You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
Wrong, you don't have 1 known apple. You only have 1 known apple in B, since that apple was chosen randomly thus not affecting the probability of the others.
Knowing at least 1 apple is good != knowing 1 apple is good, while not observing the others.
In A you have eliminated BBB but have remaining BBG, BGB, BGG, GGB, GBG and GGG since the good apple could have been any of the 3 apples.
That means 1/7 chance of 3 good - both non-revealed apples are good. 3/7 chance of 2 good - half the non-revealed apples are good. 3/7 chance of 1 good - both non-revealed apples are bad.
There is a selection bias that means that the non-revealed apples are now more likely to be bad than good, since we don't know the state of any one apple in A so 2^x-1 does NOT apply.
Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.
Wrong.
If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.
The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.
Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.
Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike
Well done Israel.
No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.
Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.
You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.
If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.
You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.
How about if we hosted them for a peace negotiation backed by all permanent members of the Security Council, with broad international agreement to guarantee their safety to try and secure a peace settlement and save lives?
You know, like Qatar did…
Moot, since Qatar host them to live there and direct terror from there.
They're not only there for a peace conference.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
Taking out a hotel > taking out a city.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
Taking out a hotel does rather imply you are happy to kill innocent guests stay at the hotel...
Taking out 6 people does rather imply it was well targeted against 1 room as Mexicanpete advocated for rather than levelling an entire hotel.
Pretty small hotel otherwise to only have 6 fatalities.
In addition to the six bad guys how many collateral casualties were there? Have collateral casualties occurred and have they been lost in the reporting of the dead bad guys?
If they had the BBC, Roger et al would be screaming it from the rooftops, so the indication is no, this was targeted exactly as you advocate for.
Some of the cycle counters in London are registering 70%+ week-on-week increases as a result of the tube strike. Massive congestion on the cycle network. I think this is the week when it cements itself as one of the great cycling cities of the world (as long as they keep expanding the network).
Now it's time to the make the UK as a whole the next Denmark/Netherlands. 🚴🚴🚴🚴🚴
Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.
Wrong.
If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.
The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.
Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.
Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike
Well done Israel.
No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.
Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.
You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.
If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.
You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.
That doesn't make sense given that Israel exiled those Hamas leaders to Qatar in the first place. Israel has lost the plot and it's all to keep Netanyahu out of jail. Israelis need to protest everyday until they remove him from office and he goes to jail for fraud and corruption.
You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
FFS, I thought we were done with this.
In scenario A, you do not know the state of any individual apples. You only know something about the combined state of 3 apples.
Can you explain what you think the process is to choose the 3 apples, how child A gets the information, and how the choice of which apple to take is made?
Presumably the odds for Phillipson becoming next PM have shortened over the past 24 hours?
Why would they?
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
She's favourite for DL.
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
In Government, I wonder whether the Deputy would be the obvious choice for interim PM in a “falls under the bus” scenario? It would have to be someone with the backing of the Cabinet and who commanded the House.
I.e. In c. 2004, if Blair had gone, surely it would have been Brown and not Prescott to go to the Palace?
Expect him to last for all of 5 minutes, he is another centre right PM proposing spending cuts in a parliament where the left have most seats and want to tax the rich instead.
Macron is just naive thinking a non centre left PM can get anything through
The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies, but neither side is close to a majority.
“The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies” Are you sure? The largest bloc, so probably most legitimate to provide next PM is NPF, with Macrons grouping in second place, NR third.
If NR were top, they would refuse to provide PM as it would damage them in the General Election. However the NPF are calling for an NPF PM, but Macron is refusing to appoint one as it would damage his political ensemble ahead of the General election.
It’s not that Macron is in a weak position and doesn’t have strong cards to trade and comprise to bring stability to French politics, and protect the French economy with that stability, achievable by getting his bloc to support NPF PM after a budget agreement - Macron is choosing to die in a ditch over the need for Thatcherite reforms - 2 less Bank Holidays a totemic example. He’s taking this ruinous bloody minded position because… he’s French 🤷♀️
Does France need to abolish two Bank Holidays? I don’t think so, the economic future of Bank Holidays is more not less.
Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.
Wrong.
If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.
The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.
Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.
Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike
Well done Israel.
No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.
Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.
You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.
If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.
You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.
That doesn't make sense given that Israel exiled those Hamas leaders to Qatar in the first place. Israel has lost the plot and it's all to keep Netanyahu out of jail. Israelis need to protest everyday until they remove him from office and he goes to jail for fraud and corruption.
Correction - Syria exiled them.
Israel is seeking to eliminate Hamas, not exile them.
Presumably the odds for Phillipson becoming next PM have shortened over the past 24 hours?
Why would they?
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
She's favourite for DL.
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
In Government, I wonder whether the Deputy would be the obvious choice for interim PM in a “falls under the bus” scenario? It would have to be someone with the backing of the Cabinet and who commanded the House.
I.e. In c. 2004, if Blair had gone, surely it would have been Brown and not Prescott to go to the Palace?
Backing of Cabinet and House? why wouldn't that be the case with DL Phillipson?
Some of the cycle counters in London are registering 70%+ week-on-week increases as a result of the tube strike. Massive congestion on the cycle network. I think this is the week when it cements itself as one of the great cycling cities of the world (as long as they keep expanding the network).
Now it's time to the make the UK as a whole the next Denmark/Netherlands. 🚴🚴🚴🚴🚴
With home working (and we know how much some on PB love that) the strikes so far haven't had the impact RMT might have hoped. Today was more difficult with the DLR taken out as well though there were some trains on the Northern Line and at the north western end of the Piccadilly.
Relations between the RMT and TfL are as bad as they have ever been but in truth the union leadership are barely keeping up with the militancy of their members, some of whom were angry with previous "deals" which led to the suspension of planned strike action.
The Clipper boats have seen a big boost in passengers but there's some evidence many people weren't aware of the strikes until yesterday morning and have now planned accordingly for today, tomorrow and Thursday. Interestingly, Oyster touch in numbers are down only 23% compared to the equivalent day last year which I find surpssing but both London Overground and the Elizabeth Line have seen rises in passenger numbers.
Apart from my initial thought of 'Wut?' - I wonder how many meetings they had to arrive at the precise "this is worth about £1.3million to us" figure. I really hope my cynical thoughts of "We can't just say 'a million' - sounds corny. How about 0.9? Too cheap? I know.... how about 1.3? Sounds precise. Like an algorithm! Perfect! Now, who's for lunch?"
My guess is the Home Office is packed with Remainers who figured 1.5 million euros was a nice round number. The report is unclear and a key link goes to the wrong document but this line – According to the tender, work shall begin on the algorithm on January 19, 2026, with completion expected on the same day, three years later. – makes it sound like the government will pay someone £1.3 million to try to develop an algorithm, rather than selecting numerous bodies and then paying a bounty for the most successful.
If so, this betrays magical thinking. Here is a problem, let us throw AI at it, then we will have a solved problem.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Presumably the odds for Phillipson becoming next PM have shortened over the past 24 hours?
Why would they?
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
She's favourite for DL.
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
In Government, I wonder whether the Deputy would be the obvious choice for interim PM in a “falls under the bus” scenario? It would have to be someone with the backing of the Cabinet and who commanded the House.
I.e. In c. 2004, if Blair had gone, surely it would have been Brown and not Prescott to go to the Palace?
Backing of Cabinet and House? why wouldn't that be the case with DL Phillipson?
Who gets first dibs - the deputy leader of the party or the deputy prime minister?
Could be a bit of a bun fight if it came to that situation.
Presumably the odds for Phillipson becoming next PM have shortened over the past 24 hours?
Why would they?
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
She's favourite for DL.
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
In Government, I wonder whether the Deputy would be the obvious choice for interim PM in a “falls under the bus” scenario? It would have to be someone with the backing of the Cabinet and who commanded the House.
I.e. In c. 2004, if Blair had gone, surely it would have been Brown and not Prescott to go to the Palace?
Backing of Cabinet and House? why wouldn't that be the case with DL Phillipson?
