A wilding

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Reading up about Mark Menzies’ history of drunken and erratic behaviour, I wonder what the Conservatives were thinking, by keeping him as an MP.  

I imagine he voted the way they told him to, without any fuss.

On 4/11/2024 at 8:18 PM, Toth said:

... so now I'm wondering whether I should pretend I am on good terms with her and talk normally to avoid the tense atmosphere at home to get worse. On the other hand, I just feel constantly miserable because I know my ideal self could talk to her about my sense of suffocation without making her go off... but then again, she has such a short fuse when she thinks I am acting to betray her that I absolutely can't risk it.

Just to let you know, that bit about your "ideal self" is nonsense. Your mother is controlling you by throwing a tantrum whenever you try to go against her wants. That is her, not you, and there is nothing you can do to stop her reacting like that. All you can do is chose how you respond to her tantrums (or leave).

You did not ask for advice, and I know you have heard it before, but any relationship where there is no open communication and one party has to walk on eggshells all the time so as to not trigger the anger of the other person is an abusive one. Frankly, your posts have given me new understanding of how someone in an abusive relationship has their sense of normal skewed by it and is reduced into constantly doubting themselves.

13 hours ago, Werthead said:

There was a BBC News radio report many years ago (I think close to ten years ago) and police and legal services seemed to pull a figure that they believed the number of false accusations in the case of rape, sexual assault and harassment was something like 1 in 16, or for every falsified case they had 15 genuine ones.

I have zero idea on what they were basing that on (definitely not convictions!), but that still seems to fall on the "generally believe the victim until evidence proves otherwise" side of things.

That would be the police and legal services that have a fair number of sexual offenders in their own ranks, that have been widely accused of often failing to take rape seriously, and that manage to obtain a conviction for about 1 - 3% of rapes reported to them.

The key issue is the ratios.

What is the proportion or women who have been raped or otherwise abused to men who have been falsely accused? What is the proportion of women who go in daily fear of rape or other abuse to men going in daily fear of being falsely accused? What is the proportion of women who every day take precautions to avoid rape or other abuse (hint, that is close to 100% of women) to men who every day take precautions against being falsely accused?

Personally I consider anyone who says those ratios are not wildly skewed are either ignorant young men or are arguing in bad faith. And this has to colour any discussion of false accusations.

Its an experience, and one that can be had only rarely.

I was at Lands End in Cornwall for the 1999 one. Even though it was cloudy it was quite something to have the world go dark. You understand why primitive societies were apocryphally terrified by them.

I seem to remember that in the very early days of D&D (my 2nd edition rulebooks are in the attic and I can't be bothered to get them out) a character had to take time out to level up after they had gained enough experience points. So it only happened at home base between adventures. This was a more "realistic" approach which avoided that problem. Though in those days characters tended to level up more slowly I think.

55 minutes ago, Zorral said:

To which I respond bullshyte.  I am anything but one of those "most attentive medieval historians."  I know a great deal about the Siege of Calais,

Me too, if only because of the Burghers of Calais story and the Rodin sculpture commemorating it.

16 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I can't comment on Dune Messiah, but just reading Dune alone, I did feel like he sought a path to avoid a huge war.  In a single battle, he decapitated the strength of the Emperor, Spicing Guild, and Bene Gesserit.  It wasn't a bloodless coup, but in terms of intergalactic suffering, it was fairly minor.  The idea that this was the path of least suffering available seemed credible. 

This.

I have always been convinced that was how the ending of Dune was originally intended to be read. The later sequels just retconned it so as to carry on the story. Part of the reason why I occasionally do reread Dune, but not the later books.

And the Russians knew all about it.

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Then you have stories like this where people are trying to get into Kate's medical records to see what is going on. It's driving a wave of hysteria!

Well the tabloids have form in waving large amounts of money around to try to get access to private medical records. If someone had managed to get the records and sell them then the tabloids would have had a story. They failed, so now the tabloids get a different story. Win - win for them.

10 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think its from some markets attached to the palace in some way? So given the lack of anyone reacting to them I assumed someone from the PR team was responsible for the video and TMZ doesn't care if it's actually them as it drives traffic either way.

