.
Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess.
I didn't assume savings would be productively invested, I merely pointed out that if you are to have productive investment it has to come from somewhere.
The only public policy that has really helped with investment in recent years was Hunt's changes to capital allowances. They certainly boosted investment in plant etc in the UK. Whether that is a one off gain or whether it is sustained over the longer term remains to be seen. We certainly need to focus on boosting investment and output. Directing available income to the poor does not do that.
The government too needs to reduce the proportion of its income it spends on consumption and increase investment. Reeves was, in fairness, pretty clear about that before the election but her attempts to create the headroom for such investment have been rejected by her own party both on WFA and Benefit reform. This does nothing for our future growth prospects.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive..
Is that really true ?
For example, if HS2 had gone ahead without the political havering, and hadn't been ridiculously overspecced, construction might be close to completion by now. Ditto Northern Rail, or nuclear, or an upgraded electric grid, or any one of a dozen other things.
(edit) Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess. Can't really argue with that.
HS2 (London to Manchester), Northern Rail (Liverpool to Leeds), Hinkley Point 2, LHR runway 3, Stonehenge tunnel, all should have been open years ago, alongside dozens of smaller road and rail projects aimed at bottlenecks.
In most cases the problem isn’t even the money, it’s the regulation and process.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive..
Is that really true ?
For example, if HS2 had gone ahead without the political havering, and hadn't been ridiculously overspecced, construction might be close to completion by now. Ditto Northern Rail, or nuclear, or an upgraded electric grid, or any one of a dozen other things.
(edit) Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess. Can't really argue with that.
HS2 (London to Manchester), Northern Rail (Liverpool to Leeds), Hinkley Point 2, LHR runway 3, Stonehenge tunnel, all should have been open years ago, alongside dozens of smaller road and rail projects aimed at bottlenecks.
In most cases the problem isn’t even the money, it’s the regulation and process.
Well, it is the money. But only because the regulation & the process drives up the cost by a completely insane amount.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive. Then we had austerity on government spending (even though borrowing for government was extremely cheap), which means that every element of what drives economic output has been suppressed.
There were absolutely insane savings rates by rich households during the pandemic as consumption collapsed. Did that drive brilliant economic growth? Nope. Interest rates then went up to take account of supply side inflation, but poor people still need to spend on essentials and rich people have shedloads of savings to deploy, so it took ages to work, all while making investment less attractive throughout.
Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess.
I didn't assume savings would be productively invested, I merely pointed out that if you are to have productive investment it has to come from somewhere.
The only public policy that has really helped with investment in recent years was Hunt's changes to capital allowances. They certainly boosted investment in plant etc in the UK. Whether that is a one off gain or whether it is sustained over the longer term remains to be seen. We certainly need to focus on boosting investment and output. Directing available income to the poor does not do that.
The government too needs to reduce the proportion of its income it spends on consumption and increase investment. Reeves was, in fairness, pretty clear about that before the election but her attempts to create the headroom for such investment have been rejected by her own party both on WFA and Benefit reform. This does nothing for our future growth prospects.
Agree - strongly - on 2/3 of your points.
But if rich folk aren't finding a way to invest productively, boosting demand via consumption is another - and legitimate - way to drive economic growth (I think TimS makes this point regularly). Poor people don't save at the same rate as others, so that's the best way to ensure the cash flows into consumption, then demand and you hope an accumulation of tech, skills and capital as firms respond.
There are also minor points about social welfare/utility. £10 spent by a poor person might be the difference between going hungry. For me it's how much I pop into my ISA, which is invested in US stocks.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive..
Is that really true ?
For example, if HS2 had gone ahead without the political havering, and hadn't been ridiculously overspecced, construction might be close to completion by now. Ditto Northern Rail, or nuclear, or an upgraded electric grid, or any one of a dozen other things.
(edit) Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess. Can't really argue with that.
HS2 (London to Manchester), Northern Rail (Liverpool to Leeds), Hinkley Point 2, LHR runway 3, Stonehenge tunnel, all should have been open years ago, alongside dozens of smaller road and rail projects aimed at bottlenecks.
In most cases the problem isn’t even the money, it’s the regulation and process.
It's not the same plan. The EU plan, AIUI, is about overseas processing, but some people will be let into the EU at the end of the process, whereas the UK plan involved no-one ever being let into the UK.
Read, and weep. Or kick the cat
“Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the UK scheme, according to two people familiar with the discussions, though it is unclear how advanced the negotiations are given previous legal objections.
“Rwanda also said this week it had agreed to take 250 migrants deported from the US, according to the government in Kigali.
“The Netherlands, meanwhile, has been in talks with Uganda — a country that sentences LGBT+ people to death — about setting up a “transit hub”, according to the Dutch ministry of asylum and migration.
“Denmark’s Dybvad said centres would be ideally set up in “countries in north Africa” or other “stable countries, with stable governments”
FT ££
It's essentially circular. You pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK, you pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK...and we go round again.
The problem is porous borders. People enter at will. The solution is hardened borders.
arrival by small boat. The solution is to intercept before arrival and send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by large boat. The solution is make entry dependent on visas obtained before arrival and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by aircraft. The solution is as arrival by large boat
arrival by common travel area (IRE). The solution is to limit the CTA to people with Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by NI: check that travellers have British or Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
Once the borders are hardened the problem then reduces to "how many visas to be issued" and that is a political problem. But until the borders are hardened we are not functioning as a state.
Some of you may recall I am a fan of Dr Abby Innes. A brief interview about her book "Late Soviet Britain" came out yesterday on YouTube. It is 25 minutes long and it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb07GSYG_sY
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive..
Is that really true ?
For example, if HS2 had gone ahead without the political havering, and hadn't been ridiculously overspecced, construction might be close to completion by now. Ditto Northern Rail, or nuclear, or an upgraded electric grid, or any one of a dozen other things.
(edit) Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess. Can't really argue with that.
HS2 (London to Manchester), Northern Rail (Liverpool to Leeds), Hinkley Point 2, LHR runway 3, Stonehenge tunnel, all should have been open years ago, alongside dozens of smaller road and rail projects aimed at bottlenecks.
In most cases the problem isn’t even the money, it’s the regulation and process.
It's the uncertainty. Everyone knows that some politician might come along and cancel the whole thing (proven correct), so there is no point in investing in a supply chain, plant, workforce etc. Edinburgh should have a constant but incremental growth in the tram network, but instead we do a big project at random every 10 years or similar, subject to massive political uncertainty. Where's the local team of tram engineers?