It might be, but I don’t think it’s a given. Surely a Cooper/Benn type would be seen as more credible if a PM were needed in an unplanned fashion?
Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.
Wrong.
If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.
The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.
Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.
Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike
Well done Israel.
No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.
Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.
You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.
If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.
You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.
That doesn't make sense given that Israel exiled those Hamas leaders to Qatar in the first place. Israel has lost the plot and it's all to keep Netanyahu out of jail. Israelis need to protest everyday until they remove him from office and he goes to jail for fraud and corruption.
Correction - Syria exiled them.
Israel is seeking to eliminate Hamas, not exile them.
You still haven’t looked up the actual history have you? You’re just making it up as you go.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Presumably the odds for Phillipson becoming next PM have shortened over the past 24 hours?
Why would they?
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
She's favourite for DL.
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
In Government, I wonder whether the Deputy would be the obvious choice for interim PM in a “falls under the bus” scenario? It would have to be someone with the backing of the Cabinet and who commanded the House.
I.e. In c. 2004, if Blair had gone, surely it would have been Brown and not Prescott to go to the Palace?
Backing of Cabinet and House? why wouldn't that be the case with DL Phillipson?
It might be, but I don’t think it’s a given. Surely a Cooper/Benn type would be seen as more credible if a PM were needed in an unplanned fashion?
If so they should run for DL, but they haven't so far.
If Starmer falls then the DL gets the gig, at least as temporary leader. Anything else would cause major trouble for the government. Sure, it could be as a caretaker, but that would mean an open and unpredictable contest.
You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
In A we don't know the state of 1 apple. We know only one thing - that not all 3 apples are bad. This is not the same as knowing a specific apple is good (the B scenario).
Re method of selection, it's only B where a selection is involved. In A we only have info on the whole bag - that the 3 in there aren't all bad.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Maybe with Trump, but it’s British public opinion that counts
I cannot believe Starmer has stupidly come out already and expressed “full confidence” in Mandelson. Why? What does he gain from it?! Why not just say “I am sure Lord Mandelson will be able to explain all this for himself. I don’t believe in guilt by association” - ie what the much smarter Streeting said. Sounding supportive but actually withholding judgement
Starmer has the political instincts of a dead potato
Very interesting. Attacking a sovereign country other than in self defence is illegal in international law. As Rory says if they had had the peace talks in London would the Israelis have attackedLondon. Well worth listening to. Netanyahu has completely lost his mind.
Wrong.
If a third party country is harbouring forces/elements that are hostile to a given country, they are legitimate targets.
The precedents go back to before Napoleonic wars.
Essentially - if you are at war with country x, being present in a neutral country doesn’t protect you. You are still a legitimate target of war.
Apparently 5 members of Hamas were killed in the strike
Well done Israel.
No surprise to see roger complaining about Hamas leadership being attacked and falsely claiming international law.
Hamas are legitimate targets. Hitting them, anywhere, is legitimate.
You really are a clown and a stupid one to boot. What Israel have done is commit a war crime. They have also killed Qataris. It would be no different to having peace talks in Lodon and the Israelis bombed the building where the talks were being held and killed several British policemen and a child.
If we hosted Hamas in London then yes it would make London a legitimate target. Which is why we don't host Hamas.
You're the stupid one who thinks people at war are safe if they step foot in a third party state. Not the law.
How about if we hosted them for a peace negotiation backed by all permanent members of the Security Council, with broad international agreement to guarantee their safety to try and secure a peace settlement and save lives?
You know, like Qatar did…
Moot, since Qatar host them to live there and direct terror from there.
They're not only there for a peace conference.
Now I have been advocating since October 7th 2023 that Mossad would be perfectly entitled to take out the Hamas bad guys in Doha like Daniel Craig, Eric Bana and their team did in the film Munich. Taking out some blocks of flats with Popeye and Delilah in Doha wasn't what I had in mind.
When Israel claims a precision strike it doesn't mean it just gets the guys in the one room. As an illustration if Hamas were having their meeting in a Sheraton conference room, it doesn't take out the conference room, it takes down the whole hotel.
Taking out a hotel > taking out a city.
6 people dead != an entire hotel taken out.
Taking out a hotel does rather imply you are happy to kill innocent guests stay at the hotel...
Taking out 6 people does rather imply it was well targeted against 1 room as Mexicanpete advocated for rather than levelling an entire hotel.
Pretty small hotel otherwise to only have 6 fatalities.
In addition to the six bad guys how many collateral casualties were there? Have collateral casualties occurred and have they been lost in the reporting of the dead bad guys?
If they had the BBC, Roger et al would be screaming it from the rooftops, so the indication is no, this was targeted exactly as you advocate for.
If it was, do you praise the action?
I have the World's tiniest violin for the dead bad guys but the opportunity for substantial collateral damage in a third country which could set off the entire region is foolhardy.
I don't believe you understand the relationship over the last twenty years between Netanyahu, Hamas and the House of Al Thani. It is very complicated.
The upshot of today's action has led to the commentary that Netanyahu doesn't want the Trump led negotiated end to the war between Israel and Hamas. Of course he can't let the war stop because when he loses power he goes to jail. And he personally hasn't considered the plight of the hostages since 8th October 2023.
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
Is that right, though, the bit about the method of selection being irrelevant, or is there a difference between the boy knowing where in the bag a good apple could be found, and a random pick of any apple that could have been good or bad but just so happens to be good? What would have happened if the boy picked a bad apple: do we stop there or would he have had a second pick, and a third? Do we need to invoke Bayes? (Of course, it does not help that somewhere during the thread, the randomness or otherwise of the selection changed.)
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Expect him to last for all of 5 minutes, he is another centre right PM proposing spending cuts in a parliament where the left have most seats and want to tax the rich instead.
Macron is just naive thinking a non centre left PM can get anything through
The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies, but neither side is close to a majority.
“The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies” Are you sure? The largest bloc, so probably most legitimate to provide next PM is NPF, with Macrons grouping in second place, NR third.
If NR were top, they would refuse to provide PM as it would damage them in the General Election. However the NPF are calling for an NPF PM, but Macron is refusing to appoint one as it would damage his political ensemble ahead of the General election.
It’s not that Macron is in a weak position and doesn’t have strong cards to trade and comprise to bring stability to French politics, and protect the French economy with that stability, achievable by getting his bloc to support NPF PM after a budget agreement - Macron is choosing to die in a ditch over the need for Thatcherite reforms - 2 less Bank Holidays a totemic example. He’s taking this ruinous bloody minded position because… he’s French 🤷♀️
Does France need to abolish two Bank Holidays? I don’t think so, the economic future of Bank Holidays is more not less.
The NPF has 193 deputies, out of 577. RN 142, the Republicans 47, with another 19 independent Right. Macron’s faction has 166.
There is no common ground between Macron and LFI (the faction of NPF that supports Melanchon).
A PM from the Left would lose a vote of confidence in the Assembly.
Presumably the odds for Phillipson becoming next PM have shortened over the past 24 hours?
Why would they?
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
She's favourite for DL.
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
In Government, I wonder whether the Deputy would be the obvious choice for interim PM in a “falls under the bus” scenario? It would have to be someone with the backing of the Cabinet and who commanded the House.
I.e. In c. 2004, if Blair had gone, surely it would have been Brown and not Prescott to go to the Palace?
Backing of Cabinet and House? why wouldn't that be the case with DL Phillipson?
It might be, but I don’t think it’s a given. Surely a Cooper/Benn type would be seen as more credible if a PM were needed in an unplanned fashion?
If so they should run for DL, but they haven't so far.
If Starmer falls then the DL gets the gig, at least as temporary leader. Anything else would cause major trouble for the government. Sure, it could be as a caretaker, but that would mean an open and unpredictable contest.
The only possible coronation would be the DL.
I guess that where I part from you is that I don’t think that, in the moment of crisis of the death or resignation of a PM, we could really do a caretaker PM. I think the governing party would be under immense pressure to pop some grey suits on, and pick one in five minutes flat. And in that moment of crisis, I think the government’s MPs would fall in line.
