General News

[Parafox]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sadly I can offer no compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

Another example of the difference between what should be, and what is.

 

Isn't that true of all our combined world history?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Isn't that true of all our combined world history?

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":

 

 

[The Doctor]

47 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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":

 

 

unsurprising they'd push that but don't expect it to stop there. Overturning obergefell would stop new marriages, there's still a decade of existing marriages (and the associated legal benefits, e.g. coverage where insurance allows you to add a spouse, right to inherit your partners estate if they pass) that they'll be gunning for as well. Chuck in the demanded complete halt on applications to change gender markers on passports and that ridiculous two genders executive order that tried to sneak in foetal personhood (and that's a ****ing terrifying concept, once you get to foetal personhood literally any activity which potentially increases miscarriage risk, even something as simple as having a morning coffee, can be considered reckless endangerment by a sufficiently motivated government) which made everyone technically a woman and it's clear that LGBT rights are massively under threat under Trump's government.

 

And yet you've got Dems saying it's a distraction, it's not. they're not doing all this to distract from the inevitable skyrocketing of prices (when farmers can't use undocumented labour and have to hire Americans at triple the cost because of legal minimum wage, that's not being eaten by farmers or grocery stores, it's getting passed on), they're doing it because they believe in the whole nuclear family (husband, wife, 2.5 children) and want to control everyone into that structure

 

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

From a geopolitical perspective I find this DeepSeek very funny and very telling. Western countries invest a crap load of money into a product only for China to efficiently smash it out the park for about a millionth of the price. 

It was about 1/100th of the price I think, although the main point as I understand it being they found a much more efficient way for the algorithm to find the answer, therefore the whole calculation for the processing chip demand that underpinned NVIDIA share price was wrong, which the markets seem to have worked out this week.  I am not going to look at my pension this week, as it has a decent chunk in big tech.

[ozleicester]

12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

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.

 

"...Faulty eyewitness testimony has been implicated in at least 75% of DNA exoneration cases—more than any other cause (Garrett, 2011)..."

 

 

https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases#:~:text=These include poor vision or,than one's own (Bornstein%2C Deffenbacher

[leicsmac]

@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.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, The Doctor said:

unsurprising they'd push that but don't expect it to stop there. Overturning obergefell would stop new marriages, there's still a decade of existing marriages (and the associated legal benefits, e.g. coverage where insurance allows you to add a spouse, right to inherit your partners estate if they pass) that they'll be gunning for as well. Chuck in the demanded complete halt on applications to change gender markers on passports and that ridiculous two genders executive order that tried to sneak in foetal personhood (and that's a ****ing terrifying concept, once you get to foetal personhood literally any activity which potentially increases miscarriage risk, even something as simple as having a morning coffee, can be considered reckless endangerment by a sufficiently motivated government) which made everyone technically a woman and it's clear that LGBT rights are massively under threat under Trump's government.

 

And yet you've got Dems saying it's a distraction, it's not. they're not doing all this to distract from the inevitable skyrocketing of prices (when farmers can't use undocumented labour and have to hire Americans at triple the cost because of legal minimum wage, that's not being eaten by farmers or grocery stores, it's getting passed on), they're doing it because they believe in the whole nuclear family (husband, wife, 2.5 children) and want to control everyone into that structure

 

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.

 

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

 

"...Faulty eyewitness testimony has been implicated in at least 75% of DNA exoneration cases—more than any other cause (Garrett, 2011)..."

 

 

https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases#:~:text=These include poor vision or,than one's own (Bornstein%2C Deffenbacher

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.

[SpacedX]

15 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The Mount Denali thing boils my blood. A nice, simple gesture undone by a moron.

Trump is a huge admirer of William McKinley and pledges the deliver the second 'gilded age' - the protectionist and imperialist model which will be extolled by his return to office. As an anti-establishment figure and promoter of Native American displacement he also appears to be Trump's role model. History tells us that "The Gilded Age" was actually a fake golden age, with the shine hiding the misery. It was a time of immense fortunes and the growth of industrial empires, but accompanied by widespread political corruption, violent social strife, segregation in the South and a subservient press. 

 

Karl Marx is often credited with saying, “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”. Indeed. 

[Sampson]

Looks like Trump pulling foreign aid includes Ukraine according to latest bbc. But “the president of peace” definitely isn’t just about giving Putin all he wants.

Edited 29 January by Sampson

[urban.spaceman]

Just caught up with PMQs. I'm so grateful they chose Badenoch over Jenprick. She's a ****ing humiliation. 

[leicsmac]

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.

Edited 29 January by leicsmac

[Sampson]

One thing I’ve been thinking about with Trump is that the geopolitical world clearly isn’t in the same place it was 20 years ago under George Bush when America was the undisputed world super power and were the poster child of “the west” (which included western and Central Europe).

 

It really feels like we have 4 distinct geopolitical world powers again now in the US, the EU, Russia and China. Russia and China have more in common with each other and some sort of vague alience but disagree on a lot too to the point they feel always a moment away from falling out. And now it feels the same with the US and EU.
 

I think this stuff with Greenland I don’t think we’ve seen really in dividing the West since the WW2, maybe the Suez crisis but this feels a lot more like one western country flat out gunning for another rather than trying to put their foot down for going rogue.

[jgtuk]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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.

Nah, the blokes a charlatan, always has been. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

Nah, the blokes a charlatan, always has been. 

Tim Burgess?