Oddly enough, the A9 dualling project might be example of things working a bit better, simply as a function of it taking forever, there always being some construction going on and it split into incremental sections. The model of investment matches German rail electrification, which is extremely efficient.
”Magazine publishers will (still) frequently rush out special commemorative editions after the death of a major personality - Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, Rolling Stone - depending on which kind of star we are talking about.
“Unlike the normal weekly/monthly editions, these will stay available for several months until eventually the unsold stock is pulled and recycled. It’s among my duties to take in the boxes of assorted magazine product, pull the superannuated issues, and put out the fresh ones.
“Today, we finally reached the point where I could pull the commemorative editions for one person and replace them with another.
...they could have been one of my daughters – they are someone's daughter.
Are these hotels where the politicians, the activists, the senior officials live? No.
What does intrigue me though is Jenrick saying we are seven years into this. Why is 2017 year zero, or 2018 year one? What happened then? Not Brexit, or Boris taking over from May, or May from Cameron.
It's not the same plan. The EU plan, AIUI, is about overseas processing, but some people will be let into the EU at the end of the process, whereas the UK plan involved no-one ever being let into the UK.
Read, and weep. Or kick the cat
“Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the UK scheme, according to two people familiar with the discussions, though it is unclear how advanced the negotiations are given previous legal objections.
“Rwanda also said this week it had agreed to take 250 migrants deported from the US, according to the government in Kigali.
“The Netherlands, meanwhile, has been in talks with Uganda — a country that sentences LGBT+ people to death — about setting up a “transit hub”, according to the Dutch ministry of asylum and migration.
“Denmark’s Dybvad said centres would be ideally set up in “countries in north Africa” or other “stable countries, with stable governments”
FT ££
It's essentially circular. You pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK, you pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK...and we go round again.
The problem is porous borders. People enter at will. The solution is hardened borders.
arrival by small boat. The solution is to intercept before arrival and send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by large boat. The solution is make entry dependent on visas obtained before arrival and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by aircraft. The solution is as arrival by large boat
arrival by common travel area (IRE). The solution is to limit the CTA to people with Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by NI: check that travellers have British or Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
Once the borders are hardened the problem then reduces to "how many visas to be issued" and that is a political problem. But until the borders are hardened we are not functioning as a state.
Indeed so. It shouldn’t be particularly difficult on an island.
The reason airlines always ask for your destination visa or paperwork, is that by international convention the airline is responsible for repatriating customers denied entry.
It's not the same plan. The EU plan, AIUI, is about overseas processing, but some people will be let into the EU at the end of the process, whereas the UK plan involved no-one ever being let into the UK.
Read, and weep. Or kick the cat
“Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the UK scheme, according to two people familiar with the discussions, though it is unclear how advanced the negotiations are given previous legal objections.
“Rwanda also said this week it had agreed to take 250 migrants deported from the US, according to the government in Kigali.
“The Netherlands, meanwhile, has been in talks with Uganda — a country that sentences LGBT+ people to death — about setting up a “transit hub”, according to the Dutch ministry of asylum and migration.
“Denmark’s Dybvad said centres would be ideally set up in “countries in north Africa” or other “stable countries, with stable governments”
FT ££
It's essentially circular. You pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK, you pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK...and we go round again.
The problem is porous borders. People enter at will. The solution is hardened borders.
arrival by small boat. The solution is to intercept before arrival and send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by large boat. The solution is make entry dependent on visas obtained before arrival and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by aircraft. The solution is as arrival by large boat
arrival by common travel area (IRE). The solution is to limit the CTA to people with Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by NI: check that travellers have British or Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
Once the borders are hardened the problem then reduces to "how many visas to be issued" and that is a political problem. But until the borders are hardened we are not functioning as a state.
I completely agree. A Rwanda type arrangement is a good stopgap - and will act as a necessary deterrent. Australia has proved it
But in the end we have to toughen up and say “no one gets in illegally”. Harden all the borders. Deport anyone and everyone if they do get in (to Rwanda if necessary, or east Falkland, who cares). End asylum as a concept
Then we CHOOSE who we take. The really deserving cases and people who culturally fit. Ukrainians. Hong Kongers. Not afghans
It's not the same plan. The EU plan, AIUI, is about overseas processing, but some people will be let into the EU at the end of the process, whereas the UK plan involved no-one ever being let into the UK.
Read, and weep. Or kick the cat
“Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the UK scheme, according to two people familiar with the discussions, though it is unclear how advanced the negotiations are given previous legal objections.
“Rwanda also said this week it had agreed to take 250 migrants deported from the US, according to the government in Kigali.
“The Netherlands, meanwhile, has been in talks with Uganda — a country that sentences LGBT+ people to death — about setting up a “transit hub”, according to the Dutch ministry of asylum and migration.
“Denmark’s Dybvad said centres would be ideally set up in “countries in north Africa” or other “stable countries, with stable governments”
FT ££
It's essentially circular. You pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK, you pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK...and we go round again.
The problem is porous borders. People enter at will. The solution is hardened borders.
arrival by small boat. The solution is to intercept before arrival and send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by large boat. The solution is make entry dependent on visas obtained before arrival and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by aircraft. The solution is as arrival by large boat
arrival by common travel area (IRE). The solution is to limit the CTA to people with Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by NI: check that travellers have British or Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
Once the borders are hardened the problem then reduces to "how many visas to be issued" and that is a political problem. But until the borders are hardened we are not functioning as a state.
Your second and third bullets are what happens now.
I think your fourth and fifth bullets actually require the ending of both the Common Travel Area, and the Good Friday Agreement, but maybe that wasn't what you meant.
”Magazine publishers will (still) frequently rush out special commemorative editions after the death of a major personality - Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, Rolling Stone - depending on which kind of star we are talking about.
“Unlike the normal weekly/monthly editions, these will stay available for several months until eventually the unsold stock is pulled and recycled. It’s among my duties to take in the boxes of assorted magazine product, pull the superannuated issues, and put out the fresh ones.
“Today, we finally reached the point where I could pull the commemorative editions for one person and replace them with another.
”Which means I removed Pope Francis...
...And replaced him with Ozzy Osbourne.”
Surely Hulk Hogan is far more famous in the UsA and merits a commemorative edition, brother.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive..
