General News Thread

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

When I was deciding what to do at 18 there were no jobs about so I chose IT. 
it must be very scary for a teenager now to be thinking about what they’re going to do with a view to work 

 

I think the only sphere of work that can't be taken over by AI is those that need physical skill such as the skilled trades we already have, builders, plumbers, sparkys etc. (Paramedics )

 

They will always be in demand. 

 

 

[MaidstoneFox]

50 minutes ago, Parafox said:

I think the only sphere of work that can't be taken over by AI is those that need physical skill such as the skilled trades we already have, builders, plumbers, sparkys etc. (Paramedics )

 

They will always be in demand. 

 

 

My 15 year old has just told me he wants to be a firefighter, so that should be ok. In fact there will probably be more fires to put out due to rioting and people setting ablaze to robots.

[danny.]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

I think the only sphere of work that can't be taken over by AI is those that need physical skill such as the skilled trades we already have, builders, plumbers, sparkys etc. (Paramedics )

 

They will always be in demand. 

 

 

Just remember to factor in a significant adjustment for demand reduced by mass unemployment of white collar workers and increased supply as those workers move over to those industries. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 hours ago, bovril said:

And in the interests of fairness I had to do me:

 

Very active across the forum, regularly contributing to General Chat, General Football & Sport, and Leicester City Forum threads.
Known for quick, conversational replies—often humorous, personal, or observational.
Frequently engages in large community threads such as:

“I’ve got something to say…”
General News Thread
Best Loanee We’ve Ever Had

When are you returning to your home forum?

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

Just remember to factor in a significant adjustment for demand reduced by mass unemployment of white collar workers and increased supply as those workers move over to those industries. 

It'll be an interesting shift. 

At the moment I'm my specific industry there's more of a call to use AI effectively as a tool with a industry specialist using that tool to support their work. 

It has huge potential for what we could do with it but also at this point needs a lot of prompting and somebody to sift wheat from chaff in results. Clearly it'll only get better.

It could take out lots of admin jobs very quickly, will it open up other opportunities as it fills existing roles? 

[Sampson]

7 hours ago, danny. said:

Just remember to factor in a significant adjustment for demand reduced by mass unemployment of white collar workers and increased supply as those workers move over to those industries. 

Plus if it’s a smaller job people will just ask chatbots how to do things if they don’t have the extra income  

[Tommy G]

5 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

It'll be an interesting shift. 

At the moment I'm my specific industry there's more of a call to use AI effectively as a tool with a industry specialist using that tool to support their work. 

It has huge potential for what we could do with it but also at this point needs a lot of prompting and somebody to sift wheat from chaff in results. Clearly it'll only get better.

It could take out lots of admin jobs very quickly, will it open up other opportunities as it fills existing roles? 

You’ll be fine won’t you? You’re the country leading expert in your field of work from memory?

 

Couldn't resist 

[Voll Blau]

22 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Agreed. Some people want to change government's or PM quicker than football managers. Absolutely potty.

 

22 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Short term self interest and instant gratification seem to be becoming more and more hardwired into people, even when such solutions are neither possible nor actually desirable long term. 

 

Not a great state of affairs. 

 

It's been this way since Brexit, let's be honest. There's a craving for constant political drama in a way that there wasn't before. Throw in the catalyst of the pandemic and that's where we are - and an entire generation of political journalists think that's normal now.

Edited 18 February by Voll Blau

[Sampson]

The biggest thing for me is that it’s gone under the radar just how much the big tech companies have cornered the world economy since Covid. It’s massively unprecedented that companies have gotten this big this quickly. The growth of Nvidia and OpenAI the past 3 or 4 years has also been world shatteringly bonkers. It used to be 10 years ago that all these Middle Eastern oil companies were the biggest but they’ve been completely left in the dust by the tech companies since Covid.

 

The Apple Corporation (the worlds most valuable company) is now richer than the country of the United Kingdom as of a couple of years ago (and that gap is only widening and the “magnificent 7” tech companies will all become richer than the UK within a couple of years) and while Bill Gates’ argument was always that companies won’t become more powerful than nations because they don’t have an army - I’m not sure that’s the case given they can control the flow of information and I’m not sure they won’t all have armies in a couple of decades anyway.

 

The only institutions currently big enough to stand up to these corporations are the US, China and the EU - the US is now completely in bed with them because Trump will let them allegedly do what they like as long as he gets his share. China just bans them which an approach I’m starting to sympathise with. The EU actually tries to stand up to them with regulations, huge fines and penalties and Musk and the likes respond by promoting far right parties and endlessly trying to divide Europe. 
 