[izzymuzzet]

24 minutes ago, Sampson said:

One thing I’ve been thinking about with Trump is that the geopolitical world clearly isn’t in the same place it was 20 years ago under George Bush when America was the undisputed world super power and were the poster child of “the west” (which included western and Central Europe).

 

It really feels like we have 4 distinct geopolitical world powers again now in the US, the EU, Russia and China. Russia and China have more in common with each other and some sort of vague alience but disagree on a lot too to the point they feel always a moment away from falling out. And now it feels the same with the US and EU.
 

I think this stuff with Greenland I don’t think we’ve seen really in dividing the West since the WW2, maybe the Suez crisis but this feels a lot more like one western country flat out gunning for another rather than trying to put their foot down for going rogue.

If you take a longer view of history we might one day look back on the Cold War era as an anomaly in relations between the US and Europe.

 

From the mid 1800s until WW1 the American story was one of territorial expansion and, eventually economic domination. The US expanded southwards, westwards and into the Pacific. At the same time they expressed opposition to European colonialism in the Western hemisphere, which prompted the European powers to embark on imperialist expansion into Africa and Asia.

 

They were dragged into WW1 late and during the 1920s US politics was torn between increased isolationism and propping up ailing European economies. The Wall Street Crash essentially made their choice for them and they withdrew until Pearl Harbour.

 

1945-1991 Europe was considered a key battleground in the Cold War against the Soviets, with a huge amount of economic and military resources poured into the region.

 

Over the last 30 years or so we've seen the gradual decline in US interest in Europe and over the last decade an economic bifurcation as the US economy steams ahead while Europe (including the UK) stutters.

 

Put in this context Trump appears not as an aberration but as a continuation of an earlier US approach to international relations, combining elements of early 20th century isolationism with the territorial ambitions (e.g. Greenland) of the 19th century.

[jgtuk]

16 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Tim Burgess?

Him too

 

(actually really like Tim)

Edited 29 January by jgtuk

[fox_up_north]

41 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

If you take a longer view of history we might one day look back on the Cold War era as an anomaly in relations between the US and Europe.

 

From the mid 1800s until WW1 the American story was one of territorial expansion and, eventually economic domination. The US expanded southwards, westwards and into the Pacific. At the same time they expressed opposition to European colonialism in the Western hemisphere, which prompted the European powers to embark on imperialist expansion into Africa and Asia.

 

They were dragged into WW1 late and during the 1920s US politics was torn between increased isolationism and propping up ailing European economies. The Wall Street Crash essentially made their choice for them and they withdrew until Pearl Harbour.

 

1945-1991 Europe was considered a key battleground in the Cold War against the Soviets, with a huge amount of economic and military resources poured into the region.

 

Over the last 30 years or so we've seen the gradual decline in US interest in Europe and over the last decade an economic bifurcation as the US economy steams ahead while Europe (including the UK) stutters.

 

Put in this context Trump appears not as an aberration but as a continuation of an earlier US approach to international relations, combining elements of early 20th century isolationism with the territorial ambitions (e.g. Greenland) of the 19th century.

As a former history teacher, take a bow

[Zear0]

RFK Jr. hearing is hilarious.  Utter utter chaos.

[Sampson]

American politics is so weird. All these people chanting with signs and politics with signs for RFK becoming health secretary.

 

Imagine millions of people going crazy like a football crowd with placards and cheering on Matt Hancock or Wes Streeting being made health minister in the UK.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, izzymuzzet said:

If you take a longer view of history we might one day look back on the Cold War era as an anomaly in relations between the US and Europe.

 

From the mid 1800s until WW1 the American story was one of territorial expansion and, eventually economic domination. The US expanded southwards, westwards and into the Pacific. At the same time they expressed opposition to European colonialism in the Western hemisphere, which prompted the European powers to embark on imperialist expansion into Africa and Asia.

 

They were dragged into WW1 late and during the 1920s US politics was torn between increased isolationism and propping up ailing European economies. The Wall Street Crash essentially made their choice for them and they withdrew until Pearl Harbour.

 

1945-1991 Europe was considered a key battleground in the Cold War against the Soviets, with a huge amount of economic and military resources poured into the region.

 

Over the last 30 years or so we've seen the gradual decline in US interest in Europe and over the last decade an economic bifurcation as the US economy steams ahead while Europe (including the UK) stutters.

 

Put in this context Trump appears not as an aberration but as a continuation of an earlier US approach to international relations, combining elements of early 20th century isolationism with the territorial ambitions (e.g. Greenland) of the 19th century.

Thanks for this. Better knowledge than me.

 

i saw someone on bbc the other day refer to Europe (by which they meant non-Russia/Belarus/Turkey Europe) as currently being Jim Carrey realising he’s in the Truman Show with regards to US ally-ship. I thought it was a fun comparison.
 

I don’t think we still realise just how profound an effect the Russian-Ukraine war has had on turning geopolitics upside down in the west the past 3 years or so. It feels like Europe has only very recently woken up to realising that America actually doesn’t have its back as much as we assumed.

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Tim Burgess?

The only one I know.

[leicsmac]

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.

[worthosoriginals]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

RFK Jr. hearing is hilarious.  Utter utter chaos.

Do you understand what he says? It's like listening  to Stanley unwin.

[Trav Le Bleu]

It was interesting to see the new White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt (sounds more like a command than a name) on her first outing was wearing a large crucifix front and centre.

 

In God they trust.

 

Also, Caroline with a K 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

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.

The one thing that people with loads of money want is more money. Because more than you could spend is never enough.