Trump: It was an understanding that Ukraine would not be going into NATO. This was long before Putin, in all fairness.
And now they pushed, you know, when Zelensky first went in and first met Putin, he said, “I want two things. I want Crimea back and we’re going to be a member of NATO.” He didn’t say it in a very nice way either. https://x.com/SavchenkoReview/status/1998355621947596859
Zelensky said the exact opposite, on both issues, when he met Putin (for the only time) in 2019 - offering referendums in both Crimea and Donbass.
Putin's public causus belli was, of course, Ukraine's wish to join the EU.
If Trump believes in NATO, he would welcome Ukraine joining!
Since Putin's invasion, Sweden and Finland, both neutral during Cold War, have both joined NATO.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
You think ITV, Channel 4 or Sky News are any more 'toxic' than the BBC?
Its an interesting suggestion but I don't see much evidence of it.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Mm. Immigration as total number in UK (which is the everyday sensory reality) confused with immigration as the diffrerential of the former, net or otherwise?
I wonder if there is some confusion somewhere - much as those Tories used to claim how inflation had dropped, immediately after prices had increased by around 10% the previous year, and it didn't seem to work on the public.
If you look at the seperate numbers then emigration is on a slow steady rise and has been for many years. Immigration however has indeed dropped very rapidly over the last couple of years.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
I noted yesterday that it seemed like there was a growing trend of some on the right getting more frustrated with the perennially online, conspiracy theoriest, racially focused right segments. Might just be the specific right wing people I tend to follow, but it does feel like there has been a shift in the last couple of years things have gotten ruder, cruder, and as sensitive as any fragile snowflake every criticised on the left.
Certainly presents an opportunity for Kemi and the Tories.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
I'm suggesting taxing social media to fund it, and replace the existing license fee.
That would be a transfer of social harm to social good.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
Being told I will be given one for work and must use it rather than my own Macbook - security etc. Only really using it for web access + Google voice.
Any experience?
I think RCS is a fan, but I didn't really get on with it. Its quick for surfing, but the inbuilt google programmes were just too incompatable with either the Apple or MS Office documents that I deal with, so I replaced it with a mac, with MS Office installed, but even so the walled garden is a pain, for example transferring images from my Samsung phone.
Maybe get an iPhone? ;-)
The seamlessness of the Appleverse is it's biggest strength of course.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
You think ITV, Channel 4 or Sky News are any more 'toxic' than the BBC?
Its an interesting suggestion but I don't see much evidence of it.
They are open to it in a way that the BBC is not. Musk or Salman could buy ITV and dictate what news we get.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
There will be a licence fee even if the BBC disappears tomorrow, only it will be called the television tax or some such. The idea the government will give up this revenue is for the birds.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Even pre covid they were using the mRNA platform technology for cancer vaccine. That’s why they could move so fast (together with the work done on MERS)
Being told I will be given one for work and must use it rather than my own Macbook - security etc. Only really using it for web access + Google voice.
Any experience?
I have one I use just for the web, and for that it's great. Starts up instantly. Always up to date.
At work we have been talking to Google about various things, and one of them is the Secure Enterprise Browser. The pitch is that since (almost) everything you need to do at work is via a browser, if you put all your security controls in the browser you can do away with an entire stack of network gear, all of which is required just to stop bad things happening at your machine.
I will be surprised if we go that route since we are currently a Microsoft shop, but if the price is right...
Windows is their preferred option but the windows laptops they offer are awful. Plus I have a long-standing deep-rooted aversion to Windows so I am opting for the Chromebook as all I need it for is access to browser based apps (and they won't let me Bring My Own Device if it's a Mac).
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
I'm suggesting taxing social media to fund it, and replace the existing license fee.
That would be a transfer of social harm to social good.
And taxing social media the cost would end up being passed on to the consumer. I
It is not the solution.
If social media is really a social harm, and I don’t believe it is a lot of it is the old media putting the boot into the new media that is killing it, then ban it, if the BBC really is a social good let it compete for its funding as if it is so good and so valued people would flock to pay for it.
Mm. Immigration as total number in UK (which is the everyday sensory reality) confused with immigration as the diffrerential of the former, net or otherwise?
I wonder if there is some confusion somewhere - much as those Tories used to claim how inflation had dropped, immediately after prices had increased by around 10% the previous year, and it didn't seem to work on the public.
If you look at the seperate numbers then emigration is on a slow steady rise and has been for many years. Immigration however has indeed dropped very rapidly over the last couple of years.
But isn’t that because the 1m number was always inflated by Hong Kong / Ukraine?
