Here's an entertaining extract from a recent Graun piece by Robin Moira White, "a discrimination barrister at Old Square Chambers, London, and joint author of A Practical Guide to Transgender Law":
Trans people and their allies now know they will be better off under Starmer, Dodds and Cooper than Sunak, Badenoch and Braverman.
Now, what characterises the folks she doesn't like? And the ones she prefers? Oh my word, what might be the point she's making there ..?
ND
Russian 'milblogging' is an interesting phenomenon of the Special Military Operation. Almost all milboggers are fervent nationalists, and some are self-evidently very well informed. Nationalism doesn't always prevent them from being critical of their own side and, since most of them have high regard for the ordinary Russian soldier, their criticism is mostly aimed at the General Staff and points north, all the way up to Putin himself in some cases, encoded or en clair. Given the epic military and geopolitical failings of Putin's Plan and its utterly crass execution (see this blog passim), they've had plenty to complain about.
 |
| Behind the glass wall, facing the cameras |
But that doesn't detract from his knowledge and insight. As a judgement from a distance, I'd also assess that he's entirely straight (within his own frame of reference) and sea-green incorruptible. And brave with it. Insofar as one can tell. He has frequently given airings to views that oppose his own, and admitted mistakes. (He also has the tremendous Russian facility for heavy-duty sarcasm: I have to believe many of his American readers would have a lot of difficulty in making out some of what he writes.) And now he's been locked up.
Why now? Good question, since Putin has put up with his trenchant critique for well over a year. Well, characters like this are always difficult to deal with. Strelkov was initially surprised by the invasion, and on the very first day presciently offered the observation that the attempted coup de main against Kyiv itself via the heli-landing at Hostomel was risky. However, he immediately suppressed his doubts in public and, in his nationalism, loyally tracked events online in as supportive a mode as he could muster. That lasted for about a month, after which he could no longer contain his disgust at how badly the invasion was being, and has subsequently been, conducted. And in ever greater and compellingly accurate technical detail - the criticisms not of an armchair general** but as one who could have done better himself, even with the inadequate forces Putin threw into the fray.
In his nationalism, Strelkov has long been deeply suspicious of Wagner, and had no time for what he called its "Verdun" strategy at Bakhmut. But it was Prigozhin's Moscow-bound flying column that tipped him over the edge: Wagner deliberately spilled Russian blood on its way north and that, for Strelkov, was the limit. Unrestrained rants against Prigozhin followed. Now obviously, Putin and Prig have come to a tense and complex modus vivendi; and it would seem that non-stop carping from sniper Strelkov is no longer acceptable.
The irony, of course, is that if they'd followed his sound military prescriptions from around mid March 2022, they'd be in a lot better shape than they are now.
I shall miss Strelkov's bracing analyses.
ND
_________________
** We had some amusing BTL contributions mocking my own rather distant armchair commentary, but the authors might like to go back and check: I got to Strelkov's conclusion - it wasn't difficult - quicker than he did, at least in public.
.
If, as seems likely, the Tories held Uxbridge as a reaction to Sadiq Khan's ULEZ extension, well, we ain't seen nothing yet.
The UK has reduced its CO2 emissions by more than any other country** since 1990 - but this was achieved by (a) going for the low-hanging fruit (i.e. phasing out coal) and (b) de-industrialisation. Although this hasn't been remotely cost-free, the costs have been loaded onto electricity bills and, frankly, haven't really been noticed. But that phase of the game is rapidly coming to a close: very little low-hanging fruit remains down decarbonisation way.
The cost of such potential still to be exploited in the power generation sector is rising rapidly
Aside from incremental efficiencies that arise naturally from technical evolution, we've barely started on home heating, transportation, agriculture and much of heavy industry. And decarboning those will be very costly indeed.
And then there's Behaviour. Less travel. Less meat. Less creature comfort. The greens, from Swampy and Greta to John Selwyn Bummer (© Jasper Carrot) have all been pressing government to start 'changing behaviours' - that's our behaviours - and while they'd rather that to be via 'leadership' and 'persuasion', there's little doubt that ultimately they mean compulsion.
I have a strong suspicion they won't be getting any change out of any UK politicians of any party (except just maybe a few Green Party hopefuls) this side of the next GE. In this context, Khan is right out there on his own - and being rapidly disowned by Starmer, naturally enough. Miliband has been well and truly sat on, so really it's only Ed "Drax" Davey we still need to hear from on the subject.
