leicsmac

But in other news, some good old fashioned corruption from the other side of the world: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr41499pdlo South Korea’s president has apologised for a string of controversies surrounding his wife that included allegedly accepting a luxury Dior handbag and stock manipulation.

On topic re: above...

David Lammy:

Well, the election is done so perhaps it might make way for a general discussion thread on the matter anyway?

On the above:

Such a thing must depend on the situation, the outcomes, and the costs, I think. In this case, I don't see how the positive outweighs the negative.

Exactly. So it might be nice to have a little more help on that score. I think the timelines and plans are pretty clear as they are, but evidently not clear enough for enough people. I know that makes the issue abstract and that's a problem, but a bigger problem would be appearing to lie about it by giving details later found to be false. Not sure what the best way to proceed is tbh, but the clock is ticking and the future cost keeps going up.

Yeah, this is broadly accurate. The only thing I'll add is that the idealism in such cases regarding long term global plans isn't just a matter of moral whatever, over time it's actually critical to survival. How much more pragmatic can that be made?

It would be nice to have a little more help for single first time buyers tbh.

Only time I've seen planetary scientists come to a fistfight.

No, I'm saying that the policies applied on those matters clearly have next to no input from the STEM community given they fly in the face of pretty much so the advice it has given on them. Apologies if that wasn't clear, and the point being that the analytical processes and expertise of STEM experts, as valuable as it is, isn't being applied here much anyway.

No doubt. But one would hope not an largely increased amount of money.

Climate change, biodiversity projects, pollution. Pretty much anything environmental. Stem cell research, too. And given he intends to appoint an antivaxxer as the head of medical oversight, I wouldn't be sure there either. Edit: I'm wondering where the good science policy is to be honest, other than space exploration.

If it comes to that then everyone is screwed and it won't matter how hard or successfully we fight anyway, seeing as if we win all we'll be king of is the ashes.

Put the strawman away before someone lights a match, my friend. But to answer the question, for the moment such things have to be maintained, but they certainly wouldn't be near the top of the funding tree right now.

I would say at this point that the incoming administration has a record of actually listening to STEM sources regarding policy that is sketchy at best and laughable at worst anyway. The nations of the world spent $2.44 trillion last year on developing and maintaining ways to kill and maim each other. There's rather a lot of money to go round, clearly.

https://spacenews.com/chinas-new-rocket-for-crew-and-moon-to-launch-in-2026/ Artemis on the Moon in 2026, the Chinese before 2030. A new space race dawning? I hope not, that's so very Cold War/ history of The Expanse.

Come on Peaky, obvious bait is obvious.

An argument I've heard before that has merit, though on this particular matter he did do a lot of what he said last time round. I guess we'll find out, though it would have been nice to not have to take that gamble when the stakes are so high. But here we are, I guess.

Does play hob with your mental health, though, I've found.

On the topic of consequences... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ygplyg09ro Donald Trump's return to the White House will have a hugely negative effect on climate change action in the short-term but the longer term impact is less certain, experts say. With world leaders meeting next week for the latest UN climate talks, COP29, external, the Trump victory will be seen as a huge roadblock to progress in both cutting emissions and raising cash for developing countries. The US president-elect is a known climate sceptic who has called efforts to boost green energy a "scam". This will have some consequences. How surprising.

And be ready to be held accountable for every drop of blood spilled when the consequences of electing such leaders comes about. Which it will.

Pretty much both of this, really. Sometimes racism is racism and bigotry is bigotry, and it should no longer be casually accepted. Of course that's going to lead to pushback. Quite frankly, in parts of the US women have been treated as chattel of husbands and fathers, anyone nonwhite as subhuman, and LGBT people as abominations for too long. The only thing that differentiates some of the fundie right over there from the Taliban is what the women are allowed to wear - and yet we're told to understand the sentiment these people have. The only thing I'll add is a sentence I've read before: "Your concerns may be legitimate, but are you sure neofascists are your answer?" Edit: of course people voted for the man for other reasons than those above (money), but that still plays into their hands, and history doesn't give a free pass to them, either.

I have to ask again though - where is the threat that merits such increased spending on killing - sorry, "defence" - especially when public services in the UK are already running on empty and there's a global threat out there that already needs addressing. That a better world for everyone was at least possible, yes. You don't see that with Trump, not for everyone, not even close. At all. If we're going by that metric, then every president back to Lyndon Johnson is likewise a war criminal, so I'm not sure of the point being driven at here.