Is that really true ?
For example, if HS2 had gone ahead without the political havering, and hadn't been ridiculously overspecced, construction might be close to completion by now. Ditto Northern Rail, or nuclear, or an upgraded electric grid, or any one of a dozen other things.
(edit) Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess. Can't really argue with that.
HS2 (London to Manchester), Northern Rail (Liverpool to Leeds), Hinkley Point 2, LHR runway 3, Stonehenge tunnel, all should have been open years ago, alongside dozens of smaller road and rail projects aimed at bottlenecks.
In most cases the problem isn’t even the money, it’s the regulation and process.
It's the uncertainty. Everyone knows that some politician might come along and cancel the whole thing (proven correct), so there is no point in investing in a supply chain, plant, workforce etc. Edinburgh should have a constant but incremental growth in the tram network, but instead we do a big project at random every 10 years or similar, subject to massive political uncertainty. Where's the local team of tram engineers?
Oddly enough, the A9 dualling project might be example of things working a bit better, simply as a function of it taking forever, there always being some construction going on and it split into incremental sections. The model of investment matches German rail electrification, which is extremely efficient.
Good point about the political uncertainty as well, one of few areas where letting the civil servants just get on with it is actually the better idea.
Continuity of staff pipelines is important too, by running huge projects you have a skills shortage at the start and often don’’t retain people at the end of a project, so a huge amount of time and money is wasted having to keep training new crews for new projects.
Crews for electrifying rail lines, widening roads, even building nuclear power stations, should have a constant pipeline of new projects they can move onto as the previous one finishes.
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive. Then we had austerity on government spending (even though borrowing for government was extremely cheap), which means that every element of what drives economic output has been suppressed.
There were absolutely insane savings rates by rich households during the pandemic as consumption collapsed. Did that drive brilliant economic growth? Nope. Interest rates then went up to take account of supply side inflation, but poor people still need to spend on essentials and rich people have shedloads of savings to deploy, so it took ages to work, all while making investment less attractive throughout.
Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess.
The only investment we have seen, if we choose to call it investment, is selling British assets to foreigners, who then naturally take the profit and any IP out of the country, from utilities to football clubs, from chocolate to chips, from aviation to AI.
The Conservatives are close to being the fourth party in national opinion polls.
The danger for the Conservatives is that their voters conclude they are a wasted vote, and drift off to Reform at one end, and the Lib Dems at the other.
The current poll shares of Reform 30%, Conservative 18%, could become Reform 35%, Conservative 10%.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Reverse LD and Tory and i'd agree - although more like 75 50 for totals (Lab will imo recover into the election from historic polling lows by next summer)
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I'm sure even if your favourite Albanian is no longer able to oblige you could come up with something?
Didn't The Goodies once do an episode where the South Africans, unable to oppress non-whites any longer, came up with the Apart Height system where they were mean to Bill Oddie and some random jockeys?
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
It's not the same plan. The EU plan, AIUI, is about overseas processing, but some people will be let into the EU at the end of the process, whereas the UK plan involved no-one ever being let into the UK.
Read, and weep. Or kick the cat
“Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the UK scheme, according to two people familiar with the discussions, though it is unclear how advanced the negotiations are given previous legal objections.
“Rwanda also said this week it had agreed to take 250 migrants deported from the US, according to the government in Kigali.
“The Netherlands, meanwhile, has been in talks with Uganda — a country that sentences LGBT+ people to death — about setting up a “transit hub”, according to the Dutch ministry of asylum and migration.
“Denmark’s Dybvad said centres would be ideally set up in “countries in north Africa” or other “stable countries, with stable governments”
FT ££
It's essentially circular. You pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK, you pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK...and we go round again.
The problem is porous borders. People enter at will. The solution is hardened borders.
arrival by small boat. The solution is to intercept before arrival and send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by large boat. The solution is make entry dependent on visas obtained before arrival and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by aircraft. The solution is as arrival by large boat
arrival by common travel area (IRE). The solution is to limit the CTA to people with Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by NI: check that travellers have British or Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
Once the borders are hardened the problem then reduces to "how many visas to be issued" and that is a political problem. But until the borders are hardened we are not functioning as a state.
Your second and third bullets are what happens now.
I think your fourth and fifth bullets actually require the ending of both the Common Travel Area, and the Good Friday Agreement, but maybe that wasn't what you meant.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
The Conservatives are close to being the fourth party in national opinion polls.
The voters are certainly telling the Tories to go forth and multiply.
But if you don't vote Conservative, Kemi will tell the teacher.
She should have spoken to Jamie Vardy, no matter how successful you are, being a grass or being the husband of a grass sticks,
I don't know who is advising Kemi – there have been rumours of a shake-up at CCHQ, whatever that amounts to – but I could do a better job at half the price. This smacks of Ranking John Major pointing out his old house in Brixton. It has gone beyond that. The issue now is not that we need to know Kemi better – we need to know what today's (and tomorrow's) Conservative Party is for. Never mind leaders or even policies, what are its principles, its values?
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
The real boon of driverless cars is that it lets normal people experience what’s now only available to the very wealthy, their own personal car and ‘driver’.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I'm sure even if your favourite Albanian is no longer able to oblige you could come up with something?
I do not know if it is my axe-murderer demeanour or strong body odour but in decades of using black cabs, minicabs and Ubers, I've never had the driver rant at me or even talk to me. I can't help wondering if the whole meme comes from journalists engaging cabbies in conversation.
"Suez" was a recognition we no longer were able to act totally independently as a world power - we weren't economically or politically strong enough.
It happened quite late (1956) but it could have happened at any point over the previous 20 years, or even a few years later. We just didn't get involved in the 1930s and, during WWII, aside from aerial defence and the Royal Navy couldn't do much alone.
So, it was a symptom, not a cause.
In WWII, the surface Royal Navy chased/harried the German surface navy to extinction, pretty much on their own. They comprehensively defeated the Italian surface navy as well
Sure, but the war near bankrupted us so then we couldn't afford it.
Also, Indian independence lost us a huge land army. National Service tried to step in to fill the void, but was expensive and also came at a big national cost as it diverted funds from industrial recovery into defence.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I’m surprised that the fashy right are so dead set against Afghans and other Muslims coming over ‘ere with their mediaeval anti-woke ideas. Since they’re comfortable with allies such as Putin, Trump, Tate and sundry other weirdos surely they can welcome poor brown lads just wanting to join in the fun?