ND
____________
** France, of course, would claim to have had a lower-CO2 starting-point, thanks to its nukes
Seven months ago I wrote that in his problems with public sector pay on many fronts, Sunak had been immeasurably helped by the sheer number of concurrent disputes, and the extreme claims being made in some of them. There was 'obviously' no scope for him to concede them all, so he would find it easier to resist[1] them en bloc.
And thus, it seems, things have transpired. How many PMs have even been able to stand at the lectern and say, no more talking, that's yer lot - and plausibly get away with it? But, plus or minus the junior doctors, he might have done.
Even more remarkably, he even chucked in a culture-war twist: the award is to be partially funded 'by "significantly" increasing charges for migrants coming to the UK when they apply for visas and the levy they pay to access the NHS'. To my amazement this has been very little commented upon (yet), and we may guess any belated squeals will not be originating officially from the Opposition front bench[2].
Is this the fabled Smack of Firm Government? It has some of the trappings. And in Starmer's current mode of saying 'no' (to the considerable dismay of the Left & the greenies) to everything that anyone suggests deserves a call on his largesse when putatively in power, presumably he's essentially going to take this development lying down - though it is always possible to script a hostile soundbite in response to anything.
So how does it all play? Does it basically strengthen Sunak's standing with voters? Or will it be a cause of sullen resentment? A lot will depend on "whether it works", i.e. whatever inflation does next. In any event, Starmer's stern stance makes resentment a lot harder to parlay into votes for Labour, so maybe it's the smaller parties that pick up the resenters. Which, of course, may be a decent second-best for the Tories at the next GE.
ND
UPDATES:
(a) the predicted cries of anguish haven't been long in coming - from "charities, unions and politicians". "Borderline racist", they cry. But not Labour politicians, naturally (see above).
(b) see strikethrough below and dearieme's comment
_____________
[1] Of course, BTL here Kev has pointed out the remarkable inflation-busting 'award' already made (passively, under the triple-lock) to pensioners, possibly to be repeated next time too. But, hey, priorities / politics / votes.
[2] I find it hard to believe we've heard the last of this. Not least, because the Tories are likely to big it up in order to provoke a leftie response.
Erdogan has really excelled himself this time, the major obvious casualty of his machinations being Putin and his ever more flimsy stature & general political dignity. Drones, Sweden, Azov, ... what is the full nature of the Turkish "trade package"? Does he have it in writing (from Biden / Ukraine / NATO / EU)? Or is he just positioning himself for a Cunning Plan he has in mind?
(1) Transactional politics has upsides - and downsides
As I've written before, in some political spheres - foreign policy generally being one of them - the 'lines of logistics' can be incredibly short: unlike most domestic policy-making, it can be stroke-of-a-pen stuff instead of months & years of hard, practical grind, with all the attendant implementational friction & risks of material long-term projects. (Thus, to take one of a million examples, Lenin took Russia out of WW1 in a morning.) Some politicians, indeed some human beings in general, heavily lean this way: there's no situation they won't try to deal their way out of (negative) or into (positive). 'Transactionality' is one facet of this type of approach: Sadiq Khan is perhaps the most prominent UK exponent right now.
The upsides are clear. A stroke of the pen requires far less blood-and-treasure to resolve a dispute than 'going to war' or its analogues, & gets quicker results, too.
The downsides are there, too. Obviously, transactionalism appeals not least to politicians of the bone-idle tendency. Ditto, the heavily-overlapping subset of politicians who have no principles or red lines whatever.
And what can be done at the stoke of a pen can be undone just as fast. Sometimes, "with one bound he was free" clever-cleverness doesn't cut it: a fundamental solution is needed, the hard yards can't be dodged**. To give a foreign-policy example: what could be more convenient for NATO backsliders like Germany than a neat, stroke-of-a-pen "resolution" on Ukraine that would mean they didn't need to restore defence spending to prudent levels? Very neat, yeah.
(2) Downside for Erdogan? Oh yes there is
I'll give you at least one. Turkey is essentially 100% dependent on Russia for gas (as well as a lot of oil). It gets very cold there in winter.
Less obviously, since the economic recession Erdogan foisted on his country Turkey has been having the utmost difficulty in taking all the gas they've contractually committed to. They owe Gazprom a bunch of money. Thus far, it's been forgiven ... That's on top of a cold winter in Turkey.
Transactions, transactions.
ND
____________
** Also, the Clever Stroke often leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth: in the Claudius novels, Graves writes of how on a particular campaign, Claudius engineered a lightning victory by having his men take the enemy camp at night by crawling up silently through the undergrowth, with total success. The 'victorious' Roman troops hated it: they wanted a proper conventional scrap in the morning. Their triumph-by-subterfuge "smelled of the candle".
