leicsmac

Makes me want to read up on the Toba supereruption 70000 years ago and just how devastating that was.

While this is a fair comment, beware the slippery slope that leads to people not being treated due to their inability to pay - or being treated and then being saddled with a lifetime of debt. You do have to watch out for the "free rider" and "tragedy of the commons" problems in a system like the NHS, but any reform has to be done with the utmost care and maintaining a baseline of help for everyone - that is not predicated on their ability to pay, either now or later.

This is where government has to act as a bulwark against corporate interests for the benefit of many. Sky do a good job and the ECB highlights package (that normally is released on the same day as play) is likewise superb, but the game needs at least some free-to-air interest to grow. If that means bunging the ECB some to make up for Sky having a tantrum over not having total exclusivity any more, so be it. Home Tests should never have been removed from Category A of the Ofcom Code in the first place.

That's interesting to hear about - thank you. I also captained the University team in the Leicestershire league, though we were very much lower division. I get you in that actually mulling over the pieces on a physical board is much better, but it does seem to be tricky these days so for me online with a board set up to "view" the position is the best I can do for myself. I would appreciate any feedback on the game I've put up there by a fellow player - like you I tend to go for the Sicilian as Black (usually Najdorf so this guy playing the Closed kinda threw me).

TL;DR - played an online game against an Icelandic International Master, played for a draw as Black and nearly got it until one fatal fvckup near the end which has rather ruined my day. Study endgame theory! ---------------------- Thought it might be a good idea to share a recent game I played here for anyone who might be interested. Icelandic IM David Kjartansson (TheChessKitchen on chess.com, Twitch and some other places) was offering challenges on chess.com and (not knowing anything other than the handle of the player) thought I would play against him. Correspondence format, where each side has up to a day per move. Needless to say when I saw the little "IM" tag next to his handle I rather shat a brick (especially as I was playing Black), but I decided to give it the best I could and look to play for a draw. 1.e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nf6?? (Closed Sicilian, but being blinded by the lights a bit I mess up some on just the second move). 3. f4? d5 (Thankfully he either takes mercy on me or makes a misstep himself and this is an OK opening now). 4. e5 d4 5. exf6 dxc3 6. fxg7 cxd2+ 7. Qxd2 Qxd2+ (Going for Scorched Earth approach, less pieces = less complex position = less chance of being outplayed in those positions by a superior player) 8.Bxd2 Bxg7 9. O-O-O Nc6 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. Bb5 Bxf3 12. gxf3 O-O-O 13. Bxc6 bxc6 (And that's the Scorched Earth done, things roughly equal, now to try and keep it that way.) 14.Be3 Bd4 15. Rhe1 Bxe3+ 16. Rxe3 Rxd1+ 17. Kxd1 Kd7 18. Ra3 Ra8 19. Ra5 Kd6 20.Kd2 f5 21. Kc3 h5 22. Kc4 e6 23. Ra3 h4 24. Rd3+ Kc7 25. Kxc5 Rb8 26. b4 a5 27.c3 axb4 28. cxb4 Ra8 29. a3 h3 30. Kc4 Rg8 31. Rd2 Rg2 32. Kd3 Kb6 33. a4 Rg1 34. Re2 Ra1 35. a5+ Kb5 36. Rxe6 Kxb4 37. Rxc6 Rxa5 (Trading down pawns gradually, hoping to get to a drawn Rook and Pawn v Rook endgame.) 38. Rh6 Kc5 39. Rxh3 Ra3+ 40. Ke2 Ra2+ 41. Ke3 Kd6 42. Rh6+ Ke7 43. h4 Kf7 44. h5 Rh2 45. Kd4 Kg7 46. Rg6+ Kf7 47. Ra6 Rxh5 48. Ke5 Rh3 49. Ra3 Kg6 50. Rb3 Rg3 51. Rb6+ Kf7 52. Kxf5 Rxf3 53. Rb7+ Kf8 54. Ke5 Re3+ 55. Kf6 (Now at the Rook and pawn v Rook endgame, this is theoretically drawn but I have to not put a foot wrong to draw it.) 55....Kg8 56. f5 Rg3 57. Rb8+ Kh7 58. Kf7 Rg7+ 59. Ke6 Ra7 60. Re8 Ra6+ 61. Kf7 Ra7+ 62. Re7 Ra8 63. f6 Ra1 64. Kf8+ Kg6 65. f7 Ra8+??? (What. The. Fvck. Were. You. Thinking. Mac. Actually, you weren't thinking. 65. Kf6 draws reasonably easily and the end of the drawing sequence is only a couple of moves away. As it is, he now has multiple ways to pick me off.) 66. Re8 Ra7 67. Re6+ Kf5 68. Rb6 Ra8+ 69. Kg7 Ra7 70. Kg8 1-0 (No way to stop the pawn from promoting, so I will have to give up my Rook and the game is hopeless from there.) I suppose I should be happy that I lasted that long against someone that damn good, but it pains me to know that I pissed away a drawn position when it was nearly all over after doing a lot of the hard work. Learning experience too is to read some more theory: was relying a lot on instinctual moves when it got to the endgame whereas a truly good player would know exactly what position to aim for in such an endgame having read about it and so know what to do several moves in advance. Ah well.