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Expect him to last for all of 5 minutes, he is another centre right PM proposing spending cuts in a parliament where the left have most seats and want to tax the rich instead.
Macron is just naive thinking a non centre left PM can get anything through
The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies, but neither side is close to a majority.
“The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies” Are you sure? The largest bloc, so probably most legitimate to provide next PM is NPF, with Macrons grouping in second place, NR third.
If NR were top, they would refuse to provide PM as it would damage them in the General Election. However the NPF are calling for an NPF PM, but Macron is refusing to appoint one as it would damage his political ensemble ahead of the General election.
It’s not that Macron is in a weak position and doesn’t have strong cards to trade and comprise to bring stability to French politics, and protect the French economy with that stability, achievable by getting his bloc to support NPF PM after a budget agreement - Macron is choosing to die in a ditch over the need for Thatcherite reforms - 2 less Bank Holidays a totemic example. He’s taking this ruinous bloody minded position because… he’s French 🤷♀️
Does France need to abolish two Bank Holidays? I don’t think so, the economic future of Bank Holidays is more not less.
The NPF has 193 deputies, out of 577. RN 142, the Republicans 47, with another 19 independent Right. Macron’s faction has 166.
There is no common ground between Macron and LFI (the faction of NPF that supports Melanchon).
A PM from the Left would lose a vote of confidence in the Assembly.
So you’re saying we should invade to preserve the position of our ancestral lands in France? I agree.
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
Expect him to last for all of 5 minutes, he is another centre right PM proposing spending cuts in a parliament where the left have most seats and want to tax the rich instead.
Macron is just naive thinking a non centre left PM can get anything through
The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies, but neither side is close to a majority.
“The National Assembly has more right wing than left wing deputies” Are you sure? The largest bloc, so probably most legitimate to provide next PM is NPF, with Macrons grouping in second place, NR third.
If NR were top, they would refuse to provide PM as it would damage them in the General Election. However the NPF are calling for an NPF PM, but Macron is refusing to appoint one as it would damage his political ensemble ahead of the General election.
It’s not that Macron is in a weak position and doesn’t have strong cards to trade and comprise to bring stability to French politics, and protect the French economy with that stability, achievable by getting his bloc to support NPF PM after a budget agreement - Macron is choosing to die in a ditch over the need for Thatcherite reforms - 2 less Bank Holidays a totemic example. He’s taking this ruinous bloody minded position because… he’s French 🤷♀️
Does France need to abolish two Bank Holidays? I don’t think so, the economic future of Bank Holidays is more not less.
The NPF has 193 deputies, out of 577. RN 142, the Republicans 47, with another 19 independent Right. Macron’s faction has 166.
There is no common ground between Macron and LFI (the faction of NPF that supports Melanchon).
A PM from the Left would lose a vote of confidence in the Assembly.
No, Not if Macron compromises on budget, and his deputies back the NPF PM. The log jam is Macron refusing to compromise 1cm from an eminently tradable position.
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
Which keeps Netanyahu out of jail because while Israel is at war he can dictator his way out of calling free and fair elections that would almost certainly result in him being kicked out of office and into a cold jail cell for fraud and corruption.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
YUM YUM.
Yes. That one in particular
Are we to believe Mandy is complimenting Epstein’s sous-chef, there?
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
YUM YUM.
Lord Yum Yum
He won’t be gone before PMQs, but to watch the “Downing Street Spokesman” position Wednesday afternoon, for first signs of any backing away from Lord Yum Yum.
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
Which keeps Netanyahu out of jail because while Israel is at war he can dictator his way out of calling free and fair elections that would almost certainly result in him being kicked out of office and into a cold jail cell for fraud and corruption.
Its quite hard to negotiate a ceasefire if the negotiators for one side are dead. Just saying like.
Mandy and Boris, two peas in a pod when it comes to having very fluid principles when dodgy rich people might have an offer for them. It does take more than a few pairs of designer glasses and Taylor Swift concert tickets to get peek their interest though.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
YUM YUM.
Yes. That one in particular
Are we to believe Mandy is complimenting Epstein’s sous-chef, there?
Ah. Thank you. I’d always wondered what supporting the “head chef” entailed.
It’s how amazingly thick they all were - going to Peedo Island to have their photo taken in their boxers or dressing gowns by Gizzy whilst looking grateful on their host.
Or a girl trafficked to them for sex, posing in photo’s with the girl, like a hunter with a Moose Head. Did they not realise what was happening. What the photo was for?
Apart from my initial thought of 'Wut?' - I wonder how many meetings they had to arrive at the precise "this is worth about £1.3million to us" figure. I really hope my cynical thoughts of "We can't just say 'a million' - sounds corny. How about 0.9? Too cheap? I know.... how about 1.3? Sounds precise. Like an algorithm! Perfect! Now, who's for lunch?"
My guess is the Home Office is packed with Remainers who figured 1.5 million euros was a nice round number. The report is unclear and a key link goes to the wrong document but this line – According to the tender, work shall begin on the algorithm on January 19, 2026, with completion expected on the same day, three years later. – makes it sound like the government will pay someone £1.3 million to try to develop an algorithm, rather than selecting numerous bodies and then paying a bounty for the most successful.
If so, this betrays magical thinking. Here is a problem, let us throw AI at it, then we will have a solved problem.
But surely if you just add "AI" to a procedure/sentence/whatever then you get a 30-40% productivity boost? No effort required, no scaffolding, trial & error.
You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
Is that right, though, the bit about the method of selection being irrelevant, or is there a difference between the boy knowing where in the bag a good apple could be found, and a random pick of any apple that could have been good or bad but just so happens to be good? What would have happened if the boy picked a bad apple: do we stop there or would he have had a second pick, and a third? Do we need to invoke Bayes? (Of course, it does not help that somewhere during the thread, the randomness or otherwise of the selection changed.)
Or use monte-carlo (probably buggy!): >>> from random import choice; N = 1_000_000; a=[]; b=[]; reject=lambda bags: all(bags[0]) or choice(bags[1]); gb=[0, 1]; # Bad is 1, reject is "the randomly constructed bags do not meet the initial conditions" >>> _=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(bags[0])/len(bags[0]):.0f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(bags[1])/len(bags[1]):.0f}%')
Talking of AI, been using ChatGPT5 a lot the past 2 weeks to help work on some text. Its is very underwhelming compared to 4o and Claude. You have to really "prompt engineer" it to do simple things like rewrite a paragraph without losing the key context in a less verbose form, rather than have it try and just knock off a few words here and there.
Its not much of a productivity boost when I have to write 3 sentences to get it to rewrite one.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
Apparently Mandelson did big business with Epstein, emailed him regularly, and STAYED AT EPSTEIN’S Manhattan townhouse, AFTER Epstein’s first conviction for trafficking and child sex etc (in 2008)
I mean, WTAF??
Did Starmer know this before he appointed him to Britain’s most important diplomatic role? If not, why not? If he did - 😶
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
Which keeps Netanyahu out of jail because while Israel is at war he can dictator his way out of calling free and fair elections that would almost certainly result in him being kicked out of office and into a cold jail cell for fraud and corruption.
Its quite hard to negotiate a ceasefire if the negotiators for one side are dead. Just saying like.
Less hard to surrender.
The "negotiations" should be the same we had with the Nazis and Imperial Japan - you surrender unconditionally, we'll tell you the time and the place.
You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
Is that right, though, the bit about the method of selection being irrelevant, or is there a difference between the boy knowing where in the bag a good apple could be found, and a random pick of any apple that could have been good or bad but just so happens to be good? What would have happened if the boy picked a bad apple: do we stop there or would he have had a second pick, and a third? Do we need to invoke Bayes? (Of course, it does not help that somewhere during the thread, the randomness or otherwise of the selection changed.)