Asset-stripping is hardly new: but the first really big company to be terminally hollowed out by modern financial engineering was Enron (1987-2001). The reason why it happened there, was completely the opposite of what's taken place at Thames Water. Enron was chronically under-capitalised for conducting the business it was (very successfully) engaged in: giga-scale market-making in the energy sector, with attendant innovation and creativity that has been much missed in the sector since 2002 (sic) but never truly replicated. Nostalgic laments aside, what Enron absolutely needed for its business model to be workable was to maintain investment grade credit status, because long-term dealmaking was its forte, and nobody[1] will do long term deals with a shaky counterparty.
Why was maintaining credit status a problem? Because (a) as an inevitable structural problem, cashflow lagged profit (which can be the death of literally any business, however sound); (b) it couldn't borrow any more, which deprived it of the traditional solution to that issue; and (c) - the real killer - it was committed to perpetual expansion, it being traded on Wall Street as a growth stock[2].
This conundrum became fully apparent (to Enron itself: the rest of the world just gawped and invested) as early as 1993, when the financial engineering started. For a few years there was ample opportunity to do some clever but wholly prudent stuff, resulting in a balance sheet that was a marvel of precise and efficient design. However, by the end of the '90s what could be achieved by such elegant means was pretty much exhausted, and they started resorting to some deeply imprudent expedients, designed by Enron people who really knew what they were doing - and abetted by banks who should have known better - and could therefore build it very big and very bad. (It didn't help that one of the main architects of all this was actually on the take in the literally criminal sense.)
* * * * *
Enough of history: it suffices that some potentially very dangerous financial technology had been designed and employed, able to be abused in completely different circumstances. Enter highly capitalised Thames Water, with physical assets and guaranteed revenue streams galore; the most fertile ground imaginable for financial engineering - and ideal circumstances for gouging out all the cash and remitting it as dividend. And so, it seems, they have.
How dangerous is this? One might say: who remembers Enron now? Didn't the lights stay on, and the waters close over? Hopefully, optimistically, that's right: HMG has quietly resolved several seemingly vast corporate problems in the past, British Energy 2003 being perhaps the best example ("Nuclear Generator In Financial Meltdown" - never a comfortable headline). With TW there appears to have been a bit of advance warning: and maybe with the recent 'rescue' of Bulb, some sensible generic thinking has already been done in government. Maybe. And Thames Water is squarely based on real assets.
But on the pessimistic side:
Which brings us to the elephant in the room: TW has suckered in a range of serious international financial players. OK - so, caveat emptor and leave them holding the keys? That may be possible in strictly legal / contractual terms: and HMG probably has reserve powers to direct the continued operation of the assets. But here's the thing: like any financial player, those big Canadian pension funds and Far East investors really, really hate being left holding the keys. In those circumstances, they have literally no idea what to do next: we know this, because it's happened many times around the world.
So what happens now. In coalface terms, there are asset-oriented specialists like Macquarie and Cargill who know all about restructuring and bailout. They'd make fortunes from the gig: but they know what to do. Is that how HMG will play it? It won't look good.
More widely however, what does this do for the future attractiveness of UK plc for inward investment? We've long been the envy of the world for how easily we've attracted cheap foreign dosh, and a large part of the economy is now based on it. Kick away TW, and what do all these people do with their next chunk of money? Equally great and easily-executed opportunities elsewhere don't grow on trees - but there are plenty enough, not least with government-backed Net Zero projects sweeping the globe.
In short, the worst-case scenario is, in sequence: (a) a serious investment strike by otherwise UK-directed money; (b) downgrading of UK plc's credit rating, with all its inflationary and currency implications; (c) drying-up of deal flow for the City.
This could be Very Ugly Indeed. All the more reason why HMG will step in smartly. But what if TW is just the tip of the iceberg? Where's, *ahem* Gordon Brown when we need him to Save The World?
ND
[1] Nobody with any brains, that is - though amazingly, some companies still do.
[2] Everyone in Enron was substantially paid in company paper - so the idea of letting the share price slip was anathema.
[3] Sold to a rapacious Centrica, as recounted here before. They then got carried away and foolishly bought 20% of the nuclear portfolio when EDF bought the rest. Has been doing them quite nicely just recently though, of course.
For sure, there's been some silly reporting, and we have the Graun to thank for patiently explaining: "At no point did anyone identify as a cat".
