And there's one of the dangers of trusting "AI".axel_knutt wrote: ↑18 Feb 2025, 12:13pm Culturally? There’s a mix of views—some appreciate reduced migration, while others feel less connected to Europe.
Excellentpwa wrote: ↑18 Feb 2025, 8:30am Apparently Monmouthshire's review of 20mph roads has concluded that none will be returned to 30!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czepe606gn6o
Sorry, I was making a general point, not intended to be aimed at you. Apologies.Nearholmer wrote: ↑18 Feb 2025, 10:03am I never thought it was intelligent.
It sure as heck is biased though, even if only biased by the bias inherent in the source material it is crawling through.
Chat GPT is not intelligent. It's summarising what is written on the web.Nearholmer wrote: ↑18 Feb 2025, 9:46am It’s always the same set of questions about whether these bots are unconsciously biased to be white, western, middle-class, heterosexual, and male.
Insurance for the young is insane.[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 9:19amSold our second car about 16 years ago, though are considering replacing it at the moment. If nothing else then for MiniBob to learn to drive later this year (my motability insurance won't take anyone under 25 on my current car).
Just need to figure out what we actually want in a second car, and what EVs are on sensibly low insurance groups (at least for TPFT).
Their MO all along has been to loudly accuse their opponents of whatever malfeasance they're actually engaged in themselves.PDQ Mobile wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 6:17pm I must be in a parallel universe!
I thought Trump and Musk and the rest were really keen on "free speech".
Did Vance not just mention it in Germany?
Now it seems they are censoring children's books!
Selected free speech then.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/ ... nistration
Oil and gas are sold in a global market. Even if there were extra supply from UK fracking and even if it was possible quickly (both highly unlikely) it would make no signify difference to global supply.
Well, you're now changing your argument yet again.Carlton green wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 3:16pm I’m not at all certain that Putin actually has a working nuclear arsenal that he could use, but sabre rattling can be effective. For him it’s a highly considered and exceedingly strategic game of misinformation, bluff and brinkmanship.
Not sure why you think that. Back in the day most energy used in manufacturing came from coal, and transport (unless by air) may not be a significant proportion of the total.Mtb tourer wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 1:46pm Did the Roman not invent concrete 2000 years ago? You are correct about the bike.Everything that's made or transported has a co2 footprint. 50 years ago a bike had a lower Co2 footprint but in today's world most of our cycling stuff is made where it's cheaper to manufacture. We live in a world where if it's not made at a competitive price your product will not sell. Just look at the decline of the British cycle industry and we caused it by not supporting UK manufacturers as the price was higher or quality lower.
Thanks.UpWrong wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 1:13pm"Gas field discovery 'very exciting', MP says"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74mpylzmpeo
Fracking will not be quick. Even if we went ahead with it, I'd be amazed if quicker than renewables.UpWrong wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 12:55pmIsn't that an out of date report after the recent large shale gas find in Lincolnshire? I think renewables (with battery storage) + nuclear is the longer term solution, but we need something relatively quickly. Whatever, we need cheaper energy and we need it now, so I'm afraid the environment may be the price in the short term. But if there are other ways, then great.roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 12:32pm Fracking has limited potential in the UK, and merely further extends our fossil fuel dependency.
If avoiding gas import is your objective, renewables are a much better choice.
See for instance https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute ... -in-the-uk
Fracking has limited potential in the UK, and merely further extends our fossil fuel dependency.UpWrong wrote: ↑17 Feb 2025, 12:26pm It's all very concerning, but my response would be:
1) Increase income tax
2) Use the revenue to increase defence spending to maybe 4%
3) Boost our economy by allowing fracking. This will provide our indusry with cheaper energy to aid manufacturing.
I'v heard both left and right-wing economists advise spending more money on defence to boost our economy. Whilst I am very concerned about the environment, the truth is that what the UK does at the moment won't matter a hoot given all the emissions by USA and China, and I can't see the logic in importing gas (and providing revenue to Putin either directly or indirectly) when we have it under the ground here.
If that is Putin's mindset, you need to explain why Putin hasn't used nuclear weapons given the series of humiliating defeats his army and Navy have suffered at the hands of Ukraine.Carlton green wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 11:06pmYou also have to factor in the cost of syphoning off sufficient to pay for the palaces of Putin and cronies grin the Russian defence budget though.
You think people actually get paid? If they do it won’t be much but they might be granted some favour or allowed to live.
Putin mindset: Whether it’s true and possible or not I will tell the West that I have nuclear weapons and am prepared to use them.
The West’s mindset: We must not provoke Putin or he will let off a Nuclear Bomb in Ukraine which will kill some people and cause other damage.
The West’s mindset set: we are vastly superior to Putin in Nuclear strength but should never actually use the deterrent because it will kill some people and cause other damage.
Putin’s mindset: So what if a bomb lands here. My Russia is (geographically) massive, we’ve plenty of people and the people will do as I say. I know that the West haven’t the character to cope with a retaliatory Nuclear hit on their soil, their populations will rise up against their leaders and the civil disobedience will be massive.
Ficticious in the sense that these things in particular, and British success in general is the result of saying 'stuff you, we'll do it our own way' as you claim.cycle tramp wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 10:45pmWell... its not fictitious in the fact that the above originated in Britain, and generated income... nationally, its to our credit that we generated some income, not from the sale of oil or power, or food or goods, but through talent... writing, singing, art..roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 9:23pmA very good description of British Exceptionalism.cycle tramp wrote: ↑16 Feb 2025, 8:38pm
Britain has long had a history of saying 'stuff you, we'll do it our own way' and in doing so we've brought the world, Oasis, Madonna, the Beatles, The Internet, the telephone, pneumatic tyres, Middle Eart, Harry Potter, James Bond, the SAS, Beatrix Potter, William Morris, the Harrier Jump Jet, Charles Dickens, the Mini, the Vincent Black Shadow...
..we'll survive in the same way we ways have, luck, innovation, effort, an acknowledgement of risk and sheer bloodied mindedness..
Unfortunately, it's entirely ficticious and believing it is exactly what has dragged us down as a nation.
Incidently I forgot to mention 'land rover' a vehicle which has been sold all over the world, 70% of all vehicles sold are still working...
And I forgot to mention we actually invited lego (sadly it was sold pretty early on)..
Britain is full of talent, it will always be full of talent. We need to appreciate and invest in it.