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
Think about the many advantages of a driverless car - @Sandpit has mentioned a couple above - and you’ll work it out
Also this merely conforms to something we already know. People PREFER interacting with machines and robots - stats and surveys show it. Why? A machine won’t judge you. Or criticise you. Or silently decide you are a bit working class. It won’t assault you if you are a pretty 19 year old girl. It won’t yawn if you’re as boring as @bondegezou
Read across for machines in many fields. They are preferred
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
Of course, you will need flights to Beijing and Texas to properly experience driverless cabs. Does the Gazette have any funds left or has it spaffed it up the wall on caviar and libel lawyers?
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
The real boon of driverless cars is that it lets normal people experience what’s now only available to the very wealthy, their own personal car and ‘driver’.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
Yes. It’s basically a chauffeur without all the hassle and expense
As I’ve been saying here for years, to much scorn, driverless cars are the future. The private car will slowly die
The Conservatives are close to being the fourth party in national opinion polls.
The voters are certainly telling the Tories to go forth and multiply.
But if you don't vote Conservative, Kemi will tell the teacher.
She should have spoken to Jamie Vardy, no matter how successful you are, being a grass or being the husband of a grass sticks,
I don't know who is advising Kemi – there have been rumours of a shake-up at CCHQ, whatever that amounts to – but I could do a better job at half the price. This smacks of Ranking John Major pointing out his old house in Brixton. It has gone beyond that. The issue now is not that we need to know Kemi better – we need to know what today's (and tomorrow's) Conservative Party is for. Never mind leaders or even policies, what are its principles, its values?
A sustained period of not getting to know Kemi better might be beneficial, or at least neutral.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
My motivation would be to avoid racist taxi drivers. Are there any other kind? Also to avoid always being the designated driver. Mind you, there would be consequences of driverless cars. Sales of Guinness Zero would plummet.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I'm sure even if your favourite Albanian is no longer able to oblige you could come up with something?
It’s gonna put a real dent in my flow of PB anecdotes
“I was talking to the steering wheel this morning and he said I’m completely right about what3words”
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I’ll take an Uber Luxury every day of the week.
You do realise Uber Luxury is just Moriarty's ruse to have rich people standing on kerbs with their phones out and kettles on view. Mind the Grab!
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
My motivation would be to avoid racist taxi drivers. Are there any other kind? Also to avoid always being the designated driver. Mind you, there would be consequences of driverless cars. Sales of Guinness Zero would plummet.
It’s going to be fantastic for pubs, especially country pubs. And they deserve a break
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
Aren’t most of your conversations on here already, or do you also have racist rants with strangers elsewhere?
If the EU gets Rwanda-type deals up and running, how long before Skyr Toolmakersson sheepishly copies them?
That might provoke a mini Tory recovery better than anything they've actively attempted. 'We were right' premium Emphasis on mini
Well, for all political parties that depends on their view of the EU. The anti-EU people would discover the scheme is awful, and the pro-EU people would discover it's a marvellous idea.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
Of course, you will need flights to Beijing and Texas to properly experience driverless cabs. Does the Gazette have any funds left or has it spaffed it up the wall on caviar and libel lawyers?
I’m on assignment in California in October for “Basalt Bliss Biannual”. Bit late for this but it will be interesting to try Waymo nonetheless
Driverless cars are now “training” in London btw. They’ll be on our roads soon and I predict they’ll be just as popular as in the USA
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
What are journalists going to do if they can't get stories from cabbies? Maybe AI could help with that too.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I'm sure even if your favourite Albanian is no longer able to oblige you could come up with something?
It’s gonna put a real dent in my flow of PB anecdotes
“I was talking to the steering wheel this morning and he said I’m completely right about what3words”
As an aside, Goodwood reported a healthy increase in crowd numbers for its Festival meeting last week, The Public Enclosure (the cheap seats) had crowd numbers up 10% from 2024 while even the posh areas saw a 5% rise and that was despite last Thursdy's biblical deluge.
Attendances at race meetings are doing well and some evidence there's still plenty of discretionary income out there to be spent despite the notion we are on our knees, society is broken and we are one step away from anarchy and barbarism under Labour.
It's all much more nuanced than that - it always has been.
Inequality is increasing, despite what politicians say. If you are retired, self employed, have a skilled trade or don’t have young children or a large mortgage, the chances are you will be comfortably off. If you are renting, have a young family, have no useful skills, or on minimum wage, you will be ever poorer.
Yes, and I'd like to see more focus on it. A Labour government should have 'reduce inequality' at the top of its priorities. It's what the party is for.
I'll do it in Keir X speak:
Britain is a wealthy country but too much of it is held by the few. This leaves many people struggling. We need a better and fairer way. My government will leave no stone unturned to find it. Oh yes.
I think if he does that he also needs to make the connection between reducing inequality and a healthy economy. £1,000 in the hands of a poor person gets spent and recycled many times. £1,000 in the hands of the elite goes into speculative assets including housing, pushing assets further away from the reach of those reliant on a wage.
So you think what our economy needs is more consumption and less investment?
Interesting.
More consumption, more productive investment, less asset speculation and asset stripping.
But if that £1000 is in the hands of a poor person it is not going to be productively invested, it is going to get spent. Productive investment comes from those who have savings and if you redistribute their income they will invest less. Short term gain (because the consumption will boost demand, and imports of course) long term pain. I think we have had too much of that already.
One false assumption that people make is that money that is saved is always "productively invested". Since 2008 we've had a general story that consumption has been low and investment has been low. There simply haven't been any decent investments to be made - at least in the UK - despite very low interest rates making such investments more attractive. Then we had austerity on government spending (even though borrowing for government was extremely cheap), which means that every element of what drives economic output has been suppressed.
There were absolutely insane savings rates by rich households during the pandemic as consumption collapsed. Did that drive brilliant economic growth? Nope. Interest rates then went up to take account of supply side inflation, but poor people still need to spend on essentials and rich people have shedloads of savings to deploy, so it took ages to work, all while making investment less attractive throughout.
Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess.
The only investment we have seen, if we choose to call it investment, is selling British assets to foreigners, who then naturally take the profit and any IP out of the country, from utilities to football clubs, from chocolate to chips, from aviation to AI.
If so many people weren’t scared of investing, maybe shares in UK companies would be held by UK investors. That would involve the media not scaring pensioners, who hold most of the investible wealth, with stories convincing them that investments can go down or plummet. Never up.