Or use monte-carlo (probably buggy!): >>> from random import choice; N = 1_000_000; a=[]; b=[]; reject=lambda bags: all(bags[0]) or choice(bags[1]); gb=[0, 1]; # Bad is 1, reject is "the randomly constructed bags do not meet the initial conditions" >>> _=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(bags[0])/len(bags[0]):.0f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(bags[1])/len(bags[1]):.0f}%')
P(A is bad): 67% P(B is bad): 50%
Definitely buggy:
_=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(a)/len(a):.1f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(b)/len(b):.1f}%')
P(A is bad): 42.8% P(B is bad): 37.5%
So chapeau Barty I think who was arguing B was 62.5%
I will put this out there as the story will die down within a couple of days. The Israelis knew a gathering was happening largely because of their tracking of Hamas officials outside of Qatar, not in it. Added to signals intelligence, a number of tracked officials were noted as due to fly in to Qatar thus building a picture of the opportunity to take out a good number of names at once.
You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
Is that right, though, the bit about the method of selection being irrelevant, or is there a difference between the boy knowing where in the bag a good apple could be found, and a random pick of any apple that could have been good or bad but just so happens to be good? What would have happened if the boy picked a bad apple: do we stop there or would he have had a second pick, and a third? Do we need to invoke Bayes? (Of course, it does not help that somewhere during the thread, the randomness or otherwise of the selection changed.)
Or use monte-carlo (probably buggy!): >>> from random import choice; N = 1_000_000; a=[]; b=[]; reject=lambda bags: all(bags[0]) or choice(bags[1]); gb=[0, 1]; # Bad is 1, reject is "the randomly constructed bags do not meet the initial conditions" >>> _=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(bags[0])/len(bags[0]):.0f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(bags[1])/len(bags[1]):.0f}%')
P(A is bad): 67% P(B is bad): 50%
Definitely buggy:
_=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(a)/len(a):.1f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(b)/len(b):.1f}%')
P(A is bad): 42.8% P(B is bad): 37.5%
So chapeau Barty I think who was arguing B was 62.5%
Thanks. That matches both my percentages.
I said its P(A good) = 4/7 = 57.14% (so should be 42.86% bad), P (B good) = 5/8 = 62.5% (so 37.5% bad)
So your analysis is within 0.1% for both. A is just rounded the wrong way.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
Apparently Mandelson did big business with Epstein, emailed him regularly, and STAYED AT EPSTEIN’S Manhattan townhouse, AFTER Epstein’s first conviction for trafficking and child sex etc (in 2008)
I mean, WTAF??
Did Starmer know this before he appointed him to Britain’s most important diplomatic role? If not, why not? If he did - 😶
Monumental failure all round
Of course Starmer would be told those details as part of security briefing. Of course Starmer knew when making the appointment. Starmer takes advice from Mandelson, hence the movement and demotion of Lammy last week. I don’t think Lammy actually failed in the role, it’s too early to say.
Question is, Mandelson definitely has to resign before Trumps visit, how does Starmer explain why? Starmer can’t lie with “but new evidence has come to light” when he actually knew all, along, that would mean Starmer has to resign too for his lying. How’s Starmer sacking Lord Yum Yum without being badly wounded himself? 😃
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
Which keeps Netanyahu out of jail because while Israel is at war he can dictator his way out of calling free and fair elections that would almost certainly result in him being kicked out of office and into a cold jail cell for fraud and corruption.
Its quite hard to negotiate a ceasefire if the negotiators for one side are dead. Just saying like.
Less hard to surrender.
The "negotiations" should be the same we had with the Nazis and Imperial Japan - you surrender unconditionally, we'll tell you the time and the place.
You want Israel to heavily invest in the creation of a strong and powerful, Independent, Palestinian state that will soon overtake it economically like we did with the Germans and the Japanese? Good idea.
Presumably the odds for Phillipson becoming next PM have shortened over the past 24 hours?
Why would they?
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
She's favourite for DL.
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
I am not sure where this favourite status has come from.
There is no data to support it beyond the initial raft of supporter announcements and I really can't see the unions and membership blindly supporting a Starmer clone.
The truncated nomination process has antagonised the left. And they will vote accordingly.
I will put this out there as the story will die down within a couple of days. The Israelis knew a gathering was happening largely because of their tracking of Hamas officials outside of Qatar, not in it. Added to signals intelligence, a number of tracked officials were noted as due to fly in to Qatar thus building a picture of the opportunity to take out a good number of names at once.
I’m his presser Ben said they only planned it after the bus stop shooting, suggesting it was no more strategic than a retaliation for the bus stop attack.
"I was squashed in my seat by an overweight plane passenger and want a refund. I don't care if people think I'm fat-shaming, how is this fair? SALLY HAMILTON"
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
Which keeps Netanyahu out of jail because while Israel is at war he can dictator his way out of calling free and fair elections that would almost certainly result in him being kicked out of office and into a cold jail cell for fraud and corruption.
Its quite hard to negotiate a ceasefire if the negotiators for one side are dead. Just saying like.
Less hard to surrender.
The "negotiations" should be the same we had with the Nazis and Imperial Japan - you surrender unconditionally, we'll tell you the time and the place.
No, the Israeli aim is not accepting surrender from a Hamas official, they want all Hamas dead. So it can only be military victory over Hamas, not accepting settlement with Hamas.
I’m quite sure the Israeli government does not have a clue what the end game and future after the end of this war looks like, other than a vague hope the population of Gaza rise up against Hamas and then surrender.
You are not asked to choose between them until you are given information about the contents of the bags.
Armed with that information, you can calculate the odds of each bag, and select the best one.
The odds don't change during the game. They are fixed by the parameters of the game including the reveal. (In Monty Hall you choose before the reveal. Here, you don't.)
You are I think, assuming that the bags are totally random. But they are not - the information from the kids says that they are not. We have ruled out BBB and BBBB. Thus is crucial information.
If bag A the good apple is chosen from any good apples, while bag B the good apple is chosen at random, then we've eliminated many more outcomes from B.
In bag A we have eliminated BBB
In bag B we have eliminated BBBB, BBBG, BBGB, BBGG, BGBB, BGBG, BGGB, BGGG
So choose bag B.
I don't agree. Once the apple is returned to the bag, in bag b we have only eliminated BBBB.
Or, altwrnatively by Child A identifying a good apple, we can deem that to be apple 1 and eliminate BBB, BBG, BGB and BGG.
We can't do the maths one way for Child a and one way for child b. If we accept Child A is telling the truth, him peering and saying 'that one is good' is mathematically no different from Child B drawing one out and you both observing it's good. Whichever way you get there your starting situation is some apples in a bag, at least one of which is good.
Child A is not saying a specific apple is good. He is offering info on the bag as a whole saying "at least one is good". This is the same as saying "not all my 3 apples are bad". We are getting nothing other than this from his statement. So we can eliminate that one scenario, all bad. Crunching the numbers then gives the 57% as our chance of pulling a good apple from his bag. As against the 62.5% for B.
It's the same logic for child B, only the BBBB option is eliminated. The probability is 2^{n-1)/(2^n -1) tending to 50% as n increases
Ah but there's a difference because for B we have a specific apple picked at random that's good. This leaves the other 3 each of which has a 50% chance of being good. 1 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 gives expected value 5/8 which is 62.5%. Higher than the 4/7 (57%) for A.
Indeed. Since in B it was chosen at random all combinations involving that one being bad are eliminated and the other 3 are 50% since their state was not involved in the selection so we've got no information about them.
In A their state was involved in the selection, so its no longer 50% for the non-chosen apples. Its only 35% for the non-chosen apples, making it 57% overall.
The method of selection is irrelevant - once you know the state of 1 apple the remaining possibilities go from 2^x to 2^x-1 as you now have 1 known apple and x-1 unknown apples...
For a betting site, I do find the inability to see that you've been intentionally mislead interesting...
Is that right, though, the bit about the method of selection being irrelevant, or is there a difference between the boy knowing where in the bag a good apple could be found, and a random pick of any apple that could have been good or bad but just so happens to be good? What would have happened if the boy picked a bad apple: do we stop there or would he have had a second pick, and a third? Do we need to invoke Bayes? (Of course, it does not help that somewhere during the thread, the randomness or otherwise of the selection changed.)