A short exchange between schoolgirls and a teacher was recorded by one of the girls and then posted on TikTok, after which it went viral, was picked up by Fox News and the rightwing press, and then blessed into respectability by mainstream media and politicians. It was a heated debate, during which one of the girls cited a conversation with another girl about identifying as something other than a girl, such as a cat. “I said, how can you identify as a cat when you are a girl.” She is scolded by the teacher, whose tone and language definitely to my ears from the short recording sounded troubling, and the wrong approach to such discussions. But no one ever identified as a cat, or was criticised for doing so.
Well thanks, Graun, a real public service there: otherwise we were all in grave danger of worrying over something silly. But the audio itself is worth listening to (here), and the great thing is how sharp the kids are: they have eminently salient arguments against the doctrinal trans-identity nonsense being spouted aggressively by the teacher complete with scolding, insults and disciplinary threats. It is she who needs disciplining - and whatever "movement" that puts teachers up to proseltysing for this kind of thing in the classroom.
Actually, of course, the least advisable thing in the world is to force-feed kids doctrinal stuff: they can be relied upon to react against it every time (unless you are willing to go the full Mao). Given, however, that it is apparently Labour policy to extend the voting age to 16, there is a serious flipside. A friend of mine recently went to give a talk in a secondary school and was begged not to mention, or react to any mention of, Andrew Tate. Apparently, Tate has been adopted as a hero figure among teenage boys and gets constantly thrown at teachers in "life education" / PSHE classes, to general dismay. Be careful what you vote for ...
ND
A point made around here ad nauseam is that Surprise is really important in warfare. Clearly Mr Wagner agrees, and has pulled off a beauty - he and his well-armed, well-disciplined horde. Absolut banditi, as they say in Russia. And Putin was caught absolutely napping: his own intelligence about his "own" forces is significantly poorer than the west's (is he not even monitoring the mobile phones, FFS??). I have waited 24 hours before posting because there was always the possibility of Putin pulling off a decisive counterstroke, but no, the man and his machine are as deeply inept and incompetent as ever.
Let's ask a few questions:
Yes, Prig has made out like - a bandit. And all in 24 hours. Now? Well he won't want to follow in the footsteps of Wat Tyler, Robert Aske & co. It's to be imagined he has "assets" in Belorussia. Still, you wouldn't put too much money on him celebrating Xmas.
I look forward to the return of our trolls to tell us how this is all part of Putin's masterplan. But the long-suffering people of Russia might find that just a little bit harder to believe than before. Prig has marked their cards for them.
ND
___________
[1] and so did his troops, which makes it all the more impressive
[2] like, errr, Sadiq Khan
[3] Putin himself has been known to relate how in Russia, big disputes are settled over a big dinner at which both sides come armed to the teeth, but settle down to terms (and toasts). In short, Prig has successfully brought Putin to the table as an equal. And everyone in Russia understands
[4] like Mandelson
The ghastly fate of the Titan has already sparked one commentator into making a predictably incendiary semi-political comment, so with a bit of trepidation I shall essay another ...
Many years ago I rode my first flume. It was a monster, a 10-metre drop with the entertaining feature that the tubing was fully opaque black plastic, so that after the first bend in the fully-enclosed tunnel, one was in pitch darkness for the remainder of the descent. So here I am, falling out of control, unable to see anything, bashing up against the walls and surrounded by water, with all instincts screaming "that's it, you've killed yourself". However, intellectually I clung to the reassuring thought that if it was actually fatal, it wouldn't be allowed.
Neither of these conflicting emotions are carefully worked-through, pre-considered rational responses, they are just what different bits of the mind throw up in extreme circumstances. The first of the two is rather basic visceral stuff. The second is more interesting, albeit equally spontaneous - an experience-based reaction from someone brought up in the normally-regulated western world which licences and monitors such things. Whether we recognize it or not, we tacitly bank on that kind of thing, e.g. every time we drive on a motorway or fly in a plane. Passenger aviation in the developed world is a particularly good example because there is quite literally zero tolerance for any avoidable mishaps in that sphere, cost no object; and exceptionally successful it is, too.
(I say some of this rather obvious stuff for the benefit of any hyper-libertarians out there, with caveat emptor their only slogan, who affect to despise regulation in all its forms . No you don't, chum - your life depends on it, and plenty of it, to a high, if unobtrusive standard.)
Personally, I'm a former soldier (bit of danger there, and nobody made me do it): and as an individual - and a father - I have joyfully indulged in, and encouraged, all manner of non-risk-free adventurous activities. But in all of that I was competent to assess the risks, and to mitigate them intelligently. But what do we say about unregulated ocean-floor tourism? Despite the waivers they signed and the warnings they were given, were these recent hapless victims not just a little bit relying on that advanced-society, learned-instinct feeling that it must be OK because otherwise, they just wouldn't ... ... would they?