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
"The BBC is far more than that"
Well, for my license fee I get to turn on the telly on Saturday night and my options are the stupidity of Strictly or some obscure football. Even the stuff that they produce now that should be ok, isn't.
However R4 does still have some bits and pieces of merit. The Today show - although a shadow of what it once was - is listenable to. And there you sometimes hear rather good coverage - I'd highlight Steve Rosenberg.
So actually I guess I mainly pay the license fee to hear 5 minutes of Rosenberg every now and then and a bit of a jamboree bag of other things. So... no, not getting it right.
You'd expect populist right views to be correlated with ignorance and gullibility. What's depressing is that the political vehicles set up to feed these views and exploit those susceptible to them are having so much success. Worrying times.
The rest of the month needs to be 1.23C warmer than average in order to claim the crown off 2022. With a warm week or more to come, unless we get a cold snap in the last 2 fortnight we should get there.
Big turnaround after starting the year with a colder than average January.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
I'm suggesting taxing social media to fund it, and replace the existing license fee.
That would be a transfer of social harm to social good.
And taxing social media the cost would end up being passed on to the consumer. I
It is not the solution.
If social media is really a social harm, and I don’t believe it is a lot of it is the old media putting the boot into the new media that is killing it, then ban it, if the BBC really is a social good let it compete for its funding as if it is so good and so valued people would flock to pay for it.
People don't flock to buy broccoli instead of McDonalds. The idea consumers will pay a premium because there is a social good just doesn't stand up to reality. Hence the state sometimes needs to come in and get involved.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
I suggest that 'shared understanding of the truth' doesn't quite capture it. Perhaps 'a shared understanding of how truth is arrived at and a shared sense of how assertions are verified and falsified' would be a pretty decent ideal.
Being told I will be given one for work and must use it rather than my own Macbook - security etc. Only really using it for web access + Google voice.
Any experience?
Yes I bought one from Currys for £85 about 3 years ago. It had been on display for a while, hence the low price. Pretty good but a bit slow compared to a MacBook.
You'd expect populist right views to be correlated with ignorance and gullibility. What's depressing is that the political vehicles set up to feed these views and exploit those susceptible to them are having so much success. Worrying times.
Luckily this isn't happening in the UK where the new media scene is dominated by experienced and credible figures like Alastair Campbell.
I noted yesterday that it seemed like there was a growing trend of some on the right getting more frustrated with the perennially online, conspiracy theoriest, racially focused right segments. Might just be the specific right wing people I tend to follow, but it does feel like there has been a shift in the last couple of years things have gotten ruder, cruder, and as sensitive as any fragile snowflake every criticised on the left.
Certainly presents an opportunity for Kemi and the Tories.
It's almost certain they won't be able to take it but please explain what you see this "opportunity" to be in the context of @kle4's observations.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
I'm suggesting taxing social media to fund it, and replace the existing license fee.
That would be a transfer of social harm to social good.
And taxing social media the cost would end up being passed on to the consumer. I
It is not the solution.
If social media is really a social harm, and I don’t believe it is a lot of it is the old media putting the boot into the new media that is killing it, then ban it, if the BBC really is a social good let it compete for its funding as if it is so good and so valued people would flock to pay for it.
People don't flock to buy broccoli instead of McDonalds. The idea consumers will pay a premium because there is a social good just doesn't stand up to reality. Hence the state sometimes needs to come in and get involved.
No, but people aren’t forced to pay for Brocolli if they want to eat a Big Mac either.
The idea that BBC News broadcasting or the BBC is a social good was true when we had three channels. Now they are a few channels among many.
Trump: It was an understanding that Ukraine would not be going into NATO. This was long before Putin, in all fairness.
And now they pushed, you know, when Zelensky first went in and first met Putin, he said, “I want two things. I want Crimea back and we’re going to be a member of NATO.” He didn’t say it in a very nice way either. https://x.com/SavchenkoReview/status/1998355621947596859
Zelensky said the exact opposite, on both issues, when he met Putin (for the only time) in 2019 - offering referendums in both Crimea and Donbass.
Putin's public causus belli was, of course, Ukraine's wish to join the EU.
If Trump believes in NATO, he would welcome Ukraine joining!
Since Putin's invasion, Sweden and Finland, both neutral during Cold War, have both joined NATO.
Of course. But here he is simply repeating Russian resentments which are founded on lies.
I viewed that on my work laptop. I now have to delete my browser history for the last hour. A NSFW warning would have been helpful.
Pah, I’ve watched porn on my work laptop, in front of colleagues.
Okay, we were viewing what an employee had viewed on his laptop before we decided to terminate him or not.
Did you find it hard when making this decision?
It was as entertaining as watching the current Ashes.
There are no coming men in this England team, although they're being mahoosively screwed.