Or use monte-carlo (probably buggy!): >>> from random import choice; N = 1_000_000; a=[]; b=[]; reject=lambda bags: all(bags[0]) or choice(bags[1]); gb=[0, 1]; # Bad is 1, reject is "the randomly constructed bags do not meet the initial conditions" >>> _=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(bags[0])/len(bags[0]):.0f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(bags[1])/len(bags[1]):.0f}%')
P(A is bad): 67% P(B is bad): 50%
Definitely buggy:
_=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(a)/len(a):.1f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(b)/len(b):.1f}%')
P(A is bad): 42.8% P(B is bad): 37.5%
So chapeau Barty I think who was arguing B was 62.5%
Thanks. That matches both my percentages.
I said its P(A good) = 4/7 = 57.14% (so should be 42.86% bad), P (B good) = 5/8 = 62.5% (so 37.5% bad)
So your analysis is within 0.1% for both. A is just rounded the wrong way.
I got bored enough too. Mine - a bit more long winded perhaps - was:
child_a = three_random[np.where(np.sum(three_random, axis = 1) > 0)] #valid bag if at least one value is True child_a_result = [np.random.choice(x) for x in child_a[:]] print(sum(child_a_result) / len(child_a_result))
child_b = four_random[np.where(four_random[:,0] > 0)] #valid bag if first one is True, otherwise discard child_b_result = [np.random.choice(x) for x in child_b[:]] print(sum(child_b_result) / len(child_b_result))
I will put this out there as the story will die down within a couple of days. The Israelis knew a gathering was happening largely because of their tracking of Hamas officials outside of Qatar, not in it. Added to signals intelligence, a number of tracked officials were noted as due to fly in to Qatar thus building a picture of the opportunity to take out a good number of names at once.
I’m his presser Ben said they only planned it after the bus stop shooting, suggesting it was no more strategic than a retaliation for the bus stop attack.
I wouldnt be so sure on that, its more a juxtaposition of opportunity and a justification (at least officially) to do it. We will know better when those killed/injured are fully identified.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
Apparently Mandelson did big business with Epstein, emailed him regularly, and STAYED AT EPSTEIN’S Manhattan townhouse, AFTER Epstein’s first conviction for trafficking and child sex etc (in 2008)
I mean, WTAF??
Did Starmer know this before he appointed him to Britain’s most important diplomatic role? If not, why not? If he did - 😶
Monumental failure all round
Of course Starmer would be told those details as part of security briefing. Of course Starmer knew when making the appointment. Starmer takes advice from Mandelson, hence the movement and demotion of Lammy last week. I don’t think Lammy actually failed in the role, it’s too early to say.
Question is, Mandelson definitely has to resign before Trumps visit, how does Starmer explain why? Starmer can’t lie with “but new evidence has come to light” when he actually knew all, along, that would mean Starmer has to resign too for his lying. How’s Starmer sacking Lord Yum Yum without being badly wounded himself? 😃
Going on his past record, Starmer has this incredible luck that really awkward information never seem to hit his desk nor does he ever decide to ask about them, so when they pop up he is able to claim he was in the dark as every body else.
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
Which keeps Netanyahu out of jail because while Israel is at war he can dictator his way out of calling free and fair elections that would almost certainly result in him being kicked out of office and into a cold jail cell for fraud and corruption.
Its quite hard to negotiate a ceasefire if the negotiators for one side are dead. Just saying like.
Less hard to surrender.
The "negotiations" should be the same we had with the Nazis and Imperial Japan - you surrender unconditionally, we'll tell you the time and the place.
You want Israel to heavily invest in the creation of a strong and powerful, Independent, Palestinian state that will soon overtake it economically like we did with the Germans and the Japanese? Good idea.
If the Palestinians surrender unconditionally, renounce violence and embrace modernity and democracy?
I will put this out there as the story will die down within a couple of days. The Israelis knew a gathering was happening largely because of their tracking of Hamas officials outside of Qatar, not in it. Added to signals intelligence, a number of tracked officials were noted as due to fly in to Qatar thus building a picture of the opportunity to take out a good number of names at once.
I’m his presser Ben said they only planned it after the bus stop shooting, suggesting it was no more strategic than a retaliation for the bus stop attack.
One thing that has become clear over the past 2 years, the Israelis have had long term plans and very good intel e.g. in Iran, mystery car bombs and Israelis agents just happen to have a load of drones ready to go, the pager bombs in Lebanon and the fact they managed to kill the leadership in Lebanon at will such that they needed a new leader every week.
I will put this out there as the story will die down within a couple of days. The Israelis knew a gathering was happening largely because of their tracking of Hamas officials outside of Qatar, not in it. Added to signals intelligence, a number of tracked officials were noted as due to fly in to Qatar thus building a picture of the opportunity to take out a good number of names at once.
I’m his presser Ben said they only planned it after the bus stop shooting, suggesting it was no more strategic than a retaliation for the bus stop attack.
I wouldnt be so sure on that, its more a juxtaposition of opportunity and a justification (at least officially) to do it. We will know better when those killed/injured are fully identified.
And by the way, they may not have got who they wanted. We have no names yet.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
Apparently Mandelson did big business with Epstein, emailed him regularly, and STAYED AT EPSTEIN’S Manhattan townhouse, AFTER Epstein’s first conviction for trafficking and child sex etc (in 2008)
I mean, WTAF??
Did Starmer know this before he appointed him to Britain’s most important diplomatic role? If not, why not? If he did - 😶
Monumental failure all round
Of course Starmer would be told those details as part of security briefing. Of course Starmer knew when making the appointment. Starmer takes advice from Mandelson, hence the movement and demotion of Lammy last week. I don’t think Lammy actually failed in the role, it’s too early to say.
Question is, Mandelson definitely has to resign before Trumps visit, how does Starmer explain why? Starmer can’t lie with “but new evidence has come to light” when he actually knew all, along, that would mean Starmer has to resign too for his lying. How’s Starmer sacking Lord Yum Yum without being badly wounded himself? 😃
Going on his past record, Starmer has this incredible luck that really awkward information never seem to hit his desk nor does he ever decide to ask about them, so when they pop up he is able to claim he was in the dark as every body else.
It is actually one of his stand out talents.
It is very Trumpian. "Nobody told me about that, no..."
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
Apparently Mandelson did big business with Epstein, emailed him regularly, and STAYED AT EPSTEIN’S Manhattan townhouse, AFTER Epstein’s first conviction for trafficking and child sex etc (in 2008)
I mean, WTAF??
Did Starmer know this before he appointed him to Britain’s most important diplomatic role? If not, why not? If he did - 😶
Monumental failure all round
Of course Starmer would be told those details as part of security briefing. Of course Starmer knew when making the appointment. Starmer takes advice from Mandelson, hence the movement and demotion of Lammy last week. I don’t think Lammy actually failed in the role, it’s too early to say.
Question is, Mandelson definitely has to resign before Trumps visit, how does Starmer explain why? Starmer can’t lie with “but new evidence has come to light” when he actually knew all, along, that would mean Starmer has to resign too for his lying. How’s Starmer sacking Lord Yum Yum without being badly wounded himself? 😃
Going on his past record, Starmer has this incredible luck that really awkward information never seem to hit his desk nor does he ever decide to ask about them, so when they pop up he is able to claim he was in the dark as every body else.
It is actually one of his stand out talents.
Not this time. Starmer’s luck has run out this week. Lord Yum Yum’s resignation is going to damage Starmer, perhaps fatally if he has no choice but to lie to get it done before the State visit. As you said, Starmer’s only way out is “new information has come to light we didn’t have before making the decision to appoint” that will be such a naked lie as we can be sure he was already told everything now in public domain - and likely much more we don’t yet know - in the security brief, yet still inexplicably went ahead with the appointment. Hubris of winning power and feeling indestructible.
If Starmer gets rid of Lord Yum Yum with that lie - the lie hangs over his head like a sword waiting to decapitate him. Bit like what happened to Humphrey. Bit like what happened to Boris too. Kemi needs to press Starmer on PMQ record which details Starmer was and wasn’t aware of when making the appointment. This is a dangerous moment for Starmer if he lies. Let’s get our sniffers going at PMQs for what smells like a lie to us.
