It's not as if the US military doesn't have form here though. During the Balkans conflict, they mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to out-of-date data in their systems.
"Creating a machine for government". When it was announced that Scrapheap Challenge was returning, I didn't realise that it would be this low budget.
"I stuffed their mouths with gold" was Nye Bevan's comment on what was necessary to overcome the BMA in their fight against his proposed NHS. In a world where so much else has changed over the last nearly 80 years, it's nice to see that doctors' motivation remains constant.
It's slightly academic now 😏 Don't underestimate the number of people in the GM area who would have been prepared to cast a Reform vote at this point "to show Starmer" though. There's a lot of discontent without real focus round here, which Farage feeds on. For now - hopefully, he's peaked.
Of course such a shock wave would also impact pension funds, cripple investment in other sectors, throw significant risk of defaults on to banks, and generally make life worse for the man on the street.
There's a further risk as well - if he is elected to parliament, forcing a new Mayoral election, the outcome of that could not be guaranteed. A Reform Mayor in Greater Manchester, elected not on the basis of real policy but low-level discontent, could be disastrous.
GPs? The first point of contact with the service for most people is a partner or employee of a private practice which undertakes NHS work under contract. Bevan wanted primary care nationalised, but the BMA stood their ground and forced the compromise.
Although the law was changed (by a 1970s Labour government) to allow charitable funding of specific hospital projects alongside public money, I'm not seeing where the current government is breaking the original commitments. Farage's proposal to move to a US-style system emphatically does.
Well NHS services have never been delivered only by direct NHS employees - not in 1948 and not at any point since - so it would be helpful for you to explain where you believe the line that cannot be crossed is. The pillars were universal care, free at the point of delivery and funded through tax.
Pour money into the war budget by taking it from other parts of public funding, and push down on the suppliers whilst demanding higher output - I'm sure I've seen that somewhere else recently. Oh yes, he's gone full Putin.
I explicitly stated that they were ideologically different. In both cases though, they bait their hook with things that appeal to emotion but wouldn't alter much, rather than anything from their broader agendas. Populism is great as an election tool - witness Brexit - but often fails in delivery.
Talk of taxing billionaires is great for making people say "Yeah!", but it's not a structural fix for the country's problems. It will bring in a useful sum, but not enough to support any massive changes. It's a football chant - unite your fans and rubbish the opposition - but it's not a game plan.
My point is that Polanski is ideologically different, but similar in political style to Farage - their performances are both built around rhetoric and the demonisation of groups that large numbers of people have little connection or sympathy with, rather than political and economic realities.
Every time I see Polanski he seems to be talking about his proposals for reducing billionaires, so given that you could take every penny from that group and it would only fund government expenditure for around six months on a one-time basis, it's good that he's got other policies to fall back on.
Interesting that 42% of respondents were in favour of proposals to increase tax on red meat and dairy, a suggested policy that I'd never heard of until this article, even from eco-conscious freinds. Seeing the actual questions asked and the cohort selection process may make this less surprising.
Trump, like Putin initially with Ukraine, is banking on the idea that he can install puppet leaders and the public will fall in line. From the outside, that looks unlikely. The geographical distance that has kept America safe is likely to prove a problem in long distance conflict without allies.
It's going to be painful but is likely to be limited in term. Neither Trump nor any of those above or below him in the puppeteering chain are capable managers - winning bigly by tearing up all the rules might work as a one-shot, but there's little hope of holding on in the face of resistance.
I'm missing some context here. What are you ashamed of?
Interesting in both its similarities and differences to Anthropic's paper last year: www.anthropic.com/research/tra...
It's certainly not bad, though oddly the real innovators historically have often had a good understanding of what had come before, and incorporated or developed those approaches to build something new. There were always plenty of perfectly adequate players who didn't go in for musical archaeology.
Considering the number of 'hallucinations' in the comments here - unsupported opinions picked up from unstrustworthy sources, out of date details, faulty reasoning - one has to consider the possibility that even current AI might actually be a useful alternative to people.
The interesting thing is that modern LLMs are quite good at being partners in a dialectic - subject to a few introductory prompts to explain that being helpful in this context is not about automatic agreement but honest engagement. We just prefer to be fed Information McNuggets than roast a chicken.
They could instruct the prison service to respect the hunger strikers' agency, but some people would doubtless still complain...
AI suggests +44 300 311 1111, noting that international mobile networks mostly won't route to the short code. You can decide whether you want to try it.
Alternatively, the 111.nhs.uk is supposed to be accessible, but there may be a limitation on features if you're coming from a non-UK address.
The continental examples most usually cited are flatter, smaller, and have a better integration of domestic and commercial properties. At the moment, much of England is still building homes a distance away from places of work. Fixing that would do more than adding cycle paths to encourage adoption.
There is always Burnley.
There was an expectation (as with buying oil from Russia) that providing incentives to cooperate would temper their more regrettable tendencies. This was not proven in practical experimentation.
The phrase at this point would be "Read the room". Nothing in the BMA's demands looks urgent enough to the public to make withdrawing service at the most critical point of the year appear as anything other than blackmail. "Your lives in our hands" should never be a threat if you expect respect.
The UK isn't a special case because of its old towns, but it is a victim of post-war planning that moved people and their work apart, and shut down large parts of the public transport network to concentrate on cars. Manchester is trying to reverse the trend somewhat now, but it's not trivial.
Paris has, depending on whose figures you take, a higher population density than London (Amsterdam and Seville don't), but it has retained a better mix of domestic and commercial property across the city, reducing commutes. All the continental cities cover smaller areas and smaller populations