"Suez" was a recognition we no longer were able to act totally independently as a world power - we weren't economically or politically strong enough.
It happened quite late (1956) but it could have happened at any point over the previous 20 years, or even a few years later. We just didn't get involved in the 1930s and, during WWII, aside from aerial defence and the Royal Navy couldn't do much alone.
So, it was a symptom, not a cause.
In WWII, the surface Royal Navy chased/harried the German surface navy to extinction, pretty much on their own. They comprehensively defeated the Italian surface navy as well
Sure, but the war near bankrupted us so then we couldn't afford it.
Also, Indian independence lost us a huge land army. National Service tried to step in to fill the void, but was expensive and also came at a big national cost as it diverted funds from industrial recovery into defence.
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. Typical Tory, bankrupting the country and leaving it to Labour to replenish the coffers.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I'm sure even if your favourite Albanian is no longer able to oblige you could come up with something?
It’s gonna put a real dent in my flow of PB anecdotes
“I was talking to the steering wheel this morning and he said I’m completely right about what3words”
They'll have their own website.
"I had that flint-knapper in the back of my cab...."
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
The real boon of driverless cars is that it lets normal people experience what’s now only available to the very wealthy, their own personal car and ‘driver’.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
For me it's the efficiency - most cars spend 95% of their life parked, and a large reason they have a limited life is because of age, not use. Being driven around in a 2 year old car with 250,000 miles is the dream, both for comfort and for the environment.
Also space. I can't remember, but some preposterous proportion of usable space is used to store vehicles. You could cut the number of vehicles by 50% plus, remove almost all parking spots AND store them on shitty brownfield sites on the outskirts overnight, during the day.
Basically, buses. Barty Bobs will lose his head because he thinks this is a grand conspiracy to remove freedom for people or some bollocks. Untraceable cycling will remain, and this time you won't have some phone using drugged up twat ready to kill you either.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
I would absolutely pay a bit extra for a driverless cab. Not having to sustain a conversation with a chatty cabbie would be worth it alone, plus the cab drivers round here drive like maniacs so I'm pretty sure a computer would be safer.
But I'm sceptical such a service will be available outside of some carefully curated urban areas any time in the next decade. Driverless vehicles that can navigate any road on their own are a 90/10 problem - 10% of the effort and money gets you 90% of the way to the goal, that final 10% is a pit that consumes endless time and money.
Didn't The Goodies once do an episode where the South Africans, unable to oppress non-whites any longer, came up with the Apart Height system where they were mean to Bill Oddie and some random jockeys?
I'm 5'6". I had occasion, some years ago, to go to Newmarket and wander about the streets "observing". It was the only place in UK I've been to where most men were my height or below. The similarity I one of the reasons I like(d) going to Thailand! Or Vietnam/Laos.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
My motivation would be to avoid racist taxi drivers. Are there any other kind? Also to avoid always being the designated driver. Mind you, there would be consequences of driverless cars. Sales of Guinness Zero would plummet.
It’s going to be fantastic for pubs, especially country pubs. And they deserve a break
Even the pub in Wonston would benefit, and be able to extend their hours. Not everyone wants to go to the pub to eat. Instead of a racist rant from a taxi driver, you could have one from the pub bore, whilst enjoying a pint.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
I'm sure even if your favourite Albanian is no longer able to oblige you could come up with something?
It’s gonna put a real dent in my flow of PB anecdotes
“I was talking to the steering wheel this morning and he said I’m completely right about what3words”
They'll have their own website.
"I had that flint-knapper in the back of my cab...."
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
The real boon of driverless cars is that it lets normal people experience what’s now only available to the very wealthy, their own personal car and ‘driver’.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
For me it's the efficiency - most cars spend 95% of their life parked, and a large reason they have a limited life is because of age, not use. Being driven around in a 2 year old car with 250,000 miles is the dream, both for comfort and for the environment.
Also space. I can't remember, but some preposterous proportion of usable space is used to store vehicles. You could cut the number of vehicles by 50% plus, remove almost all parking spots AND store them on shitty brownfield sites on the outskirts overnight, during the day.
Basically, buses. Barty Bobs will lose his head because he thinks this is a grand conspiracy to remove freedom for people or some bollocks. Untraceable cycling will remain, and this time you won't have some phone using drugged up twat ready to kill you either.
Yes. It’s going to be marvellous for cities. Remove 90% of the hideous infrastructure devoted to cars and imagine what London would look like. No on-street parking. No traffic jams. No garages and tyre shops
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
Of course, you will need flights to Beijing and Texas to properly experience driverless cabs. Does the Gazette have any funds left or has it spaffed it up the wall on caviar and libel lawyers?
I’m on assignment in California in October for “Basalt Bliss Biannual”. Bit late for this but it will be interesting to try Waymo nonetheless
Driverless cars are now “training” in London btw. They’ll be on our roads soon and I predict they’ll be just as popular as in the USA
Possible hazards might include Stop Traffic for Gaza protestors (terrorists) who could sit down in the road without fear of angry drivers, crash for cash merchants, and graffiti artists who have done so much for London's tube. Advantages would be for courting couples and balloons users.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
My motivation would be to avoid racist taxi drivers. Are there any other kind? Also to avoid always being the designated driver. Mind you, there would be consequences of driverless cars. Sales of Guinness Zero would plummet.
It’s going to be fantastic for pubs, especially country pubs. And they deserve a break
Great for us non-drinker too, who have "designated driver" tattooed on our foreheads....
"Call a driverless when you're finished. I'm bored with your drunken antics and being told the same story four times in thirty minutes. I'm off home..."
Drunk people generally have no idea how tedious they are.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
In Greater Manchester, 99% of taxi drivers are Muslim, often with relatively little English. No racism from them. Very little conversation at all. I'd still prefer an automatic car though, if only to avoid the awkwardness about tipping. There is quite a British discomfort about Employing A Man To Do A Thing. I suffer it quite acutely.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
The final leg to home is a lot of business for cab drivers, that is why there are taxi ranks and minicab offices at so many stations. Especially for lady commuters.
Off topic: A little more on elections here in King County (Seattle and most of the suburban population): As the voter booklet reminded me on page 74 that, if I wanted to, I could "Vote in Chinese, Korean, Russian, Somali, Spanish, or Vietnamese!", if I "preferred".