Rayner and Mandyson humiliated and destroyed in space of one week. I have far more sympathy for Rayner than Lord Yum Yum. If Rayner was really on the make, she only had to wait six months to buy AND WOULDN’T HAVE COMMITTED ANY MISDEMEANOUR AT ALL, not even morally. That fact alone does point to her mind probably more on which outfits to pack for holiday than how to save 40K perfectly correctly by renting just another 6 months before purchasing. Thinking about it on a human level, she must be absolutely devastated.
I will put this out there as the story will die down within a couple of days. The Israelis knew a gathering was happening largely because of their tracking of Hamas officials outside of Qatar, not in it. Added to signals intelligence, a number of tracked officials were noted as due to fly in to Qatar thus building a picture of the opportunity to take out a good number of names at once.
I’m his presser Ben said they only planned it after the bus stop shooting, suggesting it was no more strategic than a retaliation for the bus stop attack.
One thing that has become clear over the past 2 years, the Israelis have had long term plans and very good intel e.g. in Iran, mystery car bombs and Israelis agents just happen to have a load of drones ready to go, the pager bombs in Lebanon and the fact they managed to kill the leadership in Lebanon at will such that they needed a new leader every week.
But missed the planned hand glider attack and border incursion unfortunately. 😢
"The combined population of the UK, Australia, and New Zealand is approximately 95.5 million people, based on their estimated populations as of September 2025. This includes roughly 69.6 million in the UK, 27.0 million in Australia, and 5.3 million in New Zealand. Breakdown by Country (Approximate 2025 Population): United Kingdom: ~69.6 million Australia: ~27.0 million New Zealand: ~5.3 million Total Combined Population: ~95.5 million"
Adding those 3 numbers together gets 101.9 million as far as I can see.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
Apparently Mandelson did big business with Epstein, emailed him regularly, and STAYED AT EPSTEIN’S Manhattan townhouse, AFTER Epstein’s first conviction for trafficking and child sex etc (in 2008)
I mean, WTAF??
Did Starmer know this before he appointed him to Britain’s most important diplomatic role? If not, why not? If he did - 😶
Monumental failure all round
Of course Starmer would be told those details as part of security briefing. Of course Starmer knew when making the appointment. Starmer takes advice from Mandelson, hence the movement and demotion of Lammy last week. I don’t think Lammy actually failed in the role, it’s too early to say.
Question is, Mandelson definitely has to resign before Trumps visit, how does Starmer explain why? Starmer can’t lie with “but new evidence has come to light” when he actually knew all, along, that would mean Starmer has to resign too for his lying. How’s Starmer sacking Lord Yum Yum without being badly wounded himself? 😃
Going on his past record, Starmer has this incredible luck that really awkward information never seem to hit his desk nor does he ever decide to ask about them, so when they pop up he is able to claim he was in the dark as every body else.
It is actually one of his stand out talents.
Not this time. Starmer’s luck has run out this week. Lord Yum Yum’s resignation is going to damage Starmer, perhaps fatally if he has no choice but to lie to get it done before the State visit. As you said, Starmer’s only way out is “new information has come to light we didn’t have before making the decision to appoint” that will be such a naked lie as we can be sure he was already told everything now in public domain - and likely much more we don’t yet know - in the security brief, yet still inexplicably went ahead with the appointment. Hubris of winning power and feeling indestructible.
If Starmer gets rid of Lord Yum Yum with that lie - the lie hangs over his head like a sword waiting to delapitate him. Bit like what happened to Humphrey. Bit like what happened to Boris too. Kemi needs to press Starmer on PMQ record which details Starmer was and wasn’t aware of when making the appointment. This is a dangerous moment for Starmer if he lies. Let’s get our sniffers going at PMQs for what smells like a lie to us.
Rayner and Mandyson humiliated and destroyed in space of one week. I have far more sympathy for Rayner than Lord Yum Yum. If Rayner was really on the make, she only had to wait six months to buy AND WOULDN’T HAVE COMMITTED ANY MISDEMEANOUR AT ALL, not even morally. That fact alone does point to her mind probably more on which outfits to pack for holiday than how to save 40K perfectly correctly by renting just another 6 months before purchasing. Thinking about it on a human level, she must be absolutely devastated.
Always thought it was a bit odd that Louise Haigh had a criminal conviction for stealing and had been sacked from her job for multiple incidents where phones were "lost", but it was a total shock to everybody in government.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
There should be an investigation to see if he broke any British laws.
I will put this out there as the story will die down within a couple of days. The Israelis knew a gathering was happening largely because of their tracking of Hamas officials outside of Qatar, not in it. Added to signals intelligence, a number of tracked officials were noted as due to fly in to Qatar thus building a picture of the opportunity to take out a good number of names at once.
I’m his presser Ben said they only planned it after the bus stop shooting, suggesting it was no more strategic than a retaliation for the bus stop attack.
One thing that has become clear over the past 2 years, the Israelis have had long term plans and very good intel e.g. in Iran, mystery car bombs and Israelis agents just happen to have a load of drones ready to go, the pager bombs in Lebanon and the fact they managed to kill the leadership in Lebanon at will such that they needed a new leader every week.
But missed the planned hand glider attack and border incursion unfortunately. 😢
Eventually there will be an inquiry and more information will be revealed about who knew what when. But initially there were suggestions that there was a certain level of arrogance that their "smart" borders was far too good for whatever Hamas could throw at it, such that it would give plenty of time for IDF to respond, but it failed terribly by just overloading it with fairly simple approaches.
X OSINTtechnical@Osinttechnical Rzeszów Airport in Poland, gateway for Western aid to Ukraine, has abruptly closed. In a warning to airman, authorities state that the closure is due to "Unplanned military activity."
OSINTtechnical@Osinttechnical 1h Italian Air Force airborne early warning aircraft up from Estonia and moving south, as Russian drones reportedly cross the Polish border. https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1965552126681387405
Worth a follow just now on X for further regular updates.
I think the question about why the Israelis didnt just plant a decent but small bomb rather than launch a missile strike can be answered easily. It's opportunity & risk. Whilst its possible Israeli intelligence has reps in Qatar, its a difficult environment and the action team who carry out killings are usually in and out, not long term intelligence officers in situ. You just don't have them hanging about for weeks or months., risk too high.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
Interesting to note that there is nothing that Qatar can do, by way of retaliation
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Tactical victory. Strategic failure. Keep doing this and Israel will never feel at peace, so will keep making war. And so on and so on, ad Infinitum.
Which keeps Netanyahu out of jail because while Israel is at war he can dictator his way out of calling free and fair elections that would almost certainly result in him being kicked out of office and into a cold jail cell for fraud and corruption.
Its quite hard to negotiate a ceasefire if the negotiators for one side are dead. Just saying like.
Less hard to surrender.
The "negotiations" should be the same we had with the Nazis and Imperial Japan - you surrender unconditionally, we'll tell you the time and the place.
You want Israel to heavily invest in the creation of a strong and powerful, Independent, Palestinian state that will soon overtake it economically like we did with the Germans and the Japanese? Good idea.
If the Palestinians surrender unconditionally, renounce violence and embrace modernity and democracy?
Yes, absolutely I do!
Bibi has decided ethnic cleansing is the only way forward. He probably decided this thirty or forty years ago at a time when Max Hastings met him whilst researching his book on Bibi's brother, and Max was startled by Bibi's unequivocal hatred of the Palestinians.
This otoh is a fixed bag of apples. It's not being reassembled after each random pick and replace. Therefore each random pick and replace does tell you something about its contents. And the more you do the more it tells you.
That's the essential difference.
But you only do it once for each bag so you don't learn any more.
The amount of information is fixed at the start of the game.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
This is not how it works. Trump wants the Epstein scandal done dusted and forgotten. He clearly hates the association
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
I hope you’re right . I don’t understand why he was made ambassador to begin with.
Perhaps it was because Trump knew the Brits had something on him and Mandelson was the daily reminder that London had some insurance. Maybe it's not just the Russians that have kompromat on the POTUS?