Which brings us to two semi-political thoughts, specifically for 2023.
ND
We know the answer Marx gave:
Where does this come from? It's an erudite bloke of Russian extraction called Peter Turchin, who's peddling a new book. A good interview here, by the redoubtable Aaron Bastani.
Worth pondering. I recall discussions we've had here following the 2011 riots, along the lines of: the stroppy British mob has no political leadership - but wait for an officer-class to emerge from the ranks of disaffected, over-educated graduates who can't find the kind of work or wealth they feel they are entitled to. The Turchin thesis seems to fit this nicely - rather better than Marx's, anyhow.
Personally, I can take Turchin's as a compelling narrative approach to all manner of historical upheavals, with some genuine explanatory value: BUT without definitive predictive capability. The difference is, unlike Marx, this guy doesn't seem to be claiming any - which speaks well for him. (Even better, he's also a big fan of constructive competition.) Marx, along with most economic forecasters, is all too easily ridiculed for his forecasting failure. The real reason for laughing at Marx, however, is his claim to have come up with a new Science.
What do the rest of the capitalists here think? Does Turchin define our imminent demise?
ND
With no irony in evidence**, Reuters reports as follows:
Vladimir Putin called Italy's Silvio Berlusconi a dear friend and an outstanding politician in a tribute to the former prime minister who died on Monday aged 86. "For me, Silvio was a dear person, a true friend. I have always sincerely admired his wisdom, his ability to make balanced, far-sighted decisions even in the most difficult situations," Putin said in a message of condolence. Berlusconi will be remembered in Russia as a "consistent and principled supporter of strengthening friendly relations between our countries", he said.
Well, well. Lots of fellow feeling in evidence there; (though "principled" seems a bit of a stretch). Maybe a suggestion of some significant personal, errr, interests in common? Perhaps Putin has lost a very dear friend indeed: in which case, our condolences.
There is some forensic analysis yet to see the light of day here, but I'm not sure you get much of that in Italy. Still ... just how did Putin become many commentators' candidate for the wealthiest man in the world?
They must think he's a financial genius.
ND
__________
** Then again, the report does go on to note: "Like former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Berlusconi cultivated close relations with Moscow during Putin's first years in the Kremlin from 2000 onwards." What could Reuters possibly mean by mentioning that?
Growing up as a very middle-middle-class child (you knew that, didn't you?), respect and benefit-of-the-doubt for the Police came up with the rations. It wasn't until I mixed with the soldiery in my first regiment that I had regular dealings with people for whom "All coppers are bastards" was axiomatic.
These things don't change overnight but it seems now that we've gone past the point where the middle classes would give automatic credence to the police. The symptoms are many and various. For me, the last straw has been how they allowed themselves to be captured by woke doctrine, typified by their being in thrall to Stonewall's outrageous protection-racket proselytizing on the trans issue, to the point where fairly moderate Guardianista feminists fear for their freedom of speech at the hands of the police. Others would point to the way the police seem often to lie and prevaricate as a first reflex on sticky issues. Or the way that a Safety Case must be defined before anyone can get stuck in. (In my street last week, 5 (five) police attended to round up a perfectly peaceable, indeed rather bewildered, lost dog.) Or the way recruiting standards have been remorselessly lowered, firstly to accommodate "diversity" targets and nowadays just to recruit anyone at all. And that's before we get onto the outright criminal behaviour of some individual officers.
This is a very bad state of affairs indeed. We know from places like Mexico and a hundred other hell-holes that when the police feel themselves totally beleaguered and unloved, they retreat into their corporate shell and become just the biggest and best-armed gang on the streets. (Well, in some countries, not even the best-armed.) Large-scale corruption and worse follow swiftly.
Reputations can be turned around: but it ain't easy - particularly when the zeitgeist runs strongly against tough, dictatorial leadership of the sort that can (sometimes) turn around, e.g., a foundering corporation or a military unit; though it seems the new Chief Constable of Manchester is giving it a go. But the likes of Cressida Dick? Don't make us laugh.
(An example of deep and successful reputational turnaround one might have noticed over the years is Private Eye: under Ingrams it became a byword for casually inaccurate stories and consequent lawsuits, and the courts pretty much gave plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt. Bit by bit, Hislop turned this around, to the point where today the courts actually give the benefit of the doubt completely the other way around. Ask any PR firm how they'd advise a client who was contemplating suing the Eye just now.)