I’ve always been a liberal not a socialist who always broadly believed in the freedom the market brings, but I’m definitely rethinking that a lot now - a lot of the predictions the old left used to make about the market eventually leading to corporations usurping countries as the ultimate form of governance and rule making don’t really feel so pie in the sky to me anymore. 
 

AI is only going to accelerate this stuff and give these company more power. I’m starting to think the UK government is kind of powerless now in how it controls stuff like unemployment. We can’t really stand up to these corporations anymore as a national state.

 

But I feel like I’m becoming conspiratorial and tin hatty just writing this stuff, but I’m genuinely starting to believe it 

[CornwallFox]

39 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The biggest thing for me is that it’s gone under the radar just how much the big tech companies have cornered the world economy since Covid. It’s massively unprecedented that companies have gotten this big this quickly. The growth of Nvidia and OpenAI the past 3 or 4 years has also been world shatteringly bonkers. It used to be 10 years ago that all these Middle Eastern oil companies were the biggest but they’ve been completely left in the dust by the tech companies since Covid.

 

The Apple Corporation (the worlds most valuable company) is now richer than the country of the United Kingdom as of a couple of years ago (and that gap is only widening and the “magnificent 7” tech companies will all become richer than the UK within a couple of years) and while Bill Gates’ argument was always that companies won’t become more powerful than nations because they don’t have an army - I’m not sure that’s the case given they can control the flow of information and I’m not sure they won’t all have armies in a couple of decades anyway.

 

The only institutions currently big enough to stand up to these corporations are the US, China and the EU - the US is now completely in bed with them because Trump will let them allegedly do what they like as long as he gets his share. China just bans them which an approach I’m starting to sympathise with. The EU actually tries to stand up to them with regulations, huge fines and penalties and Musk and the likes respond by promoting far right parties and endlessly trying to divide Europe. 
 

I’ve always been a liberal not a socialist who always broadly believed in the freedom the market brings, but I’m definitely rethinking that a lot now - a lot of the predictions the old left used to make about the market eventually leading to corporations usurping countries as the ultimate form of governance and rule making don’t really feel so pie in the sky to me anymore. 
 

AI is only going to accelerate this stuff and give these company more power. I’m starting to think the UK government is kind of powerless now in how it controls stuff like unemployment. We can’t really stand up to these corporations anymore as a national state.

 

But I feel like I’m becoming conspiratorial and tin hatty just writing this stuff, but I’m genuinely starting to believe it 

I think take the socialism out of the equation and it's very clear that capitalism has utterly failed ordinary people. We have huge wealth gathering amongst tiny numbers of people - on course to be trillionaires - while even working full time doesn't lead to people having even 25% of the life it used to give. Work no longer pays for many people who end up subsidised by the benefit system while CEO pay and shareholder dividends skyrocket. 

 

Even if you can't stomach socialism as an alternative, can we at least agree that something else is needed? 

[danny.]

8 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

It'll be an interesting shift. 

At the moment I'm my specific industry there's more of a call to use AI effectively as a tool with a industry specialist using that tool to support their work. 

It has huge potential for what we could do with it but also at this point needs a lot of prompting and somebody to sift wheat from chaff in results. Clearly it'll only get better.

It could take out lots of admin jobs very quickly, will it open up other opportunities as it fills existing roles? 

Doesn’t seem so. It’s not a parallel to the Industrial Revolution despite suggestions of that in the recent past. It was claimed that it would open up new types of job but in reality those jobs are already being done by AI too. 
 

You will still need people to prompt and check, but you could probably let 80% of people go and keep 20% to fulfil that role. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

The biggest thing for me is that it’s gone under the radar just how much the big tech companies have cornered the world economy since Covid. It’s massively unprecedented that companies have gotten this big this quickly. The growth of Nvidia and OpenAI the past 3 or 4 years has also been world shatteringly bonkers. It used to be 10 years ago that all these Middle Eastern oil companies were the biggest but they’ve been completely left in the dust by the tech companies since Covid.

 

The Apple Corporation (the worlds most valuable company) is now richer than the country of the United Kingdom as of a couple of years ago (and that gap is only widening and the “magnificent 7” tech companies will all become richer than the UK within a couple of years) and while Bill Gates’ argument was always that companies won’t become more powerful than nations because they don’t have an army - I’m not sure that’s the case given they can control the flow of information and I’m not sure they won’t all have armies in a couple of decades anyway.

 

The only institutions currently big enough to stand up to these corporations are the US, China and the EU - the US is now completely in bed with them because Trump will let them allegedly do what they like as long as he gets his share. China just bans them which an approach I’m starting to sympathise with. The EU actually tries to stand up to them with regulations, huge fines and penalties and Musk and the likes respond by promoting far right parties and endlessly trying to divide Europe. 
 

