|
There's literally zero protection for that wreck other than a few rusty signs and a dilapidated buoy or two, and tourist boat trips went there regularly I mean I think technically some military police would come out on a dinghy from shoebury range but if someone really wanted to gently caress with it, they could probably do whatever they wanted in the time it took for someone to notice and get anyone out there to look
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Jose posted:The phone apps have a bbcode button to do all that stuff for you and if you're phone posting not using the app you're some sort of deviant Not denying being some sort of deviant but where’s all that on my awfulapp?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:20
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:The Channel 4 news segment points out that there's a giant gas storage facility in the blast range though. And container ships full of gas sail by it all the time. Did they run the numbers on that? Blast range is bit that can get hit by shockwave, not range of fireball, it's not going to suddenly ignite the place If a gas ship went over the top at the same time (or anything with volatile cargo) it would be very messy indeed, but given it's not gone off spontaneously for 75 years that's a pretty low risk
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Not denying being some sort of deviant but where’s all that on my awfulapp? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Not denying being some sort of deviant but where’s all that on my awfulapp? On Android it's next to the post button you might need to hold down for it on ios
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Speaking of the beirut explosion apparently it only directly killed about 190 people, though the damage to buildings and infrastructure is pretty bad. This is 9kt, and most of the energy goes into a huge vertical spray rather than a wave. The downwind surge was 21 knots with a 15 knot wind, so you'd just wait until there was a >6kn wind away from anything you cared about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOR_tMJ1fAk Ships got a bit shook up though, so maybe wait until there's no massive gas tankers going right by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm not so sure it would. Water is pretty incompressible and it'd probably just form a huge cavitation bubble that would then collapse. Would that depend on how deep the water is? Presumably the channel is fairly shallow at that point given the boat is sitting on the bottom and you can see the masts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:26
|
|
|
It would, a shallow depth would mean the cavitation bubble probably would break surface while it was still exploding, but that should just mean a bunch more spray. That's more like a heavy rainstorm (more Durban than Durham) combined with an open air shockwave so you lose some windows and roofing tiles, I don't think there's the energy there for a tsunami effect. Small tsunamis are like 10kt minimum and come from wide area sea floor movement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:29
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Blast range is bit that can get hit by shockwave, not range of fireball, it's not going to suddenly ignite the place If a gas ship went over the top at the same time (or anything with volatile cargo) it would be very messy indeed, but given it's not gone off spontaneously for 75 years that's a pretty low risk I believe that it is considered a bit more problematic nowadays as one of the decks is on the verge of collapse, which will either a) make loud bang or b) spread munitions around a larger area As DesperateDan said, The site is under observation from MoD Shoeburyness and anyone getting too close they'll send out a couple of RIBs but there's been various near misses. Thing is, it's a large unexploded bomb on the edge of a hugely busy shipping lane and nobody wants to deal with the problem in the hope that they aren't the ones holding the baby if or when there is an "oh poo poo" moment. biglads fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Incredible to still be thinking about building new airports in 2020
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:33
|
|
|
How do I put succinctly a thought I am having about people who say Labour's loss is through the left not voting? Basically they blame any Labour defeat on the left not voting but they ignore 'swing' voters or the fact that there is an entire group of other people who vote tory. If they have given up on converting tories because they are too rightwards, why do they think that left people are owed their vote and not the rightwards one? If labour was doing things leftwards that would make a bit more sense to me (I do not think any party is 'owed' my vote) but with all the terrible decisions made by Starmer to appease the centre and the right, why are leftists expected to fall in line and any loss is their fault? Are they scared of rightwing and centre people? Is that why they bully? I am just sort of trying to understand this odd sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:36
|
|
|
There is a general idea that tacking center is "how politics works" with the implication that that's how you win elections, and that might be true, but to then turn around and say it is the voters who are wrong when the left doesn't vote for them, exposes the truth which is that the person saying the former just believes that anyone who isn't a centrist is wrong. If I was to be charitable it is the internalization of the idea that what wins elections is what is good and you should support what wins elections, if I am to be accurate it's just they're actually centrist melts and like those politics and can't understand why anybody wouldn't. The idea that just winning elections isn't helpful without it resulting in specific changes to society either escapes them or they just generally believe that the changes will happen because the red team won and that's all we need to do, perhaps out of a desperate desire to believe in easy solutions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:42
|
|
|
VideoGames posted:How do I put succinctly a thought I am having about people who say Labour's loss is through the left not voting? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:43
|
|
|