Matt has two old buffers at Lord's worrying that the Australian social media ban will give them more time to practise cricket. I shan't post the cartoon because iirc the same joke was made on pb.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
I don't think I agree. Sometimes you have decide a course of action on incomplete information because there are potential consequences of doing that action, or not doing it. I would say most of the scientists presented their assessments in good faith, and governments mostly followed their advice, while many of their critics weren't acting in good faith.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Could it ? The mRNA vaccines went through full clinical trials, as all vaccines do, before mass rollout.
It's simply untrue to say that risks which might have led to mass catastrophe were taken.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
"The BBC is far more than that"
Well, for my license fee I get to turn on the telly on Saturday night and my options are the stupidity of Strictly or some obscure football. Even the stuff that they produce now that should be ok, isn't.
However R4 does still have some bits and pieces of merit. The Today show - although a shadow of what it once was - is listenable to. And there you sometimes hear rather good coverage - I'd highlight Steve Rosenberg.
So actually I guess I mainly pay the license fee to hear 5 minutes of Rosenberg every now and then and a bit of a jamboree bag of other things. So... no, not getting it right.
Eventually the BBC may need to move on to a subscription model instead. I get great value out of the licence fee personally. Costs me less than Netflix and Spotify. I’d pay it just to have watched celebrity traitors and race across the world.
Ultimately it’s a question of ideology. You either like the idea of a public corporation that’s protected at home and subsidised to expand abroad, or you don’t. The French make a great success of the model, with the likes of EDF and Airbus. So do the US with their defence companies). The Beeb is unusual for being a British example. Probably our most valuable global brand.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Hopefully in cases diagnosed prior to the vaccine being administered.
You'd expect populist right views to be correlated with ignorance and gullibility. What's depressing is that the political vehicles set up to feed these views and exploit those susceptible to them are having so much success. Worrying times.
Luckily this isn't happening in the UK where the new media scene is dominated by experienced and credible figures like Alastair Campbell.
I think you need a little Rory "explainer" on what the polls are telling us.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
No, I don't. I think its cultural significance extends well beyond that, and believe it should be funded from general taxation.
That would at least mitigate the obsessive complaints.
Foreign Secretary hits back at Trump's criticism of European leaders as 'weak'
'What I see in Europe is strength'
The FS job requires no great executive ability, or even intelligence, just a certain charm and power of persuasion,
Lammy was actually pretty good, and it’s a minor tragedy that’s he’s gone off to fuck up jury trials while Cooper, a grey technocrat, now represents us abroad.
Foreign Secretary hits back at Trump's criticism of European leaders as 'weak'
'What I see in Europe is strength'
The FS job requires no great executive ability, or even intelligence, just a certain charm and power of persuasion,
Lammy was actually pretty good, and it’s a minor tragedy that’s he’s gone off to fuck up jury trials while Cooper, a grey technocrat, now represents us abroad.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
"The BBC is far more than that"
Well, for my license fee I get to turn on the telly on Saturday night and my options are the stupidity of Strictly or some obscure football. Even the stuff that they produce now that should be ok, isn't.
However R4 does still have some bits and pieces of merit. The Today show - although a shadow of what it once was - is listenable to. And there you sometimes hear rather good coverage - I'd highlight Steve Rosenberg.
So actually I guess I mainly pay the license fee to hear 5 minutes of Rosenberg every now and then and a bit of a jamboree bag of other things. So... no, not getting it right.
The data in the header suggests that it isn't just children who are susceptible to the banality of social media. Whether Australia's approach will work or not is open to question. But even if it does, personally I think adults' use of social media is just as much an issue as children's, and I've no idea what can be done about that. But unless something is done, truth and facts have had their day, and it will only get worse.
For starters lets tax it like we do tobacco.
20% tax on social media and government adverts on the harms of social media?
Maybe they should be forced to show examples of harm at the top of the page like cigarette packets.
"Steve lost all his friends, his marriage and his job after going down a far-right racist rabbit hole here."
"Emma committed suicide after being bullied on our platform for months"
Etc
How about tax social media to replace the BBC licence fee.....
How about the BBC seeks its funding via ads or subscriptions and stops pouncing off the taxpayer.
This thread is about the loss of a shared set of truths and how corrosive that is to society. We need to fix this, rather than get ideological about it.
Get BBC Verify on the case 😉
We need to stop expecting taxpayers to fund the state broadcaster. Let it seek its funding in the marketplace.
And it will then be as open to toxicity as all other news outlets. You may want that, and will probably get it once Farage takes power, but not for me thanks.
Why the snide personal dig, it’s pathetic assuming what I want from TV news, I don’t have to fund something I have no interest in watching.