I’ve always been a liberal not a socialist who always broadly believed in the freedom the market brings, but I’m definitely rethinking that a lot now - a lot of the predictions the old left used to make about the market eventually leading to corporations usurping countries as the ultimate form of governance and rule making don’t really feel so pie in the sky to me anymore. 
 

AI is only going to accelerate this stuff and give these company more power. I’m starting to think the UK government is kind of powerless now in how it controls stuff like unemployment. We can’t really stand up to these corporations anymore as a national state.

 

But I feel like I’m becoming conspiratorial and tin hatty just writing this stuff, but I’m genuinely starting to believe it 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

At the time a lot of people laughed at just how ridiculous a Bond villain Elliot Carver appeared to be. 

 

Not sure how many people are laughing now. 

[Sampson]

49 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Need to rewatch this one. Actually saw Goldeneye just before Christmas again and some of it is cheesy as hell now but I’d be interested in rewatching TND. A lot of its ideas feel more relevant today than they did in the 90s.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

Bill Gates’ argument was always that companies won’t become more powerful than nations because they don’t have an army - I’m not sure that’s the case given they can control the flow of information and I’m not sure they won’t all have armies in a couple of decades anyway

 

 

 

[orangecity23]

Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies are peak Brosnan bond. Love those 2 films. 

[CornwallFox]

To give you an idea how much better public administration is under labour, some public sector staff pay rises for 2026/27 have already been confirmed. Under the Tories pay rises due from April were often not finalised until the November after. Suddenly processes are working as intended.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze0dk3yd5eo

 

US late-night host Stephen Colbert has accused his network of refusing to broadcast an interview with a Democratic politician over fears of retaliation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

CBS, the network which hosts the programme, denies that it "prohibited" the interview from being aired, saying it gave only "legal guidance".

On Monday night's show, Colbert said that CBS would not show his interview with Texas lawmaker James Talarico out of concerns about a response from the FCC, which has new guidance on equal airtime for political candidates.

 

That much-vaunted "freedom of expression" is only for me and not for thee, then?

[bovril]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze0dk3yd5eo

 

US late-night host Stephen Colbert has accused his network of refusing to broadcast an interview with a Democratic politician over fears of retaliation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

CBS, the network which hosts the programme, denies that it "prohibited" the interview from being aired, saying it gave only "legal guidance".

On Monday night's show, Colbert said that CBS would not show his interview with Texas lawmaker James Talarico out of concerns about a response from the FCC, which has new guidance on equal airtime for political candidates.

 

That much-vaunted "freedom of expression" is only for me and not for thee, then?

All the stuff from Americans about suppression of free speech in Europe is projection

[danny.]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze0dk3yd5eo

 

US late-night host Stephen Colbert has accused his network of refusing to broadcast an interview with a Democratic politician over fears of retaliation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

CBS, the network which hosts the programme, denies that it "prohibited" the interview from being aired, saying it gave only "legal guidance".

On Monday night's show, Colbert said that CBS would not show his interview with Texas lawmaker James Talarico out of concerns about a response from the FCC, which has new guidance on equal airtime for political candidates.

 

That much-vaunted "freedom of expression" is only for me and not for thee, then?

It added in a statement: "The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates... and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, bovril said:

All the stuff from Americans about suppression of free speech in Europe is projection

Yes, they're very good at projection. 

 

5 minutes ago, danny. said:

It added in a statement: "The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates... and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.

A rule that has only been applied now, it would seem. 

 

News content has traditionally been exempted from the "equal time" rule.

But the FCC has said the rule may soon apply to late-night programmes like Colbert's. It may also apply to political radio programmes, which tend to have more conservative hosts and listeners.

After issuing the new guidance in January, Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman known for taking an expansive view of his power, said on X that "for years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late-night & daytime talk shows qualify as 'bona fide news' programmes - even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes.

"Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities."

US President Donald Trump has at times said he is considering pulling the FCC licence for several US networks that he says have aired views critical of his presidency. 

 

Let's not pretend what is happening here is in any way even handed.  

[danny.]

Late night shows aren't news though? They're entertainment shows.

[leicsmac]

Just now, danny. said:

Late night shows aren't news though? They're entertainment shows.

A distinction that has appeared unimportant until now.

 

And then the critical question becomes exactly why that is.

[danny.]

Inconsistency isn't good. I'd want to know why it *wasn't* applied before though as much as why it's only being applied now. It seems like a sensible political guardrail that should always be enforced if that is the law.

[The Bear]