Quote from: seankenny on November 16, 2022, 11:44:44 amHancock is discussing his actions and defending himself in front of a bunch of second rate celebs Bit harsh on Mike Tindall and Jill Scott
Hancock is discussing his actions and defending himself in front of a bunch of second rate celebs
Quote from: Bradders on November 16, 2022, 04:17:18 pmQuote from: petejh on November 16, 2022, 12:16:40 pmQuote from: ali k on November 16, 2022, 11:57:38 amYou have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?Decency is not an excuse for incompetence. We have a gross negligence manslaughter law when it comes to death in the course of someone's employment, this doesn't strike me as being all that different; as in a manager who causes the death of an employee through incompetence and / or negligence can be prosecuted and jailed, regardless of the decency of their intentions. If it were proven that Matt Hancock's actions were the cause of covid deaths (and an ITV reality show is clearly not the forum through which that can be judged), then he should face the same fate in my view.I'm doubtful that any incompetence will cross the threshold of gross negligence. We'll learn more during the inquiry, but there will have been times when the government didn't have any good options and were forced to try the least bad option. The full impact of those decisions, positive or negative, won't always have been possible to know at the time. For instance, if you look on social media you'll see lots of people complaining that Hancock enforced a lockdown or that he prevented them from seeing their dying relatives - all measures which would have saved lives but which had consequences of their own.I'm not saying they should get a free pass but I doubt any criminal behaviour leading to deaths will be found.Edit: what Paul said.
Quote from: petejh on November 16, 2022, 12:16:40 pmQuote from: ali k on November 16, 2022, 11:57:38 amYou have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?Decency is not an excuse for incompetence. We have a gross negligence manslaughter law when it comes to death in the course of someone's employment, this doesn't strike me as being all that different; as in a manager who causes the death of an employee through incompetence and / or negligence can be prosecuted and jailed, regardless of the decency of their intentions. If it were proven that Matt Hancock's actions were the cause of covid deaths (and an ITV reality show is clearly not the forum through which that can be judged), then he should face the same fate in my view.
Quote from: ali k on November 16, 2022, 11:57:38 amYou have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?
You have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).
Surprisingly big statement from starmer about the House of Lords.I assume they’ve done enough focus groups to feel confident about making such a huge announcement as this safely.
It's really depressing that there are obviously members of the Sunak government who want a more sensible relationship with the EU, but the moment its even a rumour, the Daily Mail, Express and the ERG throw all their toys out of the pram.BBC News - Newspaper headlines: 'Lions of Arabia' and 'soft Brexit warnings'https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-63697978It's as though they're only happy if the UK is at war with Europe, and we have a PM who talks as though Britain still has an empire. Pea brained jingoism.
Quote from: TobyD on November 21, 2022, 08:38:28 amIt's really depressing that there are obviously members of the Sunak government who want a more sensible relationship with the EU, but the moment its even a rumour, the Daily Mail, Express and the ERG throw all their toys out of the pram.BBC News - Newspaper headlines: 'Lions of Arabia' and 'soft Brexit warnings'https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-63697978It's as though they're only happy if the UK is at war with Europe, and we have a PM who talks as though Britain still has an empire. Pea brained jingoism. This Matthew d'Ancona piece on the elephant traps of the economy and Europe facing Starmer & Labour is worth a read - https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2022/11/21/dont-walk-into-the-brexit-elephant-trap-mr-starmer/
The problem with that argument is that Brexit is always going to be rubbish, and it’s mostly supported by older people and hated by a majority of under 50s. So what are their options?
I mean, what are the Brexiters' options?! Some under 50s do vote already...