Also yes some of them probably would be tories under other circumstances and detest leftists just as much as the tories do. Millions of little blairs all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is a general idea that tacking center is "how politics works" with the implication that that's how you win elections, and that might be true, but to then turn around and say it is the voters who are wrong when the left doesn't vote for them, exposes the truth which is that the person saying the former just believes that anyone who isn't a centrist is wrong. Politics works by winning. That was always the way and it remains the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Politics works by winning. That was always the way and it remains the way. Politics works for politicians by winning, it doesn't work for very many other people. It makes gently caress all difference to me who wins if they don't do anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
VideoGames posted:How do I put succinctly a thought I am having about people who say Labour's loss is through the left not voting? Basically they blame any Labour defeat on the left not voting but they ignore 'swing' voters or the fact that there is an entire group of other people who vote tory. yes its an odd one, because i'm seeing quite a lot of people basically saying the left have to vote for starmer but starmer is currently aiming for the people who didn't vote for labour last time so it seems blatantly obvious that withdrawing your vote is in fact an effective way to pressure the party to court you. Whereas clearly voting for them when they spit in your face doesn't encourage them to go left at all, which is the argument i'm hearing, bizzarely. i think this cycle is a write off, personally, but the only slim hopes for my politics are either A) starmer eats a collosal amount of poo poo and the centre are thoroughly discredited again, preferably soon rather than in 2024, B) labour gets spooked by the collapse in membership and the party attempts to run to the left A) seems likelier than B) currently if kier continues to lurch rightwards and then wins thats a disaster, since it will put back a decent government by 5+ years then plus however many years PM Hopkins gets on the back of labour stabilising with redistribution then crashing the economy with neoliberalism and banning BLM and invading Oman
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
A lot of them think the left, like the working class in general, are just there to serve their betters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:I'm in a 26sqm one bed flat in wet Wales. I have high shelves in my miniscule kitchen and they live on those. Ahh shelves, I should probably get myself a set 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BoardofDeputies/status/1313789485843451904?s=19 Not supporting Labour is now antisemitic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
the problem in labour is that the well has been so thoroughly poisoned against people like us. corbyn didn't lose because of brexit and being a poo poo leader but because racist antisemites tried to force through unpopular trotskyite politics so there really is no way they will pivot back to us
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SpittingImage/status/1313510530951393282 This might be the least funny thing I've ever watched. How can it possibly be this bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:55
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:https://twitter.com/BoardofDeputies/status/1313789485843451904?s=19 https://twitter.com/jewdas/status/1313799704279502848?s=20 Jewdas continue to be the best tweeters
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
leftism and democracy in the houses of parliament is basically a fox in the henhouse situation, it was the ONe Thing We Didn't Want To Happen
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
I suppose one slim possibility is starmer gets a weak majority and the SCG can hold them to ransom but I highly doubt any of them have the guts to do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:57
|
|
|
I have no idea how the electoral map works out, but with Scotland resolutely SNP is there any possibility of a Labour win that isn't a weak majority?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
peanut- posted:I have no idea how the electoral map works out, but with Scotland resolutely SNP is there any possibility of a Labour win that isn't a weak majority? he's got a plan thats just crazy enough to work: let the tories continue to kill thousands while humming and hawing then run the election as the new conservative party that will kill less people the elections have seemed fairly volatile lately so i could see a lot of seats flipping if the stars align either way
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
Depopulating the north of old people certainly is the most credible strategy I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:03
|
|
|
VideoGames posted:How do I put succinctly a thought I am having about people who say Labour's loss is through the left not voting? Basically they blame any Labour defeat on the left not voting but they ignore 'swing' voters or the fact that there is an entire group of other people who vote tory. If Labour's loss is due to the left not voting, why are the left not voting for Labour? There's a deeper question here about our electoral system and Labour's current place in it, and 'the left aren't voting' is only the surface level view. (It's also largely not true. Voting is generally broken down along age lines, more than party/political spectrum lines, and the last couple of elections have been no exception AFAIR. Don't accept the premise of the question when the premise is flawed) (Labour's losses at the last two elections largely weren't to due to the left not voting, especially 2017)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:09
|
|
|
i 'ad to vote for scotlab twice, don't talk to me about the left not being willing to vote!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:10
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:If Labour's loss is due to the left not voting, why are the left not voting for Labour? There was an interesting breakdown of population migration in the 'red wall' constituencies that emphasize this fact, I think I saw it linked in here... it turns out specifically in those regions there was a huge net outflow of young voters which of course leaves you with an older, more rightwing voting base. Edit: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/12/how-demographics-explains-why-northern-seats-are-turning-tory StarkingBarfish fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:14
|
|
|
ayesha was the person responsible for the mug not merely an adviser during that period https://twitter.com/Simon_Vessey/status/1313810802688888839?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:15
|
|
|
this si good https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1313783034567700480?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