I rarely watch TV news, I’m not alone there, and what little I do BBC News is just as crap as ITV News.
There is no justification for the license fee in this day and age and has not been for a while. This is something I have argued for, the abolition of it, for over three decades. We will win eventually
Yours is a selfish view imo. We have benefited from a century of shared understanding of the truth, I freely admit to having a dim view of those who want to replace it with a commercial framework that inevitably will lead to toxic disinformation.
On direction of travel, I agree you will win.
No, the selfish ones are people who expect everyone who wants to watch live tv signals fund the TV license. The BBC offers me little. I have very little interest in its output and could easily live without it. Why should I pay for it simply as I want to watch the greatest show on earth, live, the PDC world darts championship.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
No, I don't. I think its cultural significance extends well beyond that, and believe it should be funded from general taxation.
That would at least mitigate the obsessive complaints.
No it should not be funded from general taxation. Taxes are high enough as it is without a few billion extra for the state broadcaster. It would also reduce the visibility of how much future increases are.
The license fee does not have public support. The BBC is less and less cherished as an institution with every passing year.
The taxpayer should not be funding an, effectively in all but name, commercial broadcaster.
To be blunt and cynical, the current position in the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine suits a lot of people.
Obviously, not the Russians and the Ukrainians doing the fighting and the dying but, again to be blunt and cynical, they don't matter. It works for both Putin and Zelenskyy whose positions are fortified by conflict (we replace Prime Ministers during wars, we removed both Asquith and Chamberlin for Lloyd George and Churchill respectively who were much better suited to leading the country in the crisis).
It also works for the defence and military-industrial complexes who can argue for greater spending on defence, weapons research and all manner of similar in a way they can't in a peaceful environment when small things like health, education and social care get in the way. Arms manufacturers, both state owned and private, profit from selling to both sides and the conflict is a case study for how future wars can and will be fought so the military strategists love it.
From day one, I've asked what peace looks like absent a complete Russian victory (the occupation of all or half of Ukraine) or complete Russian collapse (a withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory including Donetsk and Luhansk but not necessarily Crimea). The price of peace, so to speak, rises every time it looks conceivable some form of deal can be struck because too many parties have too much political and economic capital invested to not be able to show to their side they have achieved all or most of what they have claimed their war aims to be.
The idea of Indian, Nigerian or Brazilian troops acting as a UN peacekeeping force on the streets of Mariupol might work if you can get some form of armistice or ceasefire and someone can stump up the cash for the provision of such a force. It's basically where Cyprus ended up after 1974 - a ceasefire and a permanent division predicated on the traditional round of ethnic cleansing (see the former Yugoslavia) leaving the Russian supporters in the Donbas and Ukraine weakened and emasculated and everyone wondering whether this is permanent or a prelude to round two.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Hopefully in cases diagnosed prior to the vaccine being administered.
Ha, i think so. There was no claim that the illness was triggered by the vaccine. But vaccine hesitancy is normal and understandable, it's not anti science, but it certainly exposes inability to ascertain risk and probability.
The rest of the month needs to be 1.23C warmer than average in order to claim the crown off 2022. With a warm week or more to come, unless we get a cold snap in the last 2 fortnight we should get there.
Big turnaround after starting the year with a colder than average January.
I'd say it was a pretty small turnaround, given that Jan was the only month below average, and quite a few months were above average by +2 or more.
You'd expect populist right views to be correlated with ignorance and gullibility. What's depressing is that the political vehicles set up to feed these views and exploit those susceptible to them are having so much success. Worrying times.
I have just come from the pub, where a young student in a "Viva Hugo Chavez" hoodie was lecturing his table on socialism. Not sure naivety is exclusive to the right kind of populism.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
That was a typo- I was trying to link back to Sean's point on 100 years ago and ended up accidentally proposing it for today!
Whatever we call it, it would need to be flexible to account for proximity but we already have quite ambitious deals with Australia in defence (AUKUS) and in trade/services/young people, so I don't see why that can't be built upon.
You'd expect populist right views to be correlated with ignorance and gullibility. What's depressing is that the political vehicles set up to feed these views and exploit those susceptible to them are having so much success. Worrying times.
I have just come from the pub, where a young student in a "Viva Hugo Chavez" hoodie was lecturing his table on socialism. Not sure naivety is exclusive to the right kind of populism.
Thankfully most Republicans oppose these views. The significant percentage of young male Republicans and young ethnic minority Republicans who back Holocaust denial is especially concerning though given the GOP is supposed to be a pro Israel party
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
You'd expect populist right views to be correlated with ignorance and gullibility. What's depressing is that the political vehicles set up to feed these views and exploit those susceptible to them are having so much success. Worrying times.