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
I would absolutely pay a bit extra for a driverless cab. Not having to sustain a conversation with a chatty cabbie would be worth it alone, plus the cab drivers round here drive like maniacs so I'm pretty sure a computer would be safer.
But I'm sceptical such a service will be available outside of some carefully curated urban areas any time in the next decade. Driverless vehicles that can navigate any road on their own are a 90/10 problem - 10% of the effort and money gets you 90% of the way to the goal, that final 10% is a pit that consumes endless time and money.
The technology is now improving exponentially as the machines develop themselves
See various other announcements this week
You could still be right. But I probably wouldn’t bet on it
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
My motivation would be to avoid racist taxi drivers. Are there any other kind? Also to avoid always being the designated driver. Mind you, there would be consequences of driverless cars. Sales of Guinness Zero would plummet.
It’s going to be fantastic for pubs, especially country pubs. And they deserve a break
Great for us non-drinker too, who have "designated driver" tattooed on our foreheads....
"Call a driverless when you're finished. I'm bored with your drunken antics and being told the same story four times in thirty minutes. I'm off home..."
Drunk people generally have no idea how tedious they are.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
In Greater Manchester, 99% of taxi drivers are Muslim, often with relatively little English. No racism from them. Very little conversation at all. I'd still prefer an automatic car though, if only to avoid the awkwardness about tipping. There is quite a British discomfort about Employing A Man To Do A Thing. I suffer it quite acutely.
Uber drivers neither expect nor accept tips in my experience. It is all done at time of booking via the app.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
In Greater Manchester, 99% of taxi drivers are Muslim, often with relatively little English. No racism from them. Very little conversation at all. I'd still prefer an automatic car though, if only to avoid the awkwardness about tipping. There is quite a British discomfort about Employing A Man To Do A Thing. I suffer it quite acutely.
A Waymo is also far safer. Apparently parents in Frisco are using them to send their unattended kids to school. Which you probably wouldn’t risk with an Uber…
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
The real boon of driverless cars is that it lets normal people experience what’s now only available to the very wealthy, their own personal car and ‘driver’.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
Yes. It’s basically a chauffeur without all the hassle and expense
As I’ve been saying here for years, to much scorn, driverless cars are the future. The private car will slowly die
I've been of this view for years. It will also lead to better urban design - streets no longer crowded with parked cars, no need for drives, we can design to slightly higher densities...
That said, I recall the consensus of transport futurologists in 2017 was that by 2025 driverless cars would be just about nornal.
If the EU gets Rwanda-type deals up and running, how long before Skyr Toolmakersson sheepishly copies them?
Boris Plan: Send people to Rwanda with no route to claim asylum in the UK EU Plan: Send people to Rwanda whilst they go through the route to claim asylum in the EU.
You are a clever man but dance around your handbag refusing to accept that the two are not remotely the same thing.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
People who take trains are doing him out of a job.
Tbh, I generally eschew taxis. I reckon I average one every two years. They generally suggest you have failed to plan your journey properly.
If the EU gets Rwanda-type deals up and running, how long before Skyr Toolmakersson sheepishly copies them?
Boris Plan: Send people to Rwanda with no route to claim asylum in the UK EU Plan: Send people to Rwanda whilst they go through the route to claim asylum in the UK.
You are a clever man but dance around your handbag refusing to accept that the two are not remotely the same thing.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
Isn't this just because driverless cars are novel and people are willing to pay a bit extra for an experience? That would be my motivation for trying one. It would be interesting to see data on how many people use one on a regular basis.
My motivation would be to avoid racist taxi drivers. Are there any other kind? Also to avoid always being the designated driver. Mind you, there would be consequences of driverless cars. Sales of Guinness Zero would plummet.
It’s going to be fantastic for pubs, especially country pubs. And they deserve a break
If I were a pub landlord, I’d be first in the queue to get one as a service to customers.
To include collecting then in the morning so they can pick up their regular cars!
On robot taxis there are a few contradictory truths (which rampers of either extreme refuse to recognise):
The technology is accelerating RAPIDLY thanks to AI Waymo are now removing some of the bolt on sensors on their latest platform as more AI removes the need for them Some people think its a Great Leap Forward, others fear it for numerous valid reasons Most people in Most places will never have their private car earning money whilst they aren't using it This doesn't stop with car-sized vehicles
If the EU gets Rwanda-type deals up and running, how long before Skyr Toolmakersson sheepishly copies them?
Boris Plan: Send people to Rwanda with no route to claim asylum in the UK EU Plan: Send people to Rwanda whilst they go through the route to claim asylum in the UK.
You are a clever man but dance around your handbag refusing to accept that the two are not remotely the same thing.
Wtf?!!
lol - a slight typo now corrected. Thanks for flagging it!!!
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
Isn't that all part of the Cabbie service?
Might be in your part of the world. Not up here. Most of my cabbies are not white but from overseas. Last chap was an Eritrean. We chatted about the Eritrean church in Gateshead.
Oh, they can still do racism.
I once had a racist cab driver who was so racist he ran out of obvious people to be racist about within about 15 minutes of ranting. So then he started ranting about BELGIANS
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
In Greater Manchester, 99% of taxi drivers are Muslim, often with relatively little English. No racism from them. Very little conversation at all. I'd still prefer an automatic car though, if only to avoid the awkwardness about tipping. There is quite a British discomfort about Employing A Man To Do A Thing. I suffer it quite acutely.
A Waymo is also far safer. Apparently parents in Frisco are using them to send their unattended kids to school. Which you probably wouldn’t risk with an Uber…
One reason local councils are skint if not bankrupt is the number of SEND children taking taxis to school.
And the cab drivers not engaged there are often driving younger children to private day schools, although I gather business has dropped off since WFH.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
The real boon of driverless cars is that it lets normal people experience what’s now only available to the very wealthy, their own personal car and ‘driver’.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
Yes. It’s basically a chauffeur without all the hassle and expense
As I’ve been saying here for years, to much scorn, driverless cars are the future. The private car will slowly die
I've been of this view for years. It will also lead to better urban design - streets no longer crowded with parked cars, no need for drives, we can design to slightly higher densities...
That said, I recall the consensus of transport futurologists in 2017 was that by 2025 driverless cars would be just about nornal.
