Miliband "tells the truth" (sic)

Yes, it's the Silly Season, and the hot weather has gone to somebody's head.

On Monday ... Ed Miliband is to explicitly call out politicians who reject net zero policies for betraying future generations in an unprecedented update to parliament about the state of the climate crisis, which he is calling “an exercise in radical truth-telling” ... In what is planned to be an annual event, [he] will make a “state of the climate” address to the Commons setting out the findings of a new Met Office-led report that says the UK is already facing extreme weather and its effects. “I feel a deep sense of responsibility to the British people to tell them the truth about what we know about the climate and nature crisis.  I want this to become an annual statement where it’s an exercise in radical truth-telling about the state of the climate and nature."

If he's for the chop, he's decided to go down fighting.  Well, let's see what he comes up with.  I'm thinking we might have something to say about this. 

ND

UPDATE: well, nothing to see here! - what a bizarre outpouring of hot air that pre-briefing was. "An exercise in radical truth-telling", my arse: the much-vaunted "Statement" is completely empty.  (Check for yourself: it's 30 second's reading at most)  Another day in the crusading life of Mili.

AFTERTHOUGHT:  In fact, it's so vacuous, I'm half-inclined to wonder whether he was reined back on something more "substantial" he'd intended to say ...    

Macron's Cunning Plan, parts 14 & 15

So as well as completing the stitch-up over Sizewell and Hinkley (as discussed here many, many times), there's Macron's new "one out, one in" plan for the small boats.

Let's see if I've got this right.

So for every illegal that arrives on these shore that we send straight back, we must grant asylum to a "genuine" one.

But as we know, many of these people keep setting out, over and over again, until they succeed.

So. on a ratchet basis, one single illegal can be 'recycled' endlessly, to offload as many "genuines" from France as they are quickly able to turn him around for another crossing .. .. ?

Oh come on, Starmer can't be that stupid .. can he?  Please?

ND

Blog stats update: tell me this isn't AI-coordinated ...

 OK, here's another graph to go with last time's: this is hourly data at the peak of the recent surge.

• That steady 6k per hour was absolutely typical of several peak days in a row;
• The within-day spread of "locations" from which those hits came was very much as per the table I posted last time.

Given how egregiously high that "readership" was, it speaks to me of both a (prolonged) automated web-crawling episode AND one that deliberately uses "readers" spread across all those locations in a coordinated manner.  In other words, taken as a totality, it's a single "visit".

(It's subsided now, although only to daily levels that would have been rare in earlier years.  This being the case, my decision not to bother trying to harness the surge for ad revenues has not troubled me.)

You gotta admit, all this is somewhat interesting!  So I shall still be looking for an authoritative explanation.

ND 

Extraordinary C@W blog stats: AI 'training' at work?

We had a short review of the increasingly 'cosmopolitan' nature of C@W readership a while back: I set a little quiz inviting guesses as to the 2024 breakdown of hits, to which the answers were, in descending order -  

1. Hong Kong
2. China
3. USA
4. Singapore
5. UK

Well, guess what: since then, the readership stats have shot up, going stratospheric in the last month.  Here's the plot for the last 3 months:

And the countries?

1. Brazil
2. USA
3. India
4. Japan
5. Bangladesh
6. UK

I have an acquaintance who also runs a blog: he's seen something similar, though the numbers are not so extreme and Vietnam features at the top of his list.  The best explanation he can come up with is that the blogs are being used to train LLMs !

Any other suggestions?

Heaven help the "AI" that results from nearly 20 years of C@W.  I suppose we should be flattered ...

ND 

PS: in the circumstances, I thought about re-engaging with Google 'Adsense' to make a bob or two out of advertising to the increased readership.  But (a) the reader-experience isn't much improved by ads; and (b) the small print is so extensive and restrictive, I'll bet Google would rule that we've somehow been artificially boosting readership with bots, and that we wouldn't qualify.

Aren't you grateful?

Starmer's bizarre pleading

For all those inclined to calibrate their psychological assessments of Starmer, the recent (very sympathetic) Observer interview offers quite a lot of input.  Inter alia, we learn he "deeply regrets" his "island of strangers" speech, thusly: 

Starmer insists ... the speech was simply a mistake. “I wouldn’t have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of Powell,” he says. “I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn’t know either,” he says. “But that particular phrase – no – it wasn’t right. I’ll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it”  ... he doesn’t blame his advisers or anyone else except himself for these mistakes ... Starmer says he should have read through the speech properly and “held it up to the light a bit more”. The prime minister also accepts there were “problems with the language” in his foreword to the policy document that said the record high numbers of immigrants entering the UK under the last government had done “incalculable damage” to the country.

Sorry, matey, that won't wash.  For starters, in that speech he also said his immigration policy statement was promoted on the back of it being "right - because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in", Boris Johnson's opening of the immigration floodgates being a "squalid chapter".  Secondly, over the following few days he did the classic Starmer thing of initially doubling down on the first utterence: when quickly challenged on the "island of strangers" language, he emphasised that "well, it is a danger".       

Does anyone, let alone a lawyer-PM, outsource the articulation of "what I believe in, what I think is right" to Spads?  Or, to put the question another way:  what sort of lawyer-PM does this?   

ND