I have just come from the pub, where a young student in a "Viva Hugo Chavez" hoodie was lecturing his table on socialism. Not sure naivety is exclusive to the right kind of populism.
Viva Hugo Chavez?
Well good luck with that.
Like Kim Jong Il he has ascended to the firmament, but is still supreme leader.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Culturally the UK is closer to New Zealand than Canada. Having a block with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in it along with the UK would cover Europe, North America and a gateway to Asia
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
I don't think I agree. Sometimes you have decide a course of action on incomplete information because there are potential consequences of doing that action, or not doing it. I would say most of the scientists presented their assessments in good faith, and governments mostly followed their advice, while many of their critics weren't acting in good faith.
I think you are right about good faith, and most certainly as the information changes, so does the understanding. But this cant hide that senior scientists in the USA where openly discussing the possibility, including the chief villain/hero of the peace Dr Fauci. This was the same time as Facebook, under direction, taking down discussions of the lab leak.
This all leads into what we are talking about, Trump came down hard on the side that said it had been a leak from a lab in China, which then meant the madness kicked in with all the "good" people deciding it cant be lab leak because that was what Trump wanted it and it was racist, over here we had similar madness with the Lancet denouncing the lab leak as a a conspiracy and that everything Johnnson did, others seem to automatically set themselves against it.
Trump: It was an understanding that Ukraine would not be going into NATO. This was long before Putin, in all fairness.
And now they pushed, you know, when Zelensky first went in and first met Putin, he said, “I want two things. I want Crimea back and we’re going to be a member of NATO.” He didn’t say it in a very nice way either. https://x.com/SavchenkoReview/status/1998355621947596859
Zelensky said the exact opposite, on both issues, when he met Putin (for the only time) in 2019 - offering referendums in both Crimea and Donbass.
Putin's public causus belli was, of course, Ukraine's wish to join the EU.
If Trump believes in NATO, he would welcome Ukraine joining!
Since Putin's invasion, Sweden and Finland, both neutral during Cold War, have both joined NATO.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
Do opponents refuse to concede any benefit?
We've had @MaxPB explain eloquently on here before how it was helping us to carve out a new regulatory space in AI and in genetic enhancement of crops, before we started to snuff it out for realignment again.
In an era of AI slop, the essential BBC value proposition becomes even MORE valuable.
But it has suffered from a generation of mis-management and neglect.
It would, if it made truly world-class programmes.
I think the documentaries, nature programmes and still up there but some of the drama falls woefully short - except maybe The Night Manager.
Agree that quality has deteriorated significantly, and not just in drama.
Beyond that, though, is the question of trust. The BBC should aim to be - first and foremost - the world’s trusted source of news.
It’s totally feasible to aspire to that; indeed it essentially already holds that position but dismays us all with its increasing lapses, and - I have long argued - lack of confidence*
Everything else - the documentaries, the comedy, the children’s programming, the dramas - is second order.
*Perhaps the wrong word, since there is a certainly a dense groupthink thriving in its senior echelons.
On topic, one of the most depressing experiences of being an adult is coming (slowly) to the realisation that people decide what they believe first - and often adopt those beliefs from those they identify with or admire, however loosely - and then select, interpret or reject the evidence to suit to fit it. Not the other way round.
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
Do opponents refuse to concede any benefit?
We've had @MaxPB explain eloquently on here before how it was helping us to carve out a new regulatory space in AI and in genetic enhancement of crops, before we started to snuff it out for realignment again.
Unfortunately Labour has pissed away all of the hard won good will and leadership in tech with the ill defined OSB. It's hammering tech investment all over the country and now companies are worried that Labour are ready to cave on regulatory alignment on AI with the EU for something worthless but feel good which is also hurting because companies investing today don't want it to be worthless a couple of years from now because Labour are desperate for votes.
But the really interesting bit, in a "does she realise what she was saying?" way was this-
Countries with strong institutions and productive people do not collapse overnight. Even foolish policies take time to do real, lasting damage.
Which is true. But leaving aside the B-thing implications, points to the awkward reality that many of the cruddy things the government did in the first twelve months were inevitable given the decisions taken by the last lot.
On topic, one of the most depressing experiences of being an adult is coming (slowly) to the realisation that people decide what they believe first - and often adopt those beliefs from those they identify with or admire, however loosely - and then select, interpret or reject the evidence to suit to fit it. Not the other way round.
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
And scientists, though trained to be aware of it, are no less susceptible to the many human conditions as the rest of us.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
If you are referring to the discussion yesterday that was about @Benpointer’s selective use of statistics. You can’t prove a counter factual. Personally I suspect that the economic effect was minimal - the main result was that the government was tied up doing Brexit stuff.