Harry Brook - that's unbelievable. 21 needed from the final six balls, he does it in five.

Not entirely sure about the US support considering one side of the aisle there is seemingly willing to let Putin win in the name their "border reforms" not becoming policy.

I agree, which is why I cringed when I heard that line spoken - a very rare misstep from Sir David. A plant-based diet would surely help the transition, but it's not a necessity in the same way energy generation transition is and doesn't need to be packaged to the public in the same way. The whole matter of communication in a democratic system where such decisions are subject to that democratic process has to be done so damn carefully - but that's the price paid for a freer society.

Not much at all, given correct management. That's why both the neo-Luddities and the do-nothings at either end of the spectrum are so frustrating - they both assume that in order to prevent catastrophe living standards in developed countries will have to take a hit. It's simply not true - there is time and plans to switch to alternative forms of energy generation across the world that will prevent a temperature increase that will be really bad. If it's done right, the Average John on the street may never know the transition has taken place at all, in terms of everyday life. The issue is such plans cost money and long-term thinking that the established political powers are unwilling to pay, because it will mildly inconvenience them in terms of their present day cash flow, and so current progress is bogged down by politicking and so is not nearly as swift as it needs to be.

"No doubt there will be lots of cheering and back-slapping... but the physics will not care. As the new agreement locks in high levels of emissions for years to come, so the temperature will continue to rise" - Prof Kevin Anderson, University of Manchester. It is just one talking head, but yes, the physics doesn't care.

A very human system, huh?

That's about the size of it, yes. Would that be the "game of chicken" situation - one party benefits if they don't back down while the other loses heavily if they do, but the worst possible outcome is if neither back down? I think I should clarify on the remarks above - the politics of the solution is very complex for these exact reasons, but the actual solution itself is, again, relatively simple. As are the consequences of not applying them - it's not like the laws of thermodynamics care about our politics.

Yep, pretty much. Now one might see why the global climate science corps have been tearing their hair out for the last couple of decades. An accurate summation of three of the different standpoints there The thing is, IMO there are (relatively) simple solutions to all of these issues, and all of them put together would still be far cheaper than the cost of kicking the can down the road and dealing with the resulting consequences. The powers that be simply don't want to pay the high short-term cost, for a variety of reasons. All of them ridiculously shortsighted and based more on political expediency and realpolitik than looking to do the right thing for our present and future as a species. If that's the case - and it looks like it may well be, sadly - those with the power had better be ready to aid the great many people who are going to be in a great deal of trouble over the next few decades. Because that humanitarian crisis will be on them.

Yeah, perhaps I would have too. Now, it's clearly inadequate.

