|
I've seen system shock 2 and can confirm that cetian posadism is very real.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
I still presume posadism is the backstory to Splatoon
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Sounds like I missed absolutely nothing last night then. Absolutely. They just had Raab on BBC Breakfast defending this poo poo, claiming that it wasn't misleading at all, that it was necessary for "someone to call out Labour's lies" and then immediately dismissed a statement by FullFact calling them out on this poo poo by saying that they were "scared of competition". I know I'm just pissing in the wind by saying this but seriously, what a loving oval office. They have absolutely no shame. On the flip side they also had Dawn Butler on who did a good job of articulating the whole "it doesn't matter what Jeremy thinks, it's about what YOU think" line wrt the 2nd ref. Really hope they manage to hammer this line home over the next few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:your Xmas presents are going to be nationalised That's all I've ever wanted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
pablo gbscobar posted:Absolutely. EVEN HIS OWN CABINET DOESN'T CARE WHAT HE THINKS KATHLEEN
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Yeah, I met her at the CLP the other month. She was pretty good, though I wasn’t super impressed with how quickly she segued from me talking about my mum who’d died to her asking me to support her in a potential trigger ballot. That's her I'm afraid. Very much a careerist albeit a largely innofensive one. Sorry to hear about your mum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:02
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1196908517434830850?s=19 The Britisher when thinking "Prime Minister" conjures in their mind a lying sack of out of touch jolly poo poo rather than a reliable and knowledgeable human being who might be a bit dour at times. I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
I think the fact that Corbyn kept awkwardly dodging the question of which side he'd support is because Labour've comprehensively wargamed every possible response and all the others would be worse for them than that one. If your strategy's specifically to position yourself as appealing to both sides, any answer that lets your opponents label you as a definitive 'Remainer' or 'Leaver' is to be avoided, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
Debate was a bit poo poo, I really loving hate the studio audience format and wish they'd get rid of it. Just have the two sat at a table talking to each other. Ahem, I, winegums, being of sound mind, do hereby  that "Iron" Michael Gapes will receive no more than 999 votes at the 2019 general election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
winegums posted:Debate was a bit poo poo, I really loving hate the studio audience format and wish they'd get rid of it. Just have the two sat at a table talking to each other. The new and best twitter slogan I’ve seen for him so far is Mike Gapes, will you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
Sanitary Naptime posted:The new and best twitter slogan I’ve seen for him so far is That's loving amazing 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
winegums posted:Debate was a bit poo poo, I really loving hate the studio audience format and wish they'd get rid of it. Just have the two sat at a table talking to each other. Ugh, i know right??? That format was absolute hot garbage, the audience was clearly full of cheerleaders on both sides (rather than random people from the general public) desperately trying to out-do each other with ever-louder jeers and ever-more-frequent clapping Johnson: *opens gob* Audience: woo yeah!! gently caress yes!! I suspect both sides know that far more people will see clips of the debate via news and social media than will have watched the entire thing, so the strategy seems to have been to ruin the opponent's clips with jeers They should have (a) ditched the audience (b) gone over all the issues instead of having audience questions (c) ditched the "cute" questions and the quick fire round and (d) have their mics automatically shut off after their time runs out my god
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:34
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that no matter what happens on the 12th that Iron Mike's Last Stand easily takes the award for most entertaining election subplot. The #RemainWithMike and #GapeForVictory hashtags are a treasure trove of comedy gold. E: This lad's been knocking it out of the park as "Official Spokesman for Mike Gapes" too https://twitter.com/MrRichardMiller/status/1196919739425136645?s=19 pablo gbscobar fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:37
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Because these are the sort of short-sighted, self-aggrandizing wankers who can't see that paying an extra £1000/year in tax for a country with functional infrastructure and an educated, secure, content population with disposable income is in their own interest (leaving aside the broader moral aspect). A recurring motif in business is not understanding when to use numbers and when not to use them. A certain type of manager thinks decisions about investments and costs ought to be made "rationally", meaning by just looking at the cold hard numbers and doing whatever brings in the most money. The problem is that while costs that you are considering of incurring can generally be predicted and measured down to the last cent, you often can't do the same for expected benefits. When you can, you don't need a fancy manager to