Some may see the fact that government didn’t implement any clever initiatives as being a positive…
On topic, one of the most depressing experiences of being an adult is coming (slowly) to the realisation that people decide what they believe first - and often adopt those beliefs from those they identify with or admire, however loosely - and then select, interpret or reject the evidence to suit to fit it. Not the other way round.
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
And scientists, though trained to be aware of it, are no less susceptible to the many human conditions as the rest of us.
Indeed. See, for example, the compelling* evidence on both sides of the gender dysphoria in children debate!
*Well, more crap than compelling, but the authors seemed convinced
Trump: It was an understanding that Ukraine would not be going into NATO. This was long before Putin, in all fairness.
And now they pushed, you know, when Zelensky first went in and first met Putin, he said, “I want two things. I want Crimea back and we’re going to be a member of NATO.” He didn’t say it in a very nice way either. https://x.com/SavchenkoReview/status/1998355621947596859
Zelensky said the exact opposite, on both issues, when he met Putin (for the only time) in 2019 - offering referendums in both Crimea and Donbass.
Putin's public causus belli was, of course, Ukraine's wish to join the EU.
If Trump believes in NATO, he would welcome Ukraine joining!
Since Putin's invasion, Sweden and Finland, both neutral during Cold War, have both joined NATO.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
If you are referring to the discussion yesterday that was about @Benpointer’s selective use of statistics. You can’t prove a counter factual. Personally I suspect that the economic effect was minimal - the main result was that the government was tied up doing Brexit stuff.
Some may see the fact that government didn’t implement any clever initiatives as being a positive…
The best arguments for leaving the EU were (and are) non-economic. It should enhance democratic accountability by meaning the people we elect are the ones making the decisions.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
Of course there are costs.
But you banged on and on about Springfield's 4% and now you bang on about the NBER's 8%. If Springfield can be out by 4% in one direction, he can be 4% out in the other direction...
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Culturally the UK is closer to New Zealand than Canada. Having a block with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in it along with the UK would cover Europe, North America and a gateway to Asia
Make it a flexible architecture (start with Canada and the UK but with the ability to add others)
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Culturally the UK is closer to New Zealand than Canada. Having a block with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in it along with the UK would cover Europe, North America and a gateway to Asia
It's worth noting than in the 1890s there were Indian MPs, including Gandhi, also advocating for this.
On topic, one of the most depressing experiences of being an adult is coming (slowly) to the realisation that people decide what they believe first - and often adopt those beliefs from those they identify with or admire, however loosely - and then select, interpret or reject the evidence to suit to fit it. Not the other way round.
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
And scientists, though trained to be aware of it, are no less susceptible to the many human conditions as the rest of us.
It's the scientific process itself rather than the individual scientists that make science such an invaluable tool. Yes, scientists are human and have their own biases and beliefs, but science is ultimately self-correcting because nothing is set in stone and theories are always open to revision or replacement.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
If you are referring to the discussion yesterday that was about @Benpointer’s selective use of statistics. You can’t prove a counter factual. Personally I suspect that the economic effect was minimal - the main result was that the government was tied up doing Brexit stuff.
Some may see the fact that government didn’t implement any clever initiatives as being a positive…
The best arguments for leaving the EU were (and are) non-economic. It should enhance democratic accountability by meaning the people we elect are the ones making the decisions.
Of course, this cuts both ways...
It already has done. Hence SKS being blamed for the small boats crisis, nobody else.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Of course we no longer pay into the EU budget. But a lot of that was to cover the costs of regulatory functions that we are now responsible for ourselves at greater cost. Hence the growth in the civil service after Brexit.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Of course we no longer pay into the EU budget. But a lot of that was to cover the costs of regulatory functions that we are now responsible for ourselves at greater cost. Hence the growth in the civil service after Brexit.
Oh come on, we were getting rinsed left right and centre. It's like we joined the local gym when it first started out, and it was a treadmill with a few dumbbells. Which you fully made use of and found membership really useful. Over time the Gym decided it needed a sauna, a swimming pool, a golf course and then obligated members of the gym to host any other individual member at your house whenever they so demanded.
But all we wanted was the treadmill and dumbells, and its all we really used.
On topic, one of the most depressing experiences of being an adult is coming (slowly) to the realisation that people decide what they believe first - and often adopt those beliefs from those they identify with or admire, however loosely - and then select, interpret or reject the evidence to suit to fit it. Not the other way round.
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
And scientists, though trained to be aware of it, are no less susceptible to the many human conditions as the rest of us.