Yes it’s taken a lot longer than expected. But the future is now just about here
On the other hand, development of other technologies has gone way faster than ANYONE anticipated
It's not the same plan. The EU plan, AIUI, is about overseas processing, but some people will be let into the EU at the end of the process, whereas the UK plan involved no-one ever being let into the UK.
Read, and weep. Or kick the cat
“Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the UK scheme, according to two people familiar with the discussions, though it is unclear how advanced the negotiations are given previous legal objections.
“Rwanda also said this week it had agreed to take 250 migrants deported from the US, according to the government in Kigali.
“The Netherlands, meanwhile, has been in talks with Uganda — a country that sentences LGBT+ people to death — about setting up a “transit hub”, according to the Dutch ministry of asylum and migration.
“Denmark’s Dybvad said centres would be ideally set up in “countries in north Africa” or other “stable countries, with stable governments”
FT ££
It's essentially circular. You pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK, you pay non-UK countries to take the people, the people eventually escape and go back to the UK...and we go round again.
The problem is porous borders. People enter at will. The solution is hardened borders.
arrival by small boat. The solution is to intercept before arrival and send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by large boat. The solution is make entry dependent on visas obtained before arrival and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by aircraft. The solution is as arrival by large boat
arrival by common travel area (IRE). The solution is to limit the CTA to people with Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
arrival by NI: check that travellers have British or Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
Once the borders are hardened the problem then reduces to "how many visas to be issued" and that is a political problem. But until the borders are hardened we are not functioning as a state.
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
And, if you enjoy a racist rant, I suspect that AI can provide that, too.
It makes total sense if you think about it. A driverless cab drive is a private experience. You can scratch your crotch, have a wank, surf porn, argue about migrants with your stupid woke wife, no one will see or know or care. Who prefers a human driver? Plus the whole safety thing
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
The real boon of driverless cars is that it lets normal people experience what’s now only available to the very wealthy, their own personal car and ‘driver’.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
Yes. It’s basically a chauffeur without all the hassle and expense
As I’ve been saying here for years, to much scorn, driverless cars are the future. The private car will slowly die
Comments
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1953145437327659195
“So far, the best part of Trump’s tariff on India for buying russian oil is that it’s prompted Indian officials to call out how much russian oil other countries are buying, finally spotlighting the problem.”
There were absolutely insane savings rates by rich households during the pandemic as consumption collapsed. Did that drive brilliant economic growth? Nope. Interest rates then went up to take account of supply side inflation, but poor people still need to spend on essentials and rich people have shedloads of savings to deploy, so it took ages to work, all while making investment less attractive throughout.
Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess.
For example, if HS2 had gone ahead without the political havering, and hadn't been ridiculously overspecced, construction might be close to completion by now.
Ditto Northern Rail, or nuclear, or an upgraded electric grid, or any one of a dozen other things.
(edit)
Investment by everyone - government, firms, individuals - has been shit. A mess.
Can't really argue with that.
The only public policy that has really helped with investment in recent years was Hunt's changes to capital allowances. They certainly boosted investment in plant etc in the UK. Whether that is a one off gain or whether it is sustained over the longer term remains to be seen. We certainly need to focus on boosting investment and output. Directing available income to the poor does not do that.
The government too needs to reduce the proportion of its income it spends on consumption and increase investment. Reeves was, in fairness, pretty clear about that before the election but her attempts to create the headroom for such investment have been rejected by her own party both on WFA and Benefit reform. This does nothing for our future growth prospects.
In most cases the problem isn’t even the money, it’s the regulation and process.
Emphasis on mini
We spent more on the paperwork for the new Thames Crossing than it cost Norway to build the longest tunnel in the world: https://capx.co/how-much-paperwork-does-it-take-to-build-a-tunnel
That this isn’t treated as a national embarrassment by the press & politicians alike is part of the problem.
Breaking news: Trump and Putin to have first in-person meeting since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine
https://x.com/FT/status/1953378432680669599
But if rich folk aren't finding a way to invest productively, boosting demand via consumption is another - and legitimate - way to drive economic growth (I think TimS makes this point regularly). Poor people don't save at the same rate as others, so that's the best way to ensure the cash flows into consumption, then demand and you hope an accumulation of tech, skills and capital as firms respond.
There are also minor points about social welfare/utility. £10 spent by a poor person might be the difference between going hungry. For me it's how much I pop into my ISA, which is invested in US stocks.
The problem is porous borders. People enter at will. The solution is hardened borders.
- arrival by small boat. The solution is to intercept before arrival and send them back same day to their point of departure
- arrival by large boat. The solution is make entry dependent on visas obtained before arrival and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
- arrival by aircraft. The solution is as arrival by large boat
- arrival by common travel area (IRE). The solution is to limit the CTA to people with Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
- arrival by NI: check that travellers have British or Irish passports and if not held send them back same day to their point of departure
Once the borders are hardened the problem then reduces to "how many visas to be issued" and that is a political problem. But until the borders are hardened we are not functioning as a state.Robert Jenrick is 5’5.
Oddly enough, the A9 dualling project might be example of things working a bit better, simply as a function of it taking forever, there always being some construction going on and it split into incremental sections. The model of investment matches German rail electrification, which is extremely efficient.
TRUMP: Is he working on what?
R: Is he hosting some kind of gathering of top advisers this evening to talk about how to respond to the Epstein situation?
TRUMP: I don't know
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1953212752354214377
HannibalV writes:
”I work at a Barnes & Noble store in the US.
”Magazine publishers will (still) frequently rush out special commemorative editions after the death of a major personality - Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, Rolling Stone - depending on which kind of star we are talking about.
“Unlike the normal weekly/monthly editions, these will stay available for several months until eventually the unsold stock is pulled and recycled. It’s among my duties to take in the boxes of assorted magazine product, pull the superannuated issues, and put out the fresh ones.
“Today, we finally reached the point where I could pull the commemorative editions for one person and replace them with another.
”Which means I removed Pope Francis...
...And replaced him with Ozzy Osbourne.”
- ...they could have been one of my daughters – they are someone's daughter.
- Are these hotels where the politicians, the activists, the senior officials live? No.
What does intrigue me though is Jenrick saying we are seven years into this. Why is 2017 year zero, or 2018 year one? What happened then? Not Brexit, or Boris taking over from May, or May from Cameron.The reason airlines always ask for your destination visa or paperwork, is that by international convention the airline is responsible for repatriating customers denied entry.
