leicsmac

Not sure the times were any simpler in terms of hardship actually happening. Rather, we just didn't get to know about a lot of it. Which I guess is simpler in its own way.

If things have gotten to the state where that is the case, I would posit the situation is dire enough that it's beyond pretty much anyone's control tbh, because it will mean a truly vast amount of people will no longer be able to live and source food and potable water where they are. That will produce challenges that will be pretty much insurmountable by civilisation as it currently is.

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-science-linking-climate-weather-disasters.html Interesting piece on the current state of play.

That's because of the aforementioned mushroom cloud power that they do have a lot of, I think.

I think it really depends on what kind of power is going to be critical going forward. If it's the mushroom cloud kind, then yes, it would be easy for the EU to become marginalised - but then that kind of world will be shit for everyone anyway. If it's other forms of power, the bloc may still have decent influence.

Yep. Because power over people, which money buys, is a drug to them. Of course, that doesn't end well for them or anyone else. The EU. Not necessarily military, but there's economic and other soft power there.

Some fascinating insights here today, pleasure to read them. The idea of it being a tetrapolar world in terms of powers now is on the money, and I think the digital age has vastly hastened and deepened that division of power. However, this comes at a time where unity in some areas is more imperative to the future than it has ever been. The only thing I'd add challenging comment to is while on paper the US economy figures appear good, that doesn't actually mean much when the wealth disparity over there is already horrible and continues to widen. Gilded Age all over again, indeed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyek73ly70o Oh, Peter, this kind of awful arse-kissing really isn't worth it. Edit: unless he means none of it and is just saying it to get into a position to say what he really thinks when he has more power - in which case, fine.

Spot on. Anyone vaguely familiar with Project 2025 could have seen this all coming, as well as have a good idea of what's next on the list. Exactly. I've said it before but I'll repeat it; the idea of absolute punishment must go hand in hand with absolute proof, or the system is fundamentally flawed (unless one doesn't count the inevitability of taking an innocent life a flaw). And "absolute", in the case of proof, is a rather large thing.

@Otis I apologise for the direct callout, but the above is what I meant by calls for O v F to be overturned in our discussion the other week and not everyone who is keen on Trump makes the same distinctions about the LGBT community as you do. Rather a lot of them view it differently - enough to propose and pass legislation for effect. It will hardly stop here if it isn't addressed, either.

Yep. But at least in the annals of history a lot of people had a legitimate excuse to not know any better. I'm not sure how true that is now. ... and speaking of senselessness with an additional dose of "saw this coming from a mile off":

Sadly I can offer no compelling evidence to the contrary. Another example of the difference between what should be, and what is.

It shouldn't just (italicised for emphasis) be about the money though, if should also be about accessibility to allow sportto be seen and grow as a result. But of course, it so often is.

AFAIC, I'm not entirely sure that you can. Unless everyone involved in the process actually saw the crime happen with their own eyes and 100% accurately, there will always be an element of doubt in a conviction - it might be miniscule in some cases but it's still doubt, whenever any second hand or even some first hand testimony is called for. That's just a logical conclusion. Whether that degree of doubt is considered acceptable enough to risk taking someone's life again and again it's clearly up to the beholder.

Apparently so. Rashid with some remarkable economy from his four overs.

In all seriousness, though, if the US under this administration actually follow through on their aggression towards Denmark, Panama et al, the UK should seriously reconsider their policy of cooperation with them at least and actually treat them as a potential hostile belligerent requiring some cooperation (like China) at most.

That he can compel government agencies to go along with his horrendous gestures of mayoperialist bigotry is reprehensible, but justifiable. If that same bigotry then gets taken on by tech firms and the world outside the US border also has to share in it... well, that's unacceptable. And, considering the amount of grief China and Russia have got from certain corners of the US for "rewriting history", the height of hypocrisy, too.

Wickets falling faster than Nvidia stock here.

I think the flaw is that both the good and bad of humanity become accentuated by discoveries like this and that could be disastrous, but yes, I see the point here. WRT the second paragraph, that's certainly one possible situation and I've come to think that if AI does end up ruling the world, it won't be because of some Skynet nuclear war outcome, it will be because it makes our lives so convenient and labour free in some ways we'll beg it to do so. And, yes, that could still end very badly.

Being discussed elsewhere: China making the US and other associated parties look a bit daft on the topic of AI. On the general topic; IMO AI is just a tool. If there's a flaw, it's human - it always is.

To say nothing of restrictions on firearms that do at least a reasonable job of stopping someone going into a school with them and opening fire.

The reduction in the number of Tier A sporting events that must be shown on free to air TV in last decade or so is shocking.

In an attempt to resume on topic discussion here: https://phys.org/news/2025-01-trump-withdrawn-paris-agreement-bad.html TL;DR - The current US administration being absent from world climate policy discussion might not be the worst thing ever in the same way that having a yelling child being absent from adult discussions isn't the worst thing ever. Edit: of course, a corollary of this is that the yelling child will still be making an enormous mess that will affect everyone while the adults are talking.

It certainly is, but AFAIC either civilisation is saved in spite of them, or it's not and then they answer to the laws of thermodynamics, the screaming mob that will hold them accountable, or both. Payment will come due without anything we should do or say.

Truth be told, I'm not that concerned either way. The facts of the matter are what they are and if people want to practice humorous denial then that's up to them. The last laugh will be that of the Earth.