It's the scientific process itself rather than the individual scientists that make science such an invaluable tool. Yes, scientists are human and have their own biases and beliefs, but science is ultimately self-correcting because nothing is set in stone and theories are always open to revision or replacement.
It seems there's a bit of a crisis going on there, and the above was barely an optional requirement for social science. Hence the Replication Crisis.
My view on conspiracy theories is quite simple - given humanity's general stupidity and incompetence, the likelihood of complex interconnected events as part of a larger plan is so implausible as to be not worth considering. Post hoc ergo propter hoc may be a nice way for some to explain the world and how it works but it doesn't work for me.
I incline more to the view most things are the result of ineptitude rather than insight and if we do something good or positive it's usually by accident rather than design. I know when I was working most of what I achieved was through accident - not all, some insight was involved but by no means all.
On to what we're here for and Trump and his gang seem to think they have some kind of moral crusade to conduct about "Europe" which is apparently in a kind of decadence and decline comparable to 4th century Rome. I don't see that at all - Trump's entitled to his opinion but he's entitled to be wrong and it's interesting to hear this kind of language because it was the language of many, incliding intelllectuals, in the 1920s - a sense of moral and political decline for which a new modernity of political thought was the answer and that applied wherever you felt the answer existed.
A century on and for all its faults, liberal democracy has done most people well. There are still challenges - child poverty, mental health and addiction woule count among my first three (but that's me) - but nothing I've heard from others suggests they have anything approaching solutions or anything which will improve the lives of most.
It seems to be part of denigrate degenerate Europe and support the last bastion of Christianity in Europe i.e. Russia. There seems to be some sort of coordination about messaging if you caught the Russian comments about Ukraine at the UN.
Either that or he's having a fit about not being able to get the Peace prize as it moves out with his reach. He'll just have to make do with FIFA's award.
"Complex interconnected events as part of a larger plan" is basically how corporations and NGO's operate through business plans and charters/constitutions which highlight their purpose/mission so hardly unbelievable..🧐
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Of course we no longer pay into the EU budget. But a lot of that was to cover the costs of regulatory functions that we are now responsible for ourselves at greater cost. Hence the growth in the civil service after Brexit.
Comments
It was so vanilla it put me into a diabetic coma.
Since Putin's invasion, Sweden and Finland, both neutral during Cold War, have both joined NATO.
Its an interesting suggestion but I don't see much evidence of it.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
The BBC is largely a commercial organisation in all but name with its main channels directly competing with commercial rivals but having a competitive advantage with a revenue stream they will get without working for it.
People on PB seem to see the BBC only in terms of news. The BBC is far more than that.
That would be a transfer of social harm to social good.
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
The seamlessness of the Appleverse is it's biggest strength of course.
At lunch* today, someone, unprompted, said positive things about Kemi.
Conservative majority nailed on.
*Dinner, as I refer to the midday meal, but this would confuse people.
It is not the solution.
If social media is really a social harm, and I don’t believe it is a lot of it is the old media putting the boot into the new media that is killing it, then ban it, if the BBC really is a social good let it compete for its funding as if it is so good and so valued people would flock to pay for it.
Well, for my license fee I get to turn on the telly on Saturday night and my options are the stupidity of Strictly or some obscure football. Even the stuff that they produce now that should be ok, isn't.
However R4 does still have some bits and pieces of merit. The Today show - although a shadow of what it once was - is listenable to. And there you sometimes hear rather good coverage - I'd highlight Steve Rosenberg.
So actually I guess I mainly pay the license fee to hear 5 minutes of Rosenberg every now and then and a bit of a jamboree bag of other things. So... no, not getting it right.
Berlin’s €354m backing dwarfs the amount British start-ups have received from UK taxpayers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/12/03/germany-ploughs-millions-into-europes-biggest-lithium-mine/ (£££)
We are within touching distance of beating the all time annual Central England Temperature record again.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
The rest of the month needs to be 1.23C warmer than average in order to claim the crown off 2022. With a warm week or more to come, unless we get a cold snap in the last 2 fortnight we should get there.
Big turnaround after starting the year with a colder than average January.
The idea that BBC News broadcasting or the BBC is a social good was true when we had three channels. Now they are a few channels among many.
But here he is simply repeating Russian resentments which are founded on lies.
The mRNA vaccines went through full clinical trials, as all vaccines do, before mass rollout.
It's simply untrue to say that risks which might have led to mass catastrophe were taken.
Ultimately it’s a question of ideology. You either like the idea of a public corporation that’s protected at home and subsidised to expand abroad, or you don’t. The French make a great success of the model, with the likes of EDF and Airbus. So do the US with their defence companies). The Beeb is unusual for being a British example. Probably our most valuable global brand.
https://x.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1998437721446953397
Foreign Secretary hits back at Trump's criticism of European leaders as 'weak'
'What I see in Europe is strength'
I think its cultural significance extends well beyond that, and believe it should be funded from general taxation.