To expand on this, some key points of the deal that has been arrived at include: Countries will "contribute... to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner". This is the first time there has been a clear reference to the future of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) in a COP text. It doesn't include any wording on the "phase out of fossil fuels" - something many governments wanted There is a recognition that global emissions will likely peak before 2025 - and that for developing nations this may be later On adaptation and finance, the language appears to have been weakened, with the text "reiterating" rather than "requesting" developed countries give support to vulnerable nations facing climate change So...a half-arse IMO, but then (as per above) given the nature of the democratic talking shop and so many differing interests, perhaps this is the best compromise that could have been expected. There really should have been a remit in there for a strict timeline to phase out fossil fuels for energy generation and a strict remit for developed nations to fund developing nations to help them do so. Of course, the established powers that be would squawk in their own short-sighted self-interest and so that was never going to happen, but hey. One more observation: I've no idea why China is still considered a "developing" nation and they've got some brass neck calling out the "developed" nations for not doing enough to help the others when they themselves are one of the biggest contributors to the problem and are so economically powerful they could easily help them themselves.

Self-interest or tribal interest is the biggest problem on this particular matter, yes. I've said it for years on other matters too - when it comes to a lot of things, it's a strength, but when it comes to matters requiring global collaboration with severe penalties for not doing so, it is a (possibly fatal) weakness.

Pretty much all of them have overrun, apparently - can't say that I'm surprised about that. Hopefully some kind of deal can be done today or tonight. NB, Thinly-veiled, if accurate, jabs at the hypocrisy of those attending doesn't actually mean much to the laws of physical thermodynamics or what we might have to do to help ourselves against them. Nor does denying their clear and obvious effect at the present time.

Certainly, both the poorer nations and the nations currently reliant on fossil fuels for economic stability need the financial incentive to play ball and adjust/prepare accordingly. That, however, really can't be a sticking point in the way that it is because, once again, the cost of inaction - to everyone - will always be far higher.

I'm on the fence with the above discussion because quite frankly both sides make good points. The current measures being ummed and ahhed about at past and present COP meetings are not far-ranging enough - or are not being well-executed enough - to prevent an outcome of an overall increase of global average temperature by 2.5 to 3 degrees C. This will have widespread, utterly brutal effects on a great many people in a great many places in short order. There will be a lot of blood on the floor, directly caused by the more extreme conditions or indirectly caused be fighting over land and resources as they both become more precious. So what's being done now is a failure in that regard, and that falls on the shoulders of the entire global community that have the power to do something but don't. However, with all the above having been said, solutions involving more "action directe" haven't been proven to work well either - is there a single meaningful and far-reaching climate measure that was directly brought about by an act of militancy? As I've said before, speaking personally I'm more concerned about the efficacy of the methods rather than the methods themselves, given the worst outcome in terms of death and suffering will, every single time, be doing nothing - but I need more convincing that more direct ideas actually work. What's the best way? Damned if I know but we'd better find out. The clock is ticking, the price keeps going up and the penalties for failure will be (and are) utterly merciless.

Nah, not at all out of place Sometimes the comedy of it is very dark, but it is pretty ridiculous all round. And yes, the whole idea of medicines being subject to the highest bidder/best advertiser when it's a matter of human health and life is utterly absurd.

It will be the ideal environment for him, so I hope he can shine too. As for the series itself...well, this team went to Pakistan and won three on the bounce. Of course, India is a step up for difficulty, but I reckon they can at least give a good game with the current style.

The word "unhinged" is getting some serious play lately here. And yeah, the US healthcare system and how it's been so bastardised by money and resultant advertising would be hilarious if it didn't have such occasionally tragic results.

... or when things change grotesquely for the worse, people will simply lie down and take it and not seek to hold them accountable? I think that they believe either they'll be dead by the time it all goes horrible, they'll have enough muscle bought to deal with it when it does, or they're so in denial about basic thermodynamics that they simply think things will always be able to go as they are (possibly linking to point 1 above). In any case, they're wrong.

Disappointing, but sadly not massively surprising. Unfortunately, it shows that in this particular area the democratic agreement shop of disparate ideas and ambitions, while the vast majority of the time a brilliant thing, is sometimes deeply - if not fatally - flawed. The most advanced species this planet has ever seen (that we know of) and it sees fit to destroy or severely degrade its own future by committee for the sake of its present. ....perhaps not so advanced, then - (slightly) more advanced process as other species, same outcome.

It's a fascinating theory. As you say, it may not be the full explanation, but it might go some way towards part of it. There's still so much to discover.