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
I'm afraid that Leon is right here. Trump being in power is irrelevant; it's what we're saying about ourselves, if he stays in post.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
I'm afraid that Leon is right here. Trump being in power is irrelevant; it's what we're saying about ourselves, if he stays in post.
Just as this is what the GOP say about themselves.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer says he will take Trump “at his word” that letter to Epstein with his name and signature are not his.
He paid $20 and wanted to burn up days of server time doing something pointless? I can understand why ChatGPT very politely told him to go jump off a cliff
Whoa, sounds like there might be a number of stray Russian drones in Polish airspace. Warsaw airport closed and military jets and AWACS everywhere.
A test of European resolve. I seriously doubt this was accidental.
I was reviewing my growing number of troll posts and found I was awarded two flags for my response to this post way back in November 2024.
"Leon said:
» show previous quotes Trump is incredibly vain and likes to be seen as a winner. Ending the hideous Ukraine war would be a massive win, no question, and a grave humiliation for the Dems. Whether he will even try let alone succeed is a different matter
However Putin will be much warier of Trump than the plodding, weak, predictable Biden"
The key line being "duty of care". A legal obligation on the council to house the homeless and vulnerable, especially with kids involved. When these people aren't complaining about the asylum seeker "jumping the queue" it was poor people with kids, usually single mums.
Netanyuahu and Lavarov must be pooing their pants;
I believe what you are suggesting is; failing to anticipate both the bombing of Doha and Poland is a dereliction of duty and should be a resigning matter.
I am unable to process the Apple thing because yesterday I drove from Scotland to England and this evening I drove across Sardinia
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Although all those things are in the “plus” Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
Were Trump not in power I could see Epstein being an issue - with Trump in power (as I said earlier) it's something Trump and Mandelson can moan about together and bound over...
I'm afraid that Leon is right here. Trump being in power is irrelevant; it's what we're saying about ourselves, if he stays in post.
Just as this is what the GOP say about themselves.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer says he will take Trump “at his word” that letter to Epstein with his name and signature are not his.
Whoa, sounds like there might be a number of stray Russian drones in Polish airspace. Warsaw airport closed and military jets and AWACS everywhere.
A test of European resolve. I seriously doubt this was accidental.
I was reviewing my growing number of troll posts and found I was awarded two flags for my response to this post way back in November 2024.
"Leon said:
» show previous quotes Trump is incredibly vain and likes to be seen as a winner. Ending the hideous Ukraine war would be a massive win, no question, and a grave humiliation for the Dems. Whether he will even try let alone succeed is a different matter
However Putin will be much warier of Trump than the plodding, weak, predictable Biden"
I would agree that Putin is taking a very different line with Trump - Biden could be depended upon to agree to things and stick to them. For all of Trump’s apparent liking for Putin, Trump tends to do what people he has spoken to in the last 5 minutes suggest.
In neither case could Putin actually agree on anything that would end the war. I think it has become clear that complete victory (a massive chunk of Ukraine, Zelensky out, a Putin friendly government in, all ties with the West cut) is existential for Putin. He is riding the tiger of Russian irredentism.
Equally, the Ukrainian's will not accept complete defeat.
From the recent “negotiations”, it looked as if the Ukrainians might agree to a Korea style “freeze the war”, but Putin seems to have rejected that.
Comments
Knowing at least 1 apple is good != knowing 1 apple is good, while not observing the others.
In A you have eliminated BBB but have remaining BBG, BGB, BGG, GGB, GBG and GGG since the good apple could have been any of the 3 apples.
That means 1/7 chance of 3 good - both non-revealed apples are good.
3/7 chance of 2 good - half the non-revealed apples are good.
3/7 chance of 1 good - both non-revealed apples are bad.
There is a selection bias that means that the non-revealed apples are now more likely to be bad than good, since we don't know the state of any one apple in A so 2^x-1 does NOT apply.
She really is not impressive in any way.
Robotic personality with no flair for communicating.
Much the same as Starmer. Labour won't make that choice again.
If it was, do you praise the action?
Now it's time to the make the UK as a whole the next Denmark/Netherlands. 🚴🚴🚴🚴🚴
https://x.com/dudespostingws/status/1960328814564716858?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
It's very likely that Starmer is replaced before a GE.
The DL would be temporary leader and pole position for the leadership.
Of course the odds should shorten.
Whether she would be the best choice is another question entirely.
In scenario A, you do not know the state of any individual apples. You only know something about the combined state of 3 apples.
Can you explain what you think the process is to choose the 3 apples, how child A gets the information, and how the choice of which apple to take is made?
I.e. In c. 2004, if Blair had gone, surely it would have been Brown and not Prescott to go to the Palace?
Are you sure? The largest bloc, so probably most legitimate to provide next PM is NPF, with Macrons grouping in second place, NR third.
If NR were top, they would refuse to provide PM as it would damage them in the General Election.
However the NPF are calling for an NPF PM, but Macron is refusing to appoint one as it would damage his political ensemble ahead of the General election.
It’s not that Macron is in a weak position and doesn’t have strong cards to trade and comprise to bring stability to French politics, and protect the French economy with that stability, achievable by getting his bloc to support NPF PM after a budget agreement - Macron is choosing to die in a ditch over the need for Thatcherite reforms - 2 less Bank Holidays a totemic example. He’s taking this ruinous bloody minded position because… he’s French 🤷♀️
Does France need to abolish two Bank Holidays? I don’t think so, the economic future of Bank Holidays is more not less.
Israel is seeking to eliminate Hamas, not exile them.
Relations between the RMT and TfL are as bad as they have ever been but in truth the union leadership are barely keeping up with the militancy of their members, some of whom were angry with previous "deals" which led to the suspension of planned strike action.
The Clipper boats have seen a big boost in passengers but there's some evidence many people weren't aware of the strikes until yesterday morning and have now planned accordingly for today, tomorrow and Thursday. Interestingly, Oyster touch in numbers are down only 23% compared to the equivalent day last year which I find surpssing but both London Overground and the Elizabeth Line have seen rises in passenger numbers.
If so, this betrays magical thinking. Here is a problem, let us throw AI at it, then we will have a solved problem.
I can however process basic optics and I reckon Mandelson is toast. He’s gonna have to explain the many innuendos in that cringey letter and I cannot think of innocent ones that make sense
Plus it seems like he was on “Pedo island” more than once with his “best friend”. Are we really meant to believe a guy as smart as Mandy didn’t twig what was happening?!
He can’t be “ambassador” to Washington, the idea is mortifying
Could be a bit of a bun fight if it came to that situation.
Column in terms of dealing with Trump…
If Starmer falls then the DL gets the gig, at least as temporary leader. Anything else would cause major trouble for the government. Sure, it could be as a caretaker, but that would mean an open and unpredictable contest.
The only possible coronation would be the DL.
Re method of selection, it's only B where a selection is involved. In A we only have info on the whole bag - that the 3 in there aren't all bad.
I cannot believe Starmer has stupidly come out already and expressed “full confidence” in Mandelson. Why? What does he gain from it?! Why not just say “I am sure Lord Mandelson will be able to explain all this for himself. I don’t believe in guilt by association” - ie what the much smarter Streeting said. Sounding supportive but actually withholding judgement
Starmer has the political instincts of a dead potato
I don't believe you understand the relationship over the last twenty years between Netanyahu, Hamas and the House of Al Thani. It is very complicated.
The upshot of today's action has led to the commentary that Netanyahu doesn't want the Trump led negotiated end to the war between Israel and Hamas. Of course he can't let the war stop because when he loses power he goes to jail. And he personally hasn't considered the plight of the hostages since 8th October 2023.
Secondly we don't know know how recent the intelligence was that provided the window. Its possible a missile strike was the only method to exploit it.
Whatever, do not buy any idea that Netanyahu just decided to do a spectacular and chose the method for that reason. He doesn't choose, he approves.
There is no common ground between Macron and LFI (the faction of NPF that supports Melanchon).
A PM from the Left would lose a vote of confidence in the Assembly.
But hopefully we’ll never test it.