That would at least mitigate the obsessive complaints.
Lammy was actually pretty good, and it’s a minor tragedy that’s he’s gone off to fuck up jury trials while Cooper, a grey technocrat, now represents us abroad.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g45ev3gkdo
The license fee does not have public support. The BBC is less and less cherished as an institution with every passing year.
The taxpayer should not be funding an, effectively in all but name, commercial broadcaster.
Obviously, not the Russians and the Ukrainians doing the fighting and the dying but, again to be blunt and cynical, they don't matter. It works for both Putin and Zelenskyy whose positions are fortified by conflict (we replace Prime Ministers during wars, we removed both Asquith and Chamberlin for Lloyd George and Churchill respectively who were much better suited to leading the country in the crisis).
It also works for the defence and military-industrial complexes who can argue for greater spending on defence, weapons research and all manner of similar in a way they can't in a peaceful environment when small things like health, education and social care get in the way. Arms manufacturers, both state owned and private, profit from selling to both sides and the conflict is a case study for how future wars can and will be fought so the military strategists love it.
From day one, I've asked what peace looks like absent a complete Russian victory (the occupation of all or half of Ukraine) or complete Russian collapse (a withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory including Donetsk and Luhansk but not necessarily Crimea). The price of peace, so to speak, rises every time it looks conceivable some form of deal can be struck because too many parties have too much political and economic capital invested to not be able to show to their side they have achieved all or most of what they have claimed their war aims to be.
The idea of Indian, Nigerian or Brazilian troops acting as a UN peacekeeping force on the streets of Mariupol might work if you can get some form of armistice or ceasefire and someone can stump up the cash for the provision of such a force. It's basically where Cyprus ended up after 1974 - a ceasefire and a permanent division predicated on the traditional round of ethnic cleansing (see the former Yugoslavia) leaving the Russian supporters in the Donbas and Ukraine weakened and emasculated and everyone wondering whether this is permanent or a prelude to round two.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C.
Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Also in a Guardian live feed.
But it has suffered from a generation of mis-management and neglect.
That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
Whatever we call it, it would need to be flexible to account for proximity but we already have quite ambitious deals with Australia in defence (AUKUS) and in trade/services/young people, so I don't see why that can't be built upon.
Well good luck with that.
I think the documentaries, nature programmes and still up there but some of the drama falls woefully short - except maybe The Night Manager.
I accept for indigenous Africans it's slightly different.
This all leads into what we are talking about, Trump came down hard on the side that said it had been a leak from a lab in China, which then meant the madness kicked in with all the "good" people deciding it cant be lab leak because that was what Trump wanted it and it was racist, over here we had similar madness with the Lancet denouncing the lab leak as a a conspiracy and that everything Johnnson did, others seem to automatically set themselves against it.
We've had @MaxPB explain eloquently on here before how it was helping us to carve out a new regulatory space in AI and in genetic enhancement of crops, before we started to snuff it out for realignment again.
Beyond that, though, is the question of trust.
The BBC should aim to be - first and foremost - the world’s trusted source of news.
It’s totally feasible to aspire to that; indeed it essentially already holds that position but dismays us all with its increasing lapses, and - I have long argued - lack of confidence*
Everything else - the documentaries, the comedy, the children’s programming, the dramas - is second order.
*Perhaps the wrong word, since there is a certainly a dense groupthink thriving in its senior echelons.
As I proffered about a year ago, just for a bit of fun, a "Commonwealth-Plus" scenario consisting of all SIX majority English-speaking countries:
UK
Can
USA (which must be post-Trump, of course!)
Aus
NZ
Ire
Remember, this is just for a bit of fun!
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
Countries with strong institutions and productive people do not collapse overnight. Even foolish policies take time to do real, lasting damage.
Which is true. But leaving aside the B-thing implications, points to the awkward reality that many of the cruddy things the government did in the first twelve months were inevitable given the decisions taken by the last lot.
OK, my source is Rob Hutton in The Critic.
https://thecritic.co.uk/regrets-has-she-had-a-few/
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like:
1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers
2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Some may see the fact that government didn’t implement any clever initiatives as being a positive…
*Well, more crap than compelling, but the authors seemed convinced
Of course, this cuts both ways...
But you banged on and on about Springfield's 4% and now you bang on about the NBER's 8%. If Springfield can be out by 4% in one direction, he can be 4% out in the other direction...
But all we wanted was the treadmill and dumbells, and its all we really used.