Some good discussions about it recently in connection with Sam Bankman Fraud's err.. massive fraud. SBF being an advocate for Effective Altruism. Seems, like most moral philosophies, like it can be taken to the extreme or practised in moderation - weak longtermism to extreme longtermism. Appears that EA's maths-centric framework appeals to wealthy silicon valley types who might not be... the most emotionally intelligent people on the spectrum. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23298870/effective-altruism-longtermism-will-macaskill-future
Watch the footage of Braverman being questioned by a select committee on immigration, its astonishing just how foolish she is, in fact its embarrassing someone that incompetent can be home secretary. There must be dozens of Conservative MPs who could at least sound like they know what they are talking about. Its the second clip down in this report: BBC News - Suella Braverman: We have failed to control our bordershttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63730054
Quote from: petejh on November 22, 2022, 07:42:19 pmSome good discussions about it recently in connection with Sam Bankman Fraud's err.. massive fraud. SBF being an advocate for Effective Altruism. Seems, like most moral philosophies, like it can be taken to the extreme or practised in moderation - weak longtermism to extreme longtermism. Appears that EA's maths-centric framework appeals to wealthy silicon valley types who might not be... the most emotionally intelligent people on the spectrum. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23298870/effective-altruism-longtermism-will-macaskill-futureI rate a lot of what MacAskil has written and would say he has a very pragmatic mindset towards the collective improvement of human life. That being said I think he labours under the same weight as many great communicators who nonetheless are keen to stay as intellectually rigorous as possible, which is choosing the appropriate level of conversation to suit his audience. No matter how carefully language is chosen there will always be people who leave with a different message than desired. In my opinion the main issue with Longtermism as a total concept is that it reaches fairly quickly into the abstract. If we look at human life quality and societal robustness as a pyramid, it becomes clear that improving the baseline allows society as a whole to build higher in a stable and sustainable way. With this in mind, it makes sense to lift more people out of poverty because this improves the baseline of life-quality and has the knock-on effect of enabling more abstract goals like keeping children in education for longer. That is then the focus of effective altruism. Strong Longtermism however pictures future human progress as an inverse pyramid with the upper layers vastly outweighing the lower layers. This leads people into a moral conflict because regardless of how you spin things mathematically, 100 billion lives seems more 'valuable' to us than 1 million lives. The issue with this mindset is that it fails to recognise that those theoretical upper layers can only exist through us broadening and strengthing our real societal pyramid. The Longtermism inverse pyramid is simply a potential reflection of where we might go, with actual progress being grounded in the near term. Climbers will have a good appreciation of how this works by comparing it to grades and improvement. If someone has climbed a couple of 7c+ and now wants to try an 8a, this seems realistic. Similarly if they become extremely inspired by an incredible 8b and decide to train and project that line to the exception of others, they might be viewed as missing some of the bigger picture but nonetheless still ultimately on the same page as the rest of us. However if our climber does two 7c+ and then decides they want to go and project an unclimbed potential 10a exclusively for the rest of their climbing career, they'd be laughed out of town. As climbers we know that our ability to reach and comprehend progress is limited by the base we've built under our feet, and the same applies to theoretical human potential. There's no sense in trying to reach the 10a now, but at the same time we don't want to only climb 7c+ forever. Weak Longtermism lays the case for a realistic futuristic mindset where we do the work necessary to allow us to reach higher, generation by generation, instead of plateauing or getting permanently injured and falling off the pyramid altogether. Obviously this is all my opinion and others may interpret it differently
Throw in impact of growing population on the natural world and I don't see the overall value proposition of a growing population.
Quote from: TobyD on November 23, 2022, 10:58:55 pmWatch the footage of Braverman being questioned by a select committee on immigration, its astonishing just how foolish she is, in fact its embarrassing someone that incompetent can be home secretary. There must be dozens of Conservative MPs who could at least sound like they know what they are talking about. Its the second clip down in this report: BBC News - Suella Braverman: We have failed to control our bordershttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63730054I'd seen the clips from this hearing and it left me feeling pretty depressed. It's even not the ideological differences, it's the total incompetence of her that gets to me. Surely we can drum up some ministers that aren't this shit.
Quote from: galpinos on November 24, 2022, 10:35:03 amQuote from: TobyD on November 23, 2022, 10:58:55 pmWatch the footage of Braverman being questioned by a select committee on immigration, its astonishing just how foolish she is, in fact its embarrassing someone that incompetent can be home secretary. There must be dozens of Conservative MPs who could at least sound like they know what they are talking about. Its the second clip down in this report: BBC News - Suella Braverman: We have failed to control our bordershttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63730054I'd seen the clips from this hearing and it left me feeling pretty depressed. It's even not the ideological differences, it's the total incompetence of her that gets to me. Surely we can drum up some ministers that aren't this shit.I know, that's exactly what I thought. It's not the fact I disagree with many, perhaps most of her beliefs, but the fact that she's obviously shit at her job, and can't even pretend to know what she's talking about. Private Eye did a thing ages ago about her creative approach to her CV when she was attorney general, she is not as qualified a lawyer as she'd like to tell people.