But these things aren't quick to achieve, and are in any case many times easier for a small organisation. It's gotta be done, though. And in terms of the biggest force, the most pivotal force of the lot: does anyone imagine Sadiq Khan is the man to reform the Met he's notionally responsible for?
ND
Well obviously not at all, for a busy man of letters like Mr Quango. But for many ...
Today it is reported that a long-serving Labour MP, one Geraint Davies, has been suspended for some kind of alleged hanky-panky, of the unwanted sexual type. (Didn't they used to say that was the Tories; and that the typical failing of Labourites was being on the take?) I have absolutely no idea whatever on the merits of said allegations, which he "doesn't recognise". But I do know Davies, a classic Leftie-Welshman product of Jesus College, Oxford with a curious resemblance to Mark Williams of Welsh snooker fame.
He was a councillor on Croydon Council, then Leader of the Council, then MP for Croydon Central which has for 60 years been a genuine flip-flop marginal constituency. After duly losing the seat when it came time for yet another flip, he headed off for a safe parliamentary berth in South Wales, his native territory, which is what he always wanted. It didn't do him much good: seemingly, he never looked like ministerial material to successive Labour leaderships. Of late I only really noticed him when he (like many others of worthy intentions in S.Wales) fell for the dreadful Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon scam scheme and gamely tried to promote it. He, like others who got behind it - some with their life-savings - hoped it would have been a boon for the local economy (and 'green', to boot!). The desperation in their hope was palpable, and mercilessly played upon by greedy promoters.
Anyhow: I never had Davies marked down for my rogues gallery. He did a couple of silly things when first elected to the Council (e.g., he took in a "homeless family" to his own flat. That little social experiment didn't last long) - but he was clearly a cut above the average Labour councillor in intellect (not difficult); a dedicated & capable political organiser; and had an amusing line in ironic throwaway socialist doctrine, mostly to prove he'd read PPE. He was also a successful small-businessman - an interesting combination. All in all, it looked just like a classic, purposeful political career: not objectionably careerist, but earning his stripes systematically and always with an eye to the Next Thing. A safe seat in S.Wales after 25 years of working for it, seemed fair enough. But only the back benches for him. Not even, so far as I know, a PPS.
Which all leads me to think about boredom. Decades of being just lobby fodder. The endless round of more-or-less hopeless constituency work. The need to support almost anything that moves in the constituency, however obviously lame. They all enter Westminster with a Prime Minister's baton in their knapsack, but ...
... after all that effort: all that expenditure of talent & brainpower & ambition & everything else it takes. Oh dear.
ND
It is suggested that the acid test for AI - indeed, for it to qualify as AGI - is that it should start generating New Science: hitherto unknown but recognisably scientific advances that can be tested against the usual criteria for such things. We read that 'ordinary' 2023-vintage AI has been used in developing a wholly new antibiotic for use against Acinetobacter baumannii, a nasty strain of superbug. OK, and all power to the team that achieved this: but it's not quite an AI achievement per se: we're still in "useful software" territory. Couldn't have been done without software? Well, neither could much of what I've been doing today by way of working from home.
Any other tests that readers would like to suggest?
ND
__________
** Yes, of course I know that it's never really electricity that gets stored, it's electricity-into-something-else-&-back-into-electricity-again-later.
Keeping up with whatever is the approved euphemism has always been a great lark. We read that "obesity" now needs to be replaced - and not with "too fat", either. The Beeb hasn't caught up with this one yet - you do really need to be on your toes. Fortunately, the English language is replete with a wide range of colourful alternatives.
It was ever thus: whole histories could be written on the rolling evolution of the approved terms for, e.g. death, various disabilities, and descriptions of ethnicity. Up to a point, this is to do with kindness: when a particular conventional usage becomes a term of abuse or mockery, it's time to coin something new. Which is fair enough, albeit we sometimes get empty phrases like "learning difficulties" which covers so broad a spectrum of phenomena as to be rendered meaningless. I have learning difficulties when I keep being interrupted, but I doubt I qualify for charitable largesse.
There's a nastier dynamic at work, though. When anything is being politicised by the identitarian left, terminology becomes paramount, the left being beset by over-intellectualisation, theorising - and faddery, one-upmanship and ideological purity. And nothing is more enjoyable than witch-hunting. So nothing is neater than to keep changing the rules by making some term in common usage a shibboleth: utter it, or say it wrong - and you're damned. Hurrah! - another heretic exposed and harried to the point of despair!