But in the end we have to toughen up and say “no one gets in illegally”. Harden all the borders. Deport anyone and everyone if they do get in (to Rwanda if necessary, or east Falkland, who cares). End asylum as a concept
Then we CHOOSE who we take. The really deserving cases and people who culturally fit. Ukrainians. Hong Kongers. Not afghans
I think your fourth and fifth bullets actually require the ending of both the Common Travel Area, and the Good Friday Agreement, but maybe that wasn't what you meant.
Continuity of staff pipelines is important too, by running huge projects you have a skills shortage at the start and often don’’t retain people at the end of a project, so a huge amount of time and money is wasted having to keep training new crews for new projects.
Crews for electrifying rail lines, widening roads, even building nuclear power stations, should have a constant pipeline of new projects they can move onto as the previous one finishes.
The current poll shares of Reform 30%, Conservative 18%, could become Reform 35%, Conservative 10%.
Labour 260 seats,
Reform 210,
Lib Dems 80,
Conservatives 40,
Greens 4,
Sultanas 10,
Others 46.
https://x.com/ben_j_todd/status/1953171764411801832?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
“Sometimes the value of a 'human touch' is negative. People willing to pay 50% more for Waymo than Lyft, despite longer waiting times.”
People will pay more not to be driven by humans. Why? The cars are a bit nicer, the robot won’t rape you, there’s no chance of a racist rant, the drive will be safe and predictable
This here is the doom of the cab driver. It is also a tolling bell for human interaction
https://www.chortle.co.uk/punching-ups/2025/08/06/58683/tony_robinson:_prejudice_against_small_men_really_pisses_me_off
Or more seriously:-
Height discrimination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination
Amol Rajan is usually very good but this is a turd that cannot be polished.
Humans driving other humans is a concept on its way out. I wonder if humans even talking to other humans will soon feel dated
THE TRIUMPH OF THE SHY
I sense an email to the Gazette editor is in the offing
They'd have a sort of mandate but I doubt it'd be popular for long, if at all.
If my car can drive itself, then it drops me at work in the morning as I read the paper and check emails, goes back and picks up the kids to take them to school, picks up my wife and takes her to her Pilates class then to her coffee morning, picks the kids up from school, picks me up from work and takes me to the pub. Best of all, it then picks me up from the pub at midnight and takes me home.
Also, Indian independence lost us a huge land army. National Service tried to step in to fill the void, but was expensive and also came at a big national cost as it diverted funds from industrial recovery into defence.
Also this merely conforms to something we already know. People PREFER interacting with machines and robots - stats and surveys show it. Why? A machine won’t judge you. Or criticise you. Or silently decide you are a bit working class. It won’t assault you if you are a pretty 19 year old girl. It won’t yawn if you’re as boring as @bondegezou
Read across for machines in many fields. They are preferred
As I’ve been saying here for years, to much scorn, driverless cars are the future. The private car will slowly die
Sorry @BartholomewRoberts
I was right again
“I was talking to the steering wheel this morning and he said I’m completely right about what3words”
Driverless cars are now “training” in London btw. They’ll be on our roads soon and I predict they’ll be just as popular as in the USA
The USA Made a Lot of Money From WW2: Britain Only Settled Debts from WWII in 2006
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/britain-only-settled-debts.html
"I had that flint-knapper in the back of my cab...."
Also space. I can't remember, but some preposterous proportion of usable space is used to store vehicles. You could cut the number of vehicles by 50% plus, remove almost all parking spots AND store them on shitty brownfield sites on the outskirts overnight, during the day.
Basically, buses. Barty Bobs will lose his head because he thinks this is a grand conspiracy to remove freedom for people or some bollocks. Untraceable cycling will remain, and this time you won't have some phone using drugged up twat ready to kill you either.
But I'm sceptical such a service will be available outside of some carefully curated urban areas any time in the next decade. Driverless vehicles that can navigate any road on their own are a 90/10 problem - 10% of the effort and money gets you 90% of the way to the goal, that final 10% is a pit that consumes endless time and money.
The similarity I one of the reasons I like(d) going to Thailand! Or Vietnam/Laos.
Then he briskly exhausted that theme (how many times can you swear about that surrealist c*nt Rene Magritte) so he moved onto PEOPLE WHO TAKE TRAINS
Turn every car park into an orchard
"Call a driverless when you're finished. I'm bored with your drunken antics and being told the same story four times in thirty minutes. I'm off home..."
Drunk people generally have no idea how tedious they are.
I'd still prefer an automatic car though, if only to avoid the awkwardness about tipping.
There is quite a British discomfort about Employing A Man To Do A Thing. I suffer it quite acutely.
I can change my "language preference" here: https://cd.kingcounty.gov/en/dept/elections/how-to-vote/register-to-vote/change-language-preference
You want diversity? We've got it!
See various other announcements this week
You could still be right. But I probably wouldn’t bet on it
Look at the growth of Waymo in Ca
https://x.com/ben_j_todd/status/1953171767209443704?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
It will also lead to better urban design - streets no longer crowded with parked cars, no need for drives, we can design to slightly higher densities...
That said, I recall the consensus of transport futurologists in 2017 was that by 2025 driverless cars would be just about nornal.
EU Plan: Send people to Rwanda whilst they go through the route to claim asylum in the EU.
You are a clever man but dance around your handbag refusing to accept that the two are not remotely the same thing.
Tbh, I generally eschew taxis. I reckon I average one every two years. They generally suggest you have failed to plan your journey properly.
To include collecting then in the morning so they can pick up their regular cars!
The technology is accelerating RAPIDLY thanks to AI
Waymo are now removing some of the bolt on sensors on their latest platform as more AI removes the need for them
Some people think its a Great Leap Forward, others fear it for numerous valid reasons
Most people in Most places will never have their private car earning money whilst they aren't using it
This doesn't stop with car-sized vehicles
And the cab drivers not engaged there are often driving younger children to private day schools, although I gather business has dropped off since WFH.
On the other hand, development of other technologies has gone way faster than ANYONE anticipated
Unless "call me a driverless taxi with car seats fitted for a newborn, two year old and five year old in rural Kent" becomes part of the offering.
The effort of carrying your own seats and fitting them in a car would far outweigh any benefit of not driving unless you're driving to Scotland.
There's also the problem of parking (much of current space is on private land).
I suspect you end up with a hybrid of private and communal cars. But with almost all driverless in any case.
But we won't be there for another decade or two.