Israel has proved it is the regional superpower. It attacks its neighbours at will, including Iran, and they are apparently impotent
It must be very humiliating for the Arab/Muslim world. Oh well
Now every time he meets the UK Ambassador, or is pictured with him, everyone is reminded of Epstein, and how both are implicated
I have a strong suspicion Mandelson will be gone
Are we to believe Mandy is complimenting Epstein’s sous-chef, there?
He won’t be gone before PMQs, but to watch the “Downing Street Spokesman” position Wednesday afternoon, for first signs of any backing away from Lord Yum Yum.
It’s how amazingly thick they all were - going to Peedo Island to have their photo taken in their boxers or dressing gowns by Gizzy whilst looking grateful on their host.
Or a girl trafficked to them for sex, posing in photo’s with the girl, like a hunter with a Moose Head. Did they not realise what was happening. What the photo was for?
Resign for being thick as ****.
"AI".
See? It's easy!
>>> from random import choice; N = 1_000_000; a=[]; b=[]; reject=lambda bags: all(bags[0]) or choice(bags[1]); gb=[0, 1]; # Bad is 1, reject is "the randomly constructed bags do not meet the initial conditions"
>>> _=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(bags[0])/len(bags[0]):.0f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(bags[1])/len(bags[1]):.0f}%')
P(A is bad): 67% P(B is bad): 50%
Its not much of a productivity boost when I have to write 3 sentences to get it to rewrite one.
I mean, WTAF??
Did Starmer know this before he appointed him to Britain’s most important diplomatic role? If not, why not? If he did - 😶
Monumental failure all round
The "negotiations" should be the same we had with the Nazis and Imperial Japan - you surrender unconditionally, we'll tell you the time and the place.
_=[(a.append(choice(bags[0])), b.append(choice(bags[1]))) for _ in range(N) if (bags := [[choice(gb) for _ in range(x)] for x in (3, 4)]) and not reject(bags)]; print(f'P(A is bad): {100*sum(a)/len(a):.1f}% P(B is bad): {100*sum(b)/len(b):.1f}%')
P(A is bad): 42.8% P(B is bad): 37.5%
So chapeau Barty I think who was arguing B was 62.5%
I said its P(A good) = 4/7 = 57.14% (so should be 42.86% bad), P (B good) = 5/8 = 62.5% (so 37.5% bad)
So your analysis is within 0.1% for both. A is just rounded the wrong way.
Starmer takes advice from Mandelson, hence the movement and demotion of Lammy last week. I don’t think Lammy actually failed in the role, it’s too early to say.
Question is, Mandelson definitely has to resign before Trumps visit, how does Starmer explain why? Starmer can’t lie with “but new evidence has come to light” when he actually knew all, along, that would mean Starmer has to resign too for his lying. How’s Starmer sacking Lord Yum Yum without being badly wounded himself? 😃
There is no data to support it beyond the initial raft of supporter announcements and I really can't see the unions and membership blindly supporting a Starmer clone.
The truncated nomination process has antagonised the left. And they will vote accordingly.
😢
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mailplus/article-15080179/I-squashed-seat-overweight-plane-passenger-want-refund-dont-care-people-think-Im-fat-shaming-fair-SALLY-HAMILTON-solution.html
I’m quite sure the Israeli government does not have a clue what the end game and future after the end of this war looks like, other than a vague hope the population of Gaza rise up against Hamas and then surrender.
import numpy as np
p = 0.5
n = 100000
f = lambda x: x < p
three_random = f(np.random.rand(n, 3))
four_random = f(np.random.rand(n, 4))
child_a = three_random[np.where(np.sum(three_random, axis = 1) > 0)] #valid bag if at least one value is True
child_a_result = [np.random.choice(x) for x in child_a[:]]
print(sum(child_a_result) / len(child_a_result))
child_b = four_random[np.where(four_random[:,0] > 0)] #valid bag if first one is True, otherwise discard
child_b_result = [np.random.choice(x) for x in child_b[:]]
print(sum(child_b_result) / len(child_b_result))
0.573
0.629
It is actually one of his stand out talents.
Yes, absolutely I do!
I never believe it of Trump either.
If Starmer gets rid of Lord Yum Yum with that lie - the lie hangs over his head like a sword waiting to decapitate him. Bit like what happened to Humphrey. Bit like what happened to Boris too. Kemi needs to press Starmer on PMQ record which details Starmer was and wasn’t aware of when making the appointment. This is a dangerous moment for Starmer if he lies. Let’s get our sniffers going at PMQs for what smells like a lie to us.
Rayner and Mandyson humiliated and destroyed in space of one week.
I have far more sympathy for Rayner than Lord Yum Yum. If Rayner was really on the make, she only had to wait six months to buy AND WOULDN’T HAVE COMMITTED ANY MISDEMEANOUR AT ALL, not even morally. That fact alone does point to her mind probably more on which outfits to pack for holiday than how to save 40K perfectly correctly by renting just another 6 months before purchasing. Thinking about it on a human level, she must be absolutely devastated.
"The combined population of the UK, Australia, and New Zealand is approximately 95.5 million people, based on their estimated populations as of September 2025. This includes roughly 69.6 million in the UK, 27.0 million in Australia, and 5.3 million in New Zealand.
Breakdown by Country (Approximate 2025 Population):
United Kingdom: ~69.6 million
Australia: ~27.0 million
New Zealand: ~5.3 million
Total Combined Population: ~95.5 million"
Adding those 3 numbers together gets 101.9 million as far as I can see.
I am very glad he didn't get the Chancellorship of Oxford University
OSINTtechnical@Osinttechnical
Rzeszów Airport in Poland, gateway for Western aid to Ukraine, has abruptly closed. In a warning to airman, authorities state that the closure is due to "Unplanned military activity."
NATO/Polish air defenses are engaging Russian drones in the area.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1965547714378432712
OSINTtechnical@Osinttechnical
1h
Italian Air Force airborne early warning aircraft up from Estonia and moving south, as Russian drones reportedly cross the Polish border.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1965552126681387405
Worth a follow just now on X for further regular updates.
Daily Mail - 'Fighter jets are scrambled as Russian suicide drones enter Nato airspace over Poland: Commercial planes are diverted as Allies tackle threat'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15082739/Poland-high-alert-Russian-drones-enter-airspace.html
Has this been discussed.
Encapsulates so many issues we have with our housing and asylum system.
https://x.com/merrynsw/status/1965366186449010927?s=61
Trump being in power is irrelevant; it's what we're saying about ourselves, if he stays in post.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer says he will take Trump “at his word” that letter to Epstein with his name and signature are not his.
His panel won’t probe the issue.
https://x.com/mkraju/status/1965508603957358717
I seriously doubt this was accidental.
https://x.com/yimbyland/status/1965531265211449434?s=61
https://www.thetimes.com/article/286d3ae3-3d4b-4af9-8ad1-7e824f5b5251?shareToken=55625d6bdb68ed4edf0c7bfe7bfc90de
"Leon said:
» show previous quotes
Trump is incredibly vain and likes to be seen as a winner. Ending the hideous Ukraine war would be a massive win, no question, and a grave humiliation for the Dems. Whether he will even try let alone succeed is a different matter
However Putin will be much warier of Trump than the plodding, weak, predictable Biden"
Netanyuahu and Lavarov must be pooing their pants;
There's not much value in the 1/2 on offer with Ladbrokes for Deputy, but much better value on her as next leader (14/1) and next PM at 33/1.
I think it very likely that Starmer stands down before the GE and the DL steps up to be PM.
A lot of MPs own second homes.
Liar, crook, rapist. Just don't suggest paedo...
In neither case could Putin actually agree on anything that would end the war. I think it has become clear that complete victory (a massive chunk of Ukraine, Zelensky out, a Putin friendly government in, all ties with the West cut) is existential for Putin. He is riding the tiger of Russian irredentism.
Equally, the Ukrainian's will not accept complete defeat.
From the recent “negotiations”, it looked as if the Ukrainians might agree to a Korea style “freeze the war”, but Putin seems to have rejected that.