make the decision, literally any idiot can compare cost & benefit and if benefit > cost then do it, if not don't do it. So for a practical example one of the warehouse locations of the company I work at decided a few years back that maybe they should cut back on company clothes expenses and not everyone needed a fleece jacket during winter. For context, it gets drat cold on the warehouse floor during winter. Savings were into the 5 digits with this decision, so good luck convincing anyone this was a loving dumb idea, and the decision was almost already made before anyone could deliver any input. As part of my job and work history (and poor access policies translating to "once someone gives you access to something, the company tends to forget to remove that access once you move on to another role and don't strictly need that access anymore") I have access to an inordinate amount of data. So I pulled historical illness rates, average temp worker costs per hour, average temp worker training time, average trainer costs per hour and built a model that basically said "let's assume X% of people will get ill for Y number of days during the winter months due to the absence of fleece jackets, what would that end up costing us?". While I tried to ground X and Y in the historical illness rates to make a plausible case, let me be very clear: I pulled those numbers out of my rear end to get the result I wanted. The result obviously being that not having fleece jackets would cost the company more. Once I had this "business case" (this is what it's called once you manage to put numbers on something that really can't be properly measured in numbers) I managed, after a whole bunch of meetings and presentations, to stop this dumb decision from being made. Now, I'm convinced that having the fleece jackets is actually a net positive for the company's bottom line, and I'm absolutely a numbers nerd type of guy, but making that decision based on numbers was a complete loving waste of time. My time, the time of upper management who initially started going in the direction of "let's get rid of the jacket", and the time of everyone in the meetings to walk that poo poo back. I can give another 5 examples of equally absurd poo poo I am dealing with right now where the company is doing dumb poo poo because of the numbers without thinking things through. And unfortunately there's no loving convincing them of this, especially once someone puts their big swinging dick on a decision and now it's an ego thing. Also in my experience almost all actual managers fall into this type I've just described. No vision, no guts, maybe even no brain, just covering their own asses by taking the easy decision "because they are backed up by numbers" and trusting that everyone else is equally as mathematically illiterate to call them out on the fact that those numbers are totally bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:43
|
|
|
Sanitary Naptime posted:The new and best twitter slogan I’ve seen for him so far is  Orange Devil posted:The Britisher when thinking "Prime Minister" conjures in their mind a lying sack of out of touch jolly poo poo rather than a reliable and knowledgeable human being who might be a bit dour at times. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I can give another 5 examples of equally absurd poo poo I am dealing with right now where the company is doing dumb poo poo because of the numbers without thinking things through. And unfortunately there's no loving convincing them of this, especially once someone puts their big swinging dick on a decision and now it's an ego thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I imagine a shady B2B procurement services salesman lightly glazed with animal cum. A cursory google seems to agree. *Jack Lemmon voice* Great Britain Ltd. likes to remember its top salesmen, because we believe in legacies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Must be immigrants / taxes / immigrants not paying taxes. In the skills wallet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The best ones are where you just straight-up don't measure poo poo you don't care about or didn't occur to you and don't even factor it in to your cost-benefit analysis and then whoops why am I going out of business when clearly every decision I've made is the right one I mean look at this dumb chart I made. Must be immigrants / taxes / immigrants not paying taxes. Yeah, I once stumped one of my bosses when I asked him how many factors and potential factors I should take into account for each side of the argument. Ended up having to spell out that what I was basically asking was "which outcome do you want my calculations to have?", because the thing they were considering would have such far-reaching and widespread implications that there was no realistic way of accurately putting numbers on the effects of the decision, both the positive and negative effects. So then he went and sat down and had a real think about which outcome he wanted. Which is good. It'd be even better if then other managers would do the same and they'd all get together, present their arguments and make their decision that way. Instead what happens is I spend a week making a big loving model with loads of calculations to come up with the result he wants me to come up with and then it gets presented as "clearly we ought to do this, the numbers agree with me". And I get why, it's 100% cover your own rear end type of thinking, but it's such a waste. And god help you if another manager in the big meeting also had a nerd make up a model to back up his conflicting vision and now everyone's decided "well if these two models contradict each other then clearly something's gone wrong and we need to go back to the nerds to have them figure out who made the mistake or where the misalignment is taking place" and I spend another week pulling apart a colleagues' model so I can pinpoint where our assumptions diverge and the conclusion still is "look duders, just loving tell us what you want and we can make it look like it's the only rational choice for you if you want to waste more of our time".