The royals had nothing to do with the video. It was a film of some random couple by a random nutter who sent it to the tabloids. They used it to get a day of headlines about Kate being spotted and then another day of headlines pointing out it was not her after all.

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

If they know its not her they could release a statement to say so. 

But if they do that, they will be forced into a cycle of having to issue a statement every time the tabloids whip up a story out of nothing. Which will only encourage them. I can see their point of view in following the late Queen's approach of ignoring the tabloids whatever they say. It is just getting harder to do in these times of constant mad conspiracy theories fanned by the internet.

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Redwood trees in the UK!   I didn't know that.   

There are a couple within strolling distance of our house. You don't really notice them unless you look over the area from high ground, at which point they become obvious.

Been spending a few days mulling over the film and discussing it. It was a really impressive visual and auditory spectacle. Even the ridiculous speed of the worms worked. Some of the changes from the book also worked really well (Paul and Jessica being at odds, Chani as the voice of reason increasingly backing away from Paul). I could accept the junking of most of my favourite subplot of Feyd-Rautha vs the Baron (it might well turn up in an extended version anyway). There was a lot of good stuff. And yet we both walked out of the cinema disappointed.

I think it comes down to a general feeling that the last part of the film was weak, especially in plot. The Emperor was not so much weak as a nonentity. Apparently the Reverend Mother Mohiam wanted to wipe out the Atreides all along?! The Sardaukar were suddenly deemphasised (I think the only time they were named was when Paul said to kill the ones in the throne room). Paul's pre-battle planning over a hasty sketch map ("you attack from this side, you attack from that side") was silly, especially as the actual plan was to blast a hole in the shield wall to let the storm in and then shock the defenders by attacking on worms. Plus the use of the nukes needed to be better explained and justified, especially as they did obviously kill some Sardaukar. Paul's sudden threat to destroy the spice by using the nukes felt off, why did he even make it, especially knowing that the Great Houses were going to turn him down? Etc.

Final gripe. I really hate villains who randomly kill minions just to show us how evil they are. I might just about have accepted Rabban doing it, since he was portrayed as only borderline competent and with anger management issues, but not all the Harkonnens. The trope was subverted as long ago as The Empire Strikes Back for heaven's sake!

But I guess we will probably go and see part 3.

2 hours ago, williamjm said:

What's particularly rare about the Earth/Moon/Sun combination is that the Sun is approximately 400 times further away than the Moon and also about 400 times larger so the Sun and Moon appear to be about the same size from Earth so during a total eclipse the Moon will appear to neatly cover the Sun.

Yes, that is something that may well be pretty rare.

As I understand it, there has been quite a lot of discussion as to whether that has anything to do with Earth having life, or whether it is just a co-incidence.

9 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I do think it's slightly mad that we can even witness a total solar eclipse.

One of the few things I remember from school was the science teacher saying the conditions probably didn't exist anywhere else in the galaxy.

 

That was a very big assumption on their part. As yet we still have very little idea of the numbers and types of moons in the galaxy. Back then we were only guessing about extrasolar planets, let alone moons.

10 hours ago, Myrddin said:

Say so more. Just ordered it.

Well, hope you like it!

I have been reading Q by "Luther Blissett". (Luther Blissett is apparently actually a pseudonym for a group of Italian authors who co-wrote the book).

Nothing to do with QAnon thankfully, this is a rather odd fiction book, somewhat reminiscent of The Name of the Rose. The story takes place over several years and multiple locations in Reformation Europe. It drops you right into the period in an impressively detailed and immersive way. Nearly all of the characters are real people (often quite obscure ones) shown doing what they actually did in real life - for example a "history with dialogue" account of the Münster rebellion plays a significant part in the story.

As with Umberto Eco's books, there is also a good deal of philosophy included. Theological obviously, but also political, and a fair amount of what felt like some sort of Marxism (though I am not an expert).

Lastly, there is a central plot, involving a Protestant reformer character becoming gradually aware of the long running machinations of a Catholic spy (the titular "Q") but it is oddly low key and ends with something of an anticlimax, I assume deliberately so.

Worth reading for anyone interested in this period of history.

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

i have a small apple and pear tree which don't really flourish as under our topsoil is mainly clay, i was going to repot them into 60cm cube planters.  When is the best time of year to do this, its freezing at the minute so i assume 'not now'?

