leicsmac

It's really rather unfortunate that the future of our species (and many others) and our civilisation is being somehow viewed as a political football. I would have thought that mass death and suffering was something everyone wanted to avoid. Edit: It's also unfortunate that future is apparently being held to ransom not only by self-interested scientifically illiterate liars (or more scientifically literate sociopaths who don't care about the damage they cause), but also a minority of our species, if the poll here and other polling data is to be believed.

True. As mentioned before, the only rather cold comfort I can offer is that attitude ends only one way - with everyone losing, including the power mongering sociopaths that people like Trump embody. There's no way that they "win" - not for any length of time anyway.

And because the whole system of realpolitik is stupid, reductive and destructive.

Taking this as rote for a minute, Burnham must be considering a move.

I think there's a certain frustration that this team puts itself in a position to win matches against the toughest of opponents with that mentality... but then with the same mentality, throws away such opportunities just as easily. But what's important is that mentality is what allows this team to compete with those toughest of opponents in the first place, because barring Root, Stokes and Brook, England don't have any truly world class players in the way other great teams have.

You have to chalk it up as one shit day that's cost one match out of five, and move on. Dwelling on it just makes losing a self fulfilling prophecy. Edit: speaking regarding the team here. The fans, of course, can and will be as negative as they want to be, and it's understandable given how this day has gone.

I really hope the England team don't share the rather fatalistic mentality of some of the contributors here.

Either way, it's reactionary. But then you get that with a lot of sport. Nature of the beast.

Yes, I do, because the previous England team was losing to everyone, India and Oz included. The change in results against other teams than those two is obvious. I guess it depends whether one thinks those are the only opposition that matters. And, of course, when this team play India or Oz (both of whom are powerhouses at home) then this question is going to keep coming up. That England haven't won a home series against India or Oz for a while now is a point of concern, that's true. Don't get me wrong - this team frustrates the hell out of me sometimes with the missed opportunities, like today. But I'll take the confidence they have every day over the timid, nice lot that came before them who were actually worse in terms of results anyway.

It would be foolish, yes. The only difference between these two teams in this Test has been one batting innings in 30-odd that actually managed to mature. England have shown they can compete, they haven't been outclassed, now they need to... well, stop being shit at the crease long enough to make that count.

I think taking away that self belief in the name of adjusting temperament is a pretty dangerous road to go down. These players win matches they should have lost - and get back b into series they should have lost - because they back themselves. Unfortunately, the opposite also occurs. I guess the question is about finding a balance somewhere, but who knows where that is?

Think it was that and the simple assumption that it was going to, considering how Trump has interacted with ideologically opposed people (or simply anyone who disagrees with him) in the past. Think it's probably a good thing that Mamdani was able to stem his vitriol, shows that he has the mentality as well as the ground support to hold a high level office.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0qpqkyp948t Trump actually chats with Mamdani in person. Didn't go as expected, shall we say.

Well, score only 330 odd across 2 innings in a Test in Oz and you'll find that difficult to defend no matter how well you bowl. One thing that has become obvious is that this one has been decided on one good performance in one innings, so the rest of the series is far from a foregone conclusion. May I ask why? Speaking personally, I'm OK with them actually having a bit of ego rather than the team that won one Test in 17 before them.

If I was going to do that I'd have to pull an all nighter instead, too old for stop starts these days

That's entirely possible given what's happened so far. Question is, what target would England feel comfortable defending here? I would say 250 is about the 50/50 point and 300 should be easily defendable given the situation.

That's a fair point too.

They do use a mechanic of it in Civ VI, it's just applied differently, I think.

Not really much of one in SK either, because in both places they got a grasp of the thing from the start and so it was not necessary, thankfully. Edit: for the flip side of the coin when it comes to the thing running riot and no lockdown, see Brazil.

Not since 2018, by order of the Supreme Court there, but fair point.

Just outside the top 40 in terms of deaths per capita (the UK being around 20th, Japan and South Korea both outside the top 100 for a reference point). Whether one thinks that's doing well is a matter for the beholder, I reckon.

Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but given such a pandemic can happen anywhere at any time, perhaps other places should have looked at that and at least had a better idea of what to do, rather than just the ones like SK with direct experience of it. The next such incident might not be quite so forgiving of a lack of experience.

What a day.

Very few. But those few proved that it could be done, and the current inquiry might use that as a point.

People said that at the time, too. I presume they didn't see what happened in the streets to get rid of both Park and Yoon? Korea does civil disobedience and refusal of authority much better than the UK, because they pick the right battles. It's something of an insult to how far they've come as a nation to consider them close to authoritarian now.