SpicePro posted:Ahh shelves, I should probably get myself a set Small flat chat: If you are short of space, I've just had 'twin track' shelves installed (bought several 4-shelf kits from Big Dug) - they use a lot of wall space but because I have started them a metre up the wall (because that's how deep some local places were flooded in Feb and I want my books and files up and out of the way of potential floods as I live about 10m from the river) there's space under to push my table, a set of drawers and various other stuff. If you're renting, when I first moved in, I bought a 3-pack of industrial shelving from Big Dug when I moved in - it was cheapish and cheerful and was supposed to be replaced in March..... ) in my living room to use a lot of wall space. In the kitchen, I took out a cupboard (which was a shame because the seller had put it in new but no room for my fridge freezer - there was a pointless 'built in fridge' under a counter which I sold for £60 - my fridge is usually bare apart from milk and sometimes some cheese or yoghurt, but I seriously need my freezer) and had the high shelves which had been over that cupboard left in place for storage. I also bought a double 'ottoman' bed from Ikea which opens at the foot of the bed because (a) pull out drawers - no room in the bedroom to actually open them and limited space anyway, (b) side opening ottoman - no room to stand down the side, lift it and get stuff out, and that has swallowed a lot of stuff (405 litres worth in 9 x 45 litre boxes fit absolutely perfectly). I'm enjoying gradually reducing the amount of "stuff" I own to gain more and more space. When I'm thin I'll be able to chuck out all my fat clothes (she says.... the thin clothes spend far more time holidaying in the cupboard than the fat clothes). Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:26
|
|
|
twisto with you (i think) saying that the world service is part of the security services activity abroad and their annoyance and the tories cutting funding of it as well as the fact Kyrgyzstan currently has a revolution going on with murky background I thought you'd appreciate this https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1313664362343731200?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Politics works for politicians by winning, it doesn't work for very many other people. It makes gently caress all difference to me who wins if they don't do anything. It is unfortunately true that a mostly-capitalist society does tend to lead to that kind of consumerist attitude. It is the nature of the state-like things that they can only only have a single policy. For example, you can’t treat COVID response like a phone plan where you decide your own preferred trade-off between inconvenience and risk. There has to be one-size fits all. Anarchism (and anarchocapitalism) does avoids that problem, but neither is something you are ever going to get by voting, rather than doing. That single size has to be a compromise between different interests; in FPTP that compromise mostly happens before the vote. But that detail doesn’t affect the reality that it has to happen. The self-described left are 4% of the population, so anything less than 95% of policies being bad is punching above our weight. This should be possible because FPTP means Labour needs that 4% to possibly win. But overplaying that hand will naturally fail, by the definition of the word ‘overplay’. So the questions to ask are along the lines of 30% good or 40%? And, if 40, which 40? If, come the election, Labour under Starmer offers nothing, then don’t vote for him. But one key to successful negotiation is to remain open to the possibility of a deal. And making a decision now is closing that off. Humans aren’t emotionless robots. If you find yourself in the position of emotionally hating Starmer, and enthusiastically sharing tweets where some statement from him is rearranged and reinterpreted in the worst possible light, then you will not be in a position to make that deal. And, if polling shows that to be a widespread view, it will not be on offer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
What about the neoliberal wing of labour makes you think they are rationally interested in winning elections by building a united front where all the left and center's interests are represented? What about society makes you think my interests are not directly in conflict with the interests of the old, gammonly, and wealthy he is trying to court? What world are you living in where there is some hypothetical "deal" I get to either accept or not accept come election time where I get what I want? What "negotiation" is there? What the flying gently caress are you on about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
radmonger posted:It is the nature of the state-like things that they can only only have a single policy. For example, you can’t treat COVID response like a phone plan where you decide your own preferred trade-off between inconvenience and risk. There has to be one-size fits all. A vaccine that only needs two-thirds of the population to be vaccinated to severely impede the transmission of a disease (e.g. as per Whyte and Offit's thoughts) would be effective if you could put the infrastructure in place, because over two-thirds of British people strongly reject antivax, while apparently also being terrified of automatic washing machines and pickles. Same goes for lockdown rules, masks, etc. If you aren't factoring in that a certain percentage of the public are idiots or contrarian babbies, you're not seeing like a state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It also has to factor in that a certain percentage of people will ignore or avoid the one-size fits all policy. So, for instance, a vaccine that is only effective if 95% of the population has it is a useless vaccine, because there's going to be a greater than 5% number that either can't have it for medical reasons or believes it's been created by Steve Jobs (who is alive in Panama) to microchip the populace with 5G beacons. Surely a vaccine is either effective or it isn't? Its the uptake of any such vaccine that requires a percentage of the population to agree to take it that determines whether the spread of the virus is impeded? If we are overwhelmingly against antivax stuff then any vaccine that works will achieve sufficient uptake to thwart the virus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
If a disease is highly infectious it can potentially sustain itself in a population with far fewer viable targets for it to reproduce in, if a disease is not very infectious then removing only a smaller number of viable targets may cause it to die out. Also some vaccines are not effective in 100% of people, apparently, so you need to offset that by vaccinating more people. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 14:06
|
|