leicsmac

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxdwlqx8qqo US President Donald Trump's multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the BBC has been scheduled to go to trial in February 2027, according to court documents. The trial date comes as a Florida judge rejected the BBC's application to delay the process of discovery in the case. Trump is suing the BBC for defamation over the way an episode of Panorama edited two sections of a speech together, which made it appear that he had directly encouraged his supporters to storm the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. The trial is scheduled to last two weeks and take place in Miami. A BBC spokesman said: "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case." The statement added: "We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings." The BBC has indicated in previous filings that it will submit a motion to dismiss the case by 17 March 2026. The latest order does not impact that forthcoming filing. That's a way away. Perhaps the midterms will have meant decisive action happens before then.

Lack of foresight and empathy, and how it's bleeding into policy decision making more and more.

I'm saying that rather shortly, there may well be not enough water for everyone, yes. And I think that's a probable enough threat to take very seriously. And yes, Mad Max is exactly where we end up when we take such basic resources for granted, no matter how complex the mechanics of civilisation are at any one time. I absolutely agree that proliferation and misuse of AI is one possible route by which we might end up there, too.

It surely would be, but at least the possibility exists, unlike much sharper matters of scarcity where the possibilities are almost universally bad. Time is likely the biggest "human created" resource there is (that's what money buys you, your own time to do things you want to do), I agree. There is still, however, a distinction to be drawn between something important but still constructed (like time) and an absolutely physical vital resource, like water. Scarcity of the former still allows our species something of an element of control, at least theoretically. Scarcity of the latter does not.

It won't be just about finding places in the world that are habitable, it will also be about massive critical shortages of potable water in places where it is critically needed. Without fresh and potable water, you have nothing on which any kind of civilisation can be built. Ironically, AI and data centres are causing consumption issues on that score as well already. Additionally, wrt recent discussion: This still applies imo.

Very, very hard on Afghanistan, that.

Well guys, I fear it might get a bit bad out there tonight.

All short track seems to be a wildly random demolition derby. I'm still annoyed that Elise Christie got unfair treatment from the judges for at least four of the six events she completed in over two Olympics.

The world that a single man managed to build remains unparalleled. Tolkien is the legend that wrote legends.

Think the only way that happens is if Trump leaves office early, for whatever reason. On the other side, I really do want to see Booker run for the Dems but he doesn't seem interested this time.

Again, I don't disagree. But it is a problem that needs to be worked on alongside transition to more renewable infrastructure. Or maybe get on with Gen III or IV fission. Or both.

"I've suffered, so life is suffering and everyone in the future must suffer too."

True, as is the case with any single point of failure in any engineered system. That doesn't mean such transitions aren't necessary to prevent far worse disasters than that.

Impressive. Remembrance of the ancient kings of Harad and even the black Numenoreans is a dying art.

WhatonearthhaveIstarted.gif

Yes, a real mystery, that.

I'm sure that both of us have been called worse during our time on here (I know I have), but for what little it might mean, once again, that was certainly not the intent.

Clearly the phrasing hit a nerve there. Not my intent and I apologise. That being said, I don't think it's controversial to say that it's a matter of record that any individual looks at the past and has a positive bias in some respects towards it, therefore it might not be the most reliable indicator. That's just human.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5gzepnw4lo US lawmakers say files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were improperly redacted ahead of their release by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Members of Congress on Monday were allowed to begin a review of the unredacted versions of the approximately three million pages of files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) since December. Surprised? Not really.

I'm sorry, let me clarify. My argument isn't that things have changed, it's that things have always been a low trust society because of that economic inequality and anecdotes looking fondly back at some imagined past are an exception rather than the rule. That's only a working hypothesis on my part, though, I can't prove it empirically.

Luthien is mentioned in the extended editions, but only in passing, sadly.

Good news. You would have thought the flooding happening now would make it very clear about what the future looks like if the UK and elsewhere don't change up the way they generate energy.

Was there ever a time when such high-trust societies existed? Disparity between the haves and have nots have always been a thing and led to the individualism you rightly mention is a problem, it's just these days everyone has more of voice to let other people know about it, IMO. I think folks should beware rose tinted specs. There's no doubt that's true as well. I would however posit that economic inequality is a bigger factor in that regard. Look at the division in the US in spite of a common language, for instance. Edit: it's a little darkly ironic, as well, when folks rightly bemoan the influence of individualism and then advocate for a political leader who embodies it. Not this particular post, but I have seen examples of it elsewhere.

I would have thought that a correlation between wealth disparity and lack of social cohesion, regardless of demographics, would be obvious, considering the many, many historical examples that demonstrate it.

No, and I think that answer is not only possible, but obvious. At least, it gives us the chance to end up with less dead, whereas that other option gives us zero chance of that.