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:I think the fact that Corbyn kept awkwardly dodging the question of which side he'd support is because Labour've comprehensively wargamed every possible response and all the others would be worse for them than that one. The substance of the answer was right but he could have tackled it with more finesse. Escalating versions of "What I think doesn't matter, I want to know what the public think of our deal versus staying in the EU." would have been better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
Zalakwe posted:The substance of the answer was right but he could have tackled it with more finesse. "This election isn't about me, it's about the British public" seems to me like a strong stance to take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
Yea, I think they had to have known that would be an attack line and it would have been massively disarming to straight up say “Labour will be neutral because we are committed to enacting whichever option the people decide” the first time it came up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50457262?ns_campaign=bbc_news_asia&ns_linkname=news_central A former employee of the UK's Hong Kong consulate has told the BBC that he was tortured in China and accused of inciting political unrest in the city. Simon Cheng, a Hong Kong citizen who worked for the UK government for almost two years, was detained for 15 days on a trip to mainland China in August. "I was shackled, blindfolded and hooded," the 29-year-old tells me. UK government sources say they believe his claims - of being beaten and forced to sign confessions - are credible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:35
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:"This election isn't about me, it's about the British public" seems to me like a strong stance to take. You can escalate it in all sorts of ways if you keep getting asked as well. "That's the third time you've asked me that question and I'm not sure why because it's really a question for the British people. You might as well as anyone here because I will have just as much say as them. It's the people's vote..." "You can ask as many time as you like, but the truth I hear on the doorstep is everyone is sick of hearing what politicians think about Brexit. That's why we're putting our deal back to the people to let them decide once and for all." Etc. etc.ad nausea until the end of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
Zalakwe posted:The substance of the answer was right but he could have tackled it with more finesse. Headlines would then be variations on "Corbyn admits he doesn't matter" or "Coward!" I get he needs to fire up the base but the triangulation thing, whilst not exactly working, is probably the least bad option. Get out the kids, hammer the non-Brexit platform and let the Tories talk about the Labour Deal and 2nd referendum so much it becomes an option in the narrative. If anyone other than Corbyn wants to go with "it's the people who matter" then great but Corbyn being hammered for being neutral on Brexit ain't exactly winning new votes for the Tories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:50
|
|
|
winegums posted:Ahem,  Well that makes two of us then. Anyone else want to put their precious SA account on the line for political ends? Some suggestions - Within the first 100 days of a labour government Laura Kussenberg will be gulaged - If the conservatives end up forming a minority government the piss tories will join them in coalition once again - At least one tory candidate will be charged with a criminal offence before christmas, most likely electoral fraud - The guardian will post at least three more anti-semitism related letters from the celebs before the election - CUKTIG will have no elected MPs. This includes Chukka. - Kantar are a noble and honourable polling company and will release at least one poll with Labour in the lead. Because at some point you just can't weight the turnout of the 18-30 demographic at under 0%
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 10:58
|
|
|
DickEmery posted:Headlines would then be variations on "Corbyn admits he doesn't matter" or "Coward!" Headlines are "coward" anyway. I am not advocating a departure from neutrality, rather I want him to fully embrace it. "Man of the people" is very on brand for Corbyn, he should take himself above the argument and let the children bicker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:12
|
|
Theres an article about last nights debate on BBC from their "Fact checker" thing and the way the answers are worded are infuriatingquote:
quote:
Now lets see how they phrase Boris' answers, should be with the same "WeLl AcHsully" tone right? quote:A border down the Irish Sea quote:
Oh...i see
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:19
|
|
|
RockyB posted:
Not really fair to toxx on a sure thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
RockyB posted:
Bit late for that one, Gyimah is already in the doghouse https://twitter.com/emmadentcoad/status/1196032298505904129
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:27