About now I think, and definitely before they start beginning to grow leaves. Just not while it is literally freezing. The trick is to preserve their root balls intact and to do the transfer with the soil still round them.

We have just transplanted a sapling ourselves that had self seeded in an entirely unsuitable place. We had expected it not to last, but after it had survived for several years and had reached almost 5 foot high reaching upwards for some light I felt it deserved a chance. We have moved it to a friend's field. and will see how it does there.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Do labour (all political parties actually) not vet their candidates? How utterly embarrassing. 

Yes, but politicians lie to get ahead. And when some big event comes out of left field it can then suddenly turn out that they also have principles and insist on declaring their previously concealed belief. Or possibly even newly formed belief.

I know of one situation where a local government candidate suddenly went anti-vaxxer over the Covid vaccinations during the pandemic. He was rapidly deselected, but that did not stop him making a big fuss and gifting other parties a stick to beat his party with.

This just about counts as history, as the author is nearly a generation older than me. Spider Woman by Lady Hale, the autobiography of the judge who shortly before her retirement became briefly famous. As President of the UK Supreme Court she got to read out their unanimous verdict that then PM Boris Johnson's unilateral suspension of the UK Parliament was illegal and null and void.

I met a fair few people of her type over the years and it was interesting to get more insight. The very first generation of UK women able to forge themselves a career (her 8 years older sister had to put up with being a secretary). A brainy village grammar school kid (the only one from her school to pass the 11+ in her year) who by careful planning and lots of hard work got into Cambridge and made good, in her case very much so. The very essence of a "girly swot", as she herself points out. I was struck by how much she was the polar opposite of Boris Johnson. A serious work ethic, a mind that clearly delights in problem solving, a wish to do what she could to improve the world, and the desire to give something back.

And I am prepared to believe her protestation that her wearing that spider brooch (£12 from a high street store apparently) was a complete coincidence, and that she had never heard of the Boris the Spider song. Though one thing I had not known was that, because of the Daily Mail headline calling named and pictured judges "enemies of the people", the judges and their families got protection after she read out their verdict. Thankfully unneeded.

2 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

This means you can integrate an LLM into your workflow, but someone is going to have to go through the output with a fine toothcomb. But that's a fundamentally different job that coming up with text of your own, so you're left with a major component of your workflow that you cannot trust.

And the further problem with this is the same as with the 99% reliable driverless cars with a driver responsible for handling the 1% of cases where the AI gets it wrong.

Someone whose job is to check the AI is going to be less motivated and less skilled than someone who does the job from scratch. There will be the ever present temptation to just nod stuff though.

On top of that, the management team is going to view the role as an overhead to be done as cheaply as possible and to be done away with entirely as soon as there is any excuse to. The usual scenario of looking good by reducing costs and making sure you have moved on before the impact is felt.

For primary sources, try The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Garrard. He was a wealthy amateur who got himself onto Scott's last expedition, proved his worth on it, but was so broken he never did much afterwards. Amongst other things he found Scott's body.

So they have started a police investigation into the Post Office scandal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67899189

About time. Though I am sure that only an underling or two are ever going to end up in the dock.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Two things can be true at once. The joke is disgusting and not funny, but it was also made in a place that seemed safe to take a risk. I do worry a bit about how this in the future further controls how we speak. There's a reason why good comedians don't like performing at colleges anymore for the most part. 

But that is the point. We have a culture of all too frequent abusive behaviour by our politicians (not to mention within other powerful UK organisations). It has been also well argued that there is a very widespread attitude amongst them that abuse is not something to take seriously, and that this contributes to a minority thinking that their abusive behaviour is acceptable or, at the very least, something that they can get away with doing.

In the light of this it is telling that the Home Secretary felt able, in a large semi official gathering, to joke about using a date rape drug. And that he did so on the very day that his government had launched one of their "initiatives" to address drink spiking!

In my personal opinion, this is absolutely news, for all the pearl clutching about politicians needing safe spaces to let their hair down off the record.

I was also musing about the repeated use of the phrase "in private" above.

To me "in private" means something like "at home with your family" or "having a meal with a few friends". It does not mean "at a large tax payer funded event in a government building".