And this need to "be on your toes" ensures that only the elite of lefties at radical academic institutions can ever be up to date in these matters. Everyone else is guaranteed to be behind the curve, beyond the pale, and in need of re-education and groveling self-flagellation, at the very least. But maybe total cancelation and ruination. Oh, the horrors of feeling oneself in thrall to such vicious little shits - who increasingly call the shot, not only in colleges, but in HR departments across the English-speaking world, depressing though it is to acknowledge.
If there is hope, it lies with the proles, as Orwell famously wrote. They'll have some ideas on the subject of obesity, and one or two other things besides. Who ate all the pies, eh?
ND
For all intents and purposes the town of Bakhmut has fallen, albeit that Ukraine has taken the opportunity afforded by the exhaustion and tactical ineptness of the invading forces, to pinch it on either flank. For the time being there will be no Russian advance on Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which were supposed to be the next towns down the road, last summer while Putin still enjoyed a (tiny) bit of momentum. Informed opinion varies as to whether the 4-month street-fighting defence of Bakhmut was as advantageous to Ukraine in ratio of casualties as merited holding on for quite that long. It certainly blunted the Russian Donbas offensive to the point of total standstill, depriving Putin of one of his stated main aims. Further, it fixed Russian forces to an extent they would not have welcomed. My own observation would be that Ukraine has not thus far demonstrated gratuitously bad military judgement, or overly emotional attachment to any particular piece of real estate. (Most mistakes have, understandably, been ones of caution - always easier to identify in retrospect.)
We now await the long-heralded Ukrainian 2023 counteroffensive. As I endlessly say, there's no such thing as strategic surprise ... so it will be interesting to see what tactical surprises they have up their sleeves. It's imperative they have something clever in mind; otherwise, with no prospect of air superiority they are potentially in trouble against a lengthily-prepared, albeit unsubtle and static defensive plan, established in depth. Frankly, there are no good 20th century precedents that I know of, notwithstanding that static defences have often been swept aside - with air support. The major points in Ukraine's favour are:
* * * * *
I was looking back at an excellent June 2022 article by Adam Tooze the other day, and was amused to take a peek BTL. We've been honoured with some pretty silly trolling on C@W back in the early months of this war - who knew we merited the attention of the Russian troll factories? - but Tooze got both barrels. Samples:
... the [Russian] breakthrough at Popasna** and the developing envelopment of Slavyansk, as such defences tend to hold in place until they break, and then they break quite quickly. In this war the Ukrainian side has been the rigid and inflexible one (dig in, defend anything to the point of encirclement and annihilation), while the Russians moved and maneuvered over a 800km length of battlefield, changing axis of attack and intensity many times. The results are slowly becoming visible - the Ukrainians are losing the war
Russia’s outnumbered, highly mechanized force has constantly set the rules of the engagement and Ukraine’s massive mobilized force, it seems, is fundamentally reactive.
it is very obvious that Ukraine is retreating everywhere. ... a full collapse (of Ukr) is coming
the Russians are winning in a very loss-effective manner. Once beyond the in-depth defences of the Donbass, and with much of the professional Ukrainian army under the ground, a prisoner of war, or injured beyond recovery to the field (or refusing to fight as has been shown in multiple cases), the war tempo will move much faster. Zelensky and his government have made a major strategic error in pouring in men and arms into a salient thats will inevitably collapse, a meat grinder being used by the Russians to destroy the Ukrainian army ... Zelensky throws more and more of his army into this cauldron. Once the cauldron, and much of the Ukrainian Army, is finished who will be left to defend the rest of Ukraine?
The Ukraine military has been defeated for two months already. I don't know what kind of funding you are smoking, Adam, but the only successes in Ukraine are the people cleaning up all the dead Ukrainian soldiers. It is beyond disgusting that people are pretending that those facts are not real ... They all should have surrendered long ago and every death is just another mark of American hubris.
Admit it. Russia has won, will win, will demand all sanctions removed. And Ukraine, for its efforts better remove crooked Zelenskyy and admit that their sacrifices were in vain.
Hmm. I think we shall see more like this with which to decorate Ukraine's counteroffensive.
ND
_______________
** Russian "breakthrough"? Very short-lived; subsequently routed; and Slavyansk never troubled.
Recently, under a post about the fate of truth in 2023, I included (BTL) a link to a bot-written article on the issues around the use of AI in the military; and commenter Jim opined:
Most probably serious development is going on to specialise in legal argument, military strategy, economic planning.
