leicsmac

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmrlemnwy0o Well, yeah, that's the stuff of nightmares.

It's a little cute when those talking political heads so in favour of individual freedom of expression get bent out of shape when it's an area they value that's been "vandalised". That being said, there would be something in Banksy offering to pay for at least some of the cleanup to make them look even more whiny and hypocritical than they already are.

As other people have said, healthcare provision should be the biggest consideration here. Healthcare costs after retirement can be...costly. I can't personally offer advice on specific locations, but IMO that should be the biggest driving factor here.

I would have surely thought it's much more cost effective to just get a water filter jug if you live in a hard water area?

But seriously, though, it reads like the intro to the latest Resident Evil.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3j3ngevmo Artificial Intelligence has been used to design brand new viruses that are fully functional and can replicate in the laboratory, say US researchers. It is the first time whole genomes have been successfully designed by AI. The resulting 16 novel viruses were created to infect bacteria and pose no threat to people. The breakthrough has been labelled a "very significant turning point" in science that could unlock a new era for treating disease. But experts have also warned AI-designed viruses raise "urgent" safety and security concerns. AI tools are rapidly advancing and have already been used to design new antibiotics. But that is relatively simple compared with designing a new viable virus from scratch. This week in "most likely headline to feature at the start of a disaster movie"...

Yeah, that's what I meant about balance. It just seems rather difficult to find, particularly when you have the extremes pushing so hard with all the many consequences that entails.

And yet, the Chinese appear to make those infrastructure projects work in spite of all the graft alleged here. Of course, that does come with a significant cost both socially and environmentally, as discussed above.

I don't disagree about the nature of the bureaucracy. Somehow a balance needs to be struck. The good news is that it won't matter if what you state in the last few lines comes true (or if we let mindsets like Trump's take control as well) because going down that way means no one wins, and the difference between economies then will mean absolutely nothing with much less vital resources on which they can be spent.

It could, but we're not talking about strictly UK-based conservation policies here, and that being a point of argument really shouldn't in any way validate the mindset regarding life on Earth stated by the current US administration above.

Yes, evidently looking to guarantee the future of all humanity and a lot of life, rather than just a very small and specific part of it that belongs to your "tribe", is radical now. Apparently.

"... exactly how much do you want to sound like an early 90s cartoon villain, Mr Trump?" "... this much, Snivelly." "... as you wish, Mr Trump."

As the Illusive Man said regarding whether something could be done or not, "it's always a question of resources". So yes, I'd agree that almost all of the issues facing the world right now outside the physically impossible are completely solvable - they just need the resources, and, yes, the political will to direct them and to bypass the sentiment of short term tribal self interest that so often gets in the way.

Agree 100% with this and it's something I continue to struggle with too. I remember playing a (superb) video game called The Talos Principle, and, near the end, one of the characters gives this speech. "I... think this is... This is it. The end of... me. I don't believe that I will continue to exist. I would like to think that there is a... a soul or spirit. Some part of my consciousness that will persist. All the evidence says that when my brain dies, I will be gone. I've lived my life, never turning away from the truth even if it scares me and... I can face this. Face my own end, and... and say with absolute conviction... that it was good to be human." That last part in particular, about it being good to be human, in spite of it being often difficult and sometimes simply agonising, resonated hard. And yes, another big fault of social media is the decline of those social groups and "third places" (not homes or workplaces) where such groups could gather for in person interaction. That has become so much more difficult these days. It really shouldn't be shameful to admit that a person is lonely, and they need more of that interaction to feel more grounded and just more...human.

Fair enough - it appears the shotgun approach is much more effective than I thought it was. Learned something today, thanks guys.

Sheer weight of numbers of ads out there and people seeing them getting the company across the line even though the vast majority aren't interested, then? Plausible.

Appreciate the info with the numbers there, thanks. Would it be possible to elaborate on exactly how such a rate of c.300% return is achieved? I'm genuinely curious as to how sales are boosted in these days of ubiquitous ads that are so often negatively received.

A couple of questions I've been thinking about today (mostly based on trying to navigate videos on YouTube while being bombarded by ads, no good ad blocker on this device): Why are Internet ads still totally pervasive when it's reasonably clear they don't serve a purpose in terms of actually raising sales of the product they sell, because from what I can tell the response to such ads is almost universally negative? Why are companies still paying to prop up such an industry that appears to not fit a purpose? I simply cannot see how it can be profitable anymore. Or am I wrong and the cost of making the ads and buying the space is somehow still less than the revenue a seller makes from the product being advertised? Or is there a different purpose for them beyond that?

Exactly so, and this matter is far from the only one where such arguments for selfishness are used, either.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrj1751r02o A US congressman who is battling abuse allegations from his ex-wife and her father, a US senator, has vowed not to quit. Ohio Republican Max Miller, who is fighting for his political life on the eve of a deadline to file for re-election, told CNN: "I'm never going to back down." He acknowledged that President Donald Trump had phoned him on Monday to express doubts about his ability to win in November. Miller, 37, denies abusing his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, and their child, saying on Tuesday that he is open to an ethics investigation. Moreno's father, Republican Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno, has called for him to be removed from Congress. Emily Moreno has accused her ex-husband of throwing her against a wall, holding a gun to her head, and fracturing their two-year-old daughter's collarbone, according to court documents and police reports obtained by news agencies including CBS, the BBC's US partner. Another real paragon running for office there, then.

Self-interested shites tend to get quite animated when people point out how self-interested they are, even indirectly, it's true. The lawn itself really doesn't even benefit much in the way of wildlife, assuming it's just bare grass, so he's not even got that excuse for the selfishness.

It's Squid Game from a distance and for real. And yes, such harmful events could easily be manipulated to win a bet.

Apparently there is a betting market on Polymarket concerning the extent and outcome of the wildfires currently raging in various places. Can someone please find a story of a human or humans actually doing something good to stave off the sentiment that we're actually beyond saving, please?

Quite. Once again, this is a global matter, with global consequences and requiring global attention.

When I was there, you couldn't really do anything outside for at least July and August. And now it's getting worse.