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah, I once stumped one of my bosses when I asked him how many factors and potential factors I should take into account for each side of the argument. Ended up having to spell out that what I was basically asking was "which outcome do you want my calculations to have?", because the thing they were considering would have such far-reaching and widespread implications that there was no realistic way of accurately putting numbers on the effects of the decision, both the positive and negative effects. I mean, in an organisation that uses data right, you present the options, agree up front which metrics you want to measure and then send both datanerds off together to figure out which one achieves those best. No fighting, no egos involved, no winner or loser. I have seen this happen but it’s insane how rare it is given that everyone makes such a fuss about being “data-driven”.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
Is there another debate happening?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:40
|
|
|
Has it been confirmed yet when the Labour manifesto is being launched? There was some vague notion of "thursday" in the back of my brain but I can't find anything definite anywhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
Yeah it is tomorrow Corbyn said so in the debate I think
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
It's not politics related, but sod it. This is a cool and good thing that everyone should do if you haven't already: https://twitter.com/startswith_me/status/1195428757546446848
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Bit late for that one, Gyimah is already in the doghouse Gyimah is a Lib Dem candidate this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:46
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:A recurring motif in business is not understanding when to use numbers and when not to use them. A certain type of manager thinks decisions about investments and costs ought to be made "rationally", meaning by just looking at the cold hard numbers and doing whatever brings in the most money. The company I was working for in the aftermath of the Great Recession made numerous 'cost savings' and 'efficency improvements'. They started being really stingey and strict about expenses. They stopped the summer company BBQ and massively scaled back the Xmas party. Then they got rid of the office administrator and farmed out parts of her role to other employees (with a corresponding increase in pay). Eventually they made about half the people in our office redundant by outsourcing their roles to specialist companies. The change that absolutely torpedoed morale was getting rid of the fruit. There was a big basket of bananas, apples and oranges in the pantry which the office administrator, as one of her responsibilities (then taken on by someone in my team), would keep topped up simply by going the SPAR across the road as needed and buying the stuff from petty cash. It meant that there was always a snack around and if you slipped breakfast or didn't have time to make lunch you could just eat bananas all morning. It was a widely appreciated gesture. The company got rid of the fruit, claiming that the annual cost of providing it was the same as a having an extra staff member, which was transparently horseshit. The amount of griping and bad feeling soared. A steady stream of people began packing it in and leaving and a consistent theme was "I knew I'd had enough when they wouldn't even let us have some fruit." Getting rid of the fruit and, for no apparent or practical reason, becoming extremely authoritarian about who was allowed to park in the car park and in what specific spaces, was responsible for thinning out about half the remaining people and destroying the goodwill of those of us that remained. The adding costs, extra losses and difficulty of getting work done with fewer people and trying to hire replacements must have wiped out whatever tiny savings they made from getting rid of the fruit many times over. There was a lesson in universality here as well. To fill all the empty space in the office they moved in a loaf of sales and marketing people and put them on the other floor. When our floor (writers, sub-editors, a couple of graphic designers) tried to start up a pool whereby everyone chipped in £1 a week for fruit, most of the sales folks got all huffy and said either "I don't eat fruit'" or "I can buy my own fruit, thanks, I'm not a poor!" and refused to chip in. The idea lasted about two months before it fell apart because people forgot to pay and chasing them for a quid was more effort than it was worth and some arseholes piped up with "Why should we all pay the same when I only had an apple and so-and-so had three bananas, four apples and an orange...?" Then it got all "So-and-so didn't pay his quid this week but I saw him eating a banana" and then in turned out that some guys from the sales floor had been taking fruit that they had ridiculed the idea of needing or paying for. So that was canned too. Of course there are no broader social or political parallels here whatsoever...
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:48
|
|
|
May be my bubble, but all anyone is talking about is the tory fake fact checker. Enormous own goal for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Gyimah is a Lib Dem candidate this time. So a Tory. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Tsaedje posted:May be my bubble, but all anyone is talking about is the tory fake fact checker. Enormous own goal for them. My anti-Corbyn colleague walked over and said, "well that's a loss for cheating."
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2019 11:50
|
|