I said we'd come back to military applications, which do indeed proceed apace. Many in the military (in many countries) hope for AI and other computer-based solutions to a whole range of challenges - not least because they think they'll be a lot cheaper, in both blood and treasure. Of course, from time to time the 'smart', asset-lite approach comes badly unstuck at the hands of determined infantrymen, as Ukraine has taught the lazy Putin and his attempt at a 'smart' lightning campaign last year. (He seriously fell for the plan to persuade Ukrainian officers to surrender by texting them all a threatening message on their personal 'phones, FFS.)
That said, just as fast-learning computers will cheerfully thrash anyone at chess nowadays, they will also thrash any fighter pilot in simulated dogfights. Yup, they can get right inside any human decision-loop, and destroy the mortal sluggard with remorseless efficiency. Who doesn't want drones like that?
But of course, issues arise about less-than-perfect "decision making" even by these computerised paragons. How are they to be employed? One answer is: in some applications, perfection never has been expected, and isn't necessary - just a very good probability of turning in a very good result in very quick time. The rest is just, well, fortunes of war - casualties & all. Always has been.
Here's an example from my (somewhat dated, but recently updated) personal experience. It's trivial enough in its own way, and won't surprise anyone: but it carries some lessons. Starting around the time of the First Gulf War, a phenomenon that was long anticipated became real: total and utter data overload in the sphere of aerial imagery (inter alia). More imagery was being produced, of areas of very high significance (e.g., known to harbour Scud missile launchers), than could be fully processed by the available highly-skilled analytic personnel. Enter software that could run its unblinking eye over the coverage and identify + highlight straight lines, rectangles and circles that are of a size likely to be of interest. There aren't too many of them occurring in nature: they'll almost always be man-made. The human could then zoom in on what the computer had found, and discard those that were false positives. Had the computer missed a few? Maybe - but so what: they were never going to be found anyway! And the next version of the software would be better.
To make a long story short, many learning-cycles later, computers nowadays have been trained to identify from aerial imagery, and put a name to - with high success rates - specific types of equipment: any ship or aircraft whatsoever, and quite a lot of vehicles. Does camouflage still work? Of course it does, sometimes. Are there sometimes errors? Yup (and the humans are quite prone to this, too.) But 95% accuracy (say), carried out very fast, is a very acceptable result: like Patton said: a good plan executed violently now, is better than a perfect plan next week. (In due course, 96% will be better ... they're learning all the time.)
That's just one micro application in the military. The point is: perfection is not required. In the fog of war, something very good and very fast is highly desirable. AI is going to provide a lot of that.
ND
Actually, the new Skipton product - 100% mortgage, no deposit, but (they say) stringent borrower qualifications required (primarily, a good prior rental payment record), plus a small interest-rate premium - all seems sound from the lender's risk-management point of view. One assumes they'll be pretty careful about getting their own valuation done, too. Structurally this is all good, pragmatic RM - and moderately creative, to boot.
When Miss D got her first mortgage recently she was in pocket immediately (on a current account basis), the payments being less than she was previously paying in rent. That's a dynamic the Skipton product arbitrages neatly. Don't know if that situation prevails everywhere; but it does in her part of London.
Commentators seemed to be fixating on the potential for negative equity. Well, yes - but both parties ought to be able to take an intelligent view on that. On the lender's side, one assumes more pragmatic RM, relating to the specifics of the property and the profile of the borrower. And for the borrower: hey, did you want (a) to get into property, (b) & without putting in equity - or not?
Go for it, Skipton. Nice structure: hope you've got the details right.
ND
A first today - a French Air Force recce aircraft over the Black Sea! There have been non-stop US, UK, Italian, even Polish, Swedish and Finnish recce flights in support of Ukraine, but this is the first (openly detectable) French one.
Now, given that they have had the capability all along, why would this be? It's the usual French thing. Not us, gov, we're not like those warmongering Yanks and Brits, we're not feeding this conflict by providing one side with intelligence (actually, we don't have any), we're not helpfully wargaming strategies with one of the protagonists: we're responsible peace-loving people, neutral, here to negotiate like statesmen! We'll talk Putin round, we'll get Xi onside ...
Oh, what's that? - the big Ukrainian counter-offensive push is on for next week? OK, we're in, we're in! They couldn't do it without us! A seat at the Top Table for us!
Running with the hares, hunting with the hounds, or what? Or perhaps the playground coward, rushing in to kick the guy who's already down on the floor. Ho hum, better late than never.
ND
'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate; and stayed not for an answer
NHS treatment algorithms ‘not taking transgender patients into account’: Medics say trans people being put at risk by lack of evidence on how to assess them by gender-based metrics
