HJB posted:

Happy new year all, despite all reason I am appreciating the Craig David, though I am aware that many of the problems in this country stem from it being stuck on Kisstory, on loop, forever.

HJB posted:

Jools Holland is the WWE of NYE shows, I am comfortable with my decision.

Guavanaut posted:

Where's that BSS locomotion with the thicc spiderman?

Pesky Splinter posted:

https://twitter.com/gilescoren/status/1212370333602369536

Just another day in the very normal life of Giles Coren in AD 2020.
(Screencapped incase he deletes it).

Trin Tragula posted:

First poll for Labour leader from YouGov.


They then have it 61-39 to Starmer in the final round.


Still looks like there's plenty to play for in the hustings over the next few months, but it seems as though just being the continuity candidate isn't going to be enough (nor should it be), and it also looks like Leavers v Remainers is still going to be very important.

quote:

The poll was commissioned from YouGov by the Party Members Project, which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and run by Professor Tim Bale of Queen Mary University of London

quote:

Professor Bale said: "It looks as if Labour's overwhelmingly pro-European membership really appreciated Starmer's dogged determination not to flounce out of the shadow cabinet but to hang on in there in order to drag Jeremy Corbyn towards a more pro-Remain (or at least pro-referendum) position."

quote:

"It certainly doesn't look as if Labour's members are necessarily persuaded that it's time the party had a female leader. They seem more interested in picking the best person for the job, irrespective of gender," he added.

quote:

"For all the talk of Labour needing some 'Northern grit' in order to help it regain its so-called 'Northern Wall' seats and working class voters, it looks like the membership are more interested in who they think will do the best job than where or what background they come from," said Prof Bale.

Purple Prince posted:

In the sense of "does not work, relies on extraction of surplus value from labour for income", pensioners are capitalists. You're confusing this with the popular use of "capitalist" to mean big bad haute bourgeois billionaires, but by Marx's definition most pensioners are something like petit bourgeois.

It might not chime culturally, but in a material sense most pensioners rely on capital markets for their income. Their class interests are aligned with hedge fund managers and financiers more than those of workers.

Now am I saying Agnes down the road should be put up against the wall? No. But if we don't understand what makes pensioners vote Tory so consistently we have no hope of reversing that trend.

Guavanaut posted:

Jose posted:

He writes that sort of poo poo all the time and the nyt just today was whitewashing that navy seal who did a load of war crimes so bad that his squad were the ones to report him

Jose posted:

So will Boris drag us into this incredibly stupid war?

Ratjaculation posted:

hello friends, how is everyone feeling 3 weeks on?

Ratjaculation posted:

The worst one

Waiting for the missus to sort her visa out

goddamnedtwisto posted:

I've crossed between Western and Eastern hemispheres a dozen or so times today just doing some shopping.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Quite a lot of water-damage reductions too.

Guavanaut posted:

It was never proven to be a lie, but that's likely only because Diane gets so much abuse from stupid lovely pricks that she doesn't memorize every time some edgy chancer does it.

Ratjaculation posted:

I think we should take a moment to appreciate that for once we don't have the shittest elected Prime Minister in the world (for now), Australia has taken that crown

crispix posted:

The BEARD!!! It all makes sense now coincidenceithinknot!!!!!!!!

Katt posted:

No you are just purposely misconstruing my post of "Labour criticism of the Iran situation via Corbyn looks bad and has no teeth" as "Corbyn is in fact bad" and then you repeatedly respond to that strawman. Over and over and over.

MonkeyLibFront posted:

I'm very at this thread thinking we'll be involved in a conflict with Iran, The British Army and Military in general are in a sorry state post warfighting in Afghanistan and cuts from the current Tory government. We committed 43k troops for Iraq 2.0 we were roughly over the 100k mark, we are down to around 72k troops but that counts people who haven't even done their trade training. We don't have the capability to add anything decent with our current commitments around the globe, QE is still on sea trials and doubt it could be pushed forward.

quote:

Britain's military overextension in the war on terror is the result of an imperial hangover that has blighted foreign policy since 1945, historian Correlli Barnett will tell a conference at Cambridge University this afternoon.

Opening a seminar celebrating his own 80th birthday, the distinguished military historian will claim that delusions of grandeur about Britain's role as a first-class world power have led to “ludicrous” levels of over-commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr Barnett will say that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are merely the latest in a string of political leaders clinging doggedly to the myth that Britain's influence in foreign affairs is on a level footing with the United States.

quote:

In his opening remarks, the historian will argue that leading figures in Whitehall and Westminster have been exaggerating Britain's importance in the world since before 1945.

“Such exaggeration has remained the besetting sin of British total strategy right up to the present day and also remained a sure recipe for a discordance between military commitments and financial resources,” he will claim in his address.

He will describe the governing elite of the past 60 years as “mental prisoners of Britain's past as a world and imperial power,” often indoctrinated with delusions of national grandeur in public schools that programmed them to be “house prefects to the world”.

“At the present time, the British Army and its air support are just too small to fight simultaneous large-scale guerrilla wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan,” Mr Barnett will add. “In other words, a case of true overstretch. It is why our commitment in Iraq is being gradually cut back – simply to enable us to concentrate our limited strength on Afghanistan.”

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1213466652299481088?s=20

Comrade Fakename posted:

Does anyone else have a thing where MikeCrotch’s posts are flagged as ignored, though I never actually ignored him, and when I go into his profile the button asks me to add him to my ignore list. Even though he presumably is already on it?

Renaissance Robot posted:

Yo bk since QCS is shut down where can I complain leave constructive criticism about awful app

Anyway my complaint is I read the forums too much and now I've got the header/footer bars and post button burned into my screen

Doccykins posted:

right on time

https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/1213887926377091072

Renaissance Robot posted:

Oh neat I just wanted to gripe, I didn't think you'd actually have an answer!

I actually just trashed the burned phone last week cause the glass was smashed too, so it's fine really. I'll turn those options on to save this one though, thanks for the response!

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Are you saying they need a NEEW screen?

Doccykins posted:

The required isotope purity for reactor grade uranium is about 97% U-238 and 3% U-235 from naturally occurring Uranium mined out of the ground which is 99.3% U-238. One of the main stays of the Iran Nuclear Deal was to allow them to enrich to 3.67% U-235 for reactor grade uranium to use in their own nuclear power program but prevent them from being able to experiment with refining it to a higher degree (which to get it to weapons grade would be 97% U-235 but the process is just refining the purer U again and again.) Once the US pulled out of the deal they've been declaring whenever they've exceeded the allowed threshold (4.5% U-235 in July 2019 and again in November 2019) but now the breaks are totally off for them to start refining up to weapons grade for their own nukes.

A uranium gun-type nuclear fission device is elementary to build, the difficult bit has always been getting ahold of enough U-235 (conversely for a plutonium bomb you can pick up as much Pu-239 out of the reactor runoff as you want but the hard part about making a Pu device is getting the implosion lenses to all go off simultaneously)

Richard Muller (no relation) has a really good lecture on nukes - ironically the series is titled 'Physics for Future Presidents' and includes really good primer skills that the current occupant will absolutely not have: https://archive.org/details/ucberkeley_webcast_5BHdsjo-NR4

Cerv posted:

loving hell this Reynhard Sinaga case is actually terrifying
I’m lost for words

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50688975

OwlFancier posted:

Have the oz greens ever had power? I was under the impression that australia is basically late stage UK politics wise.

Ratjaculation posted:

have i posted skills wallets on this page yet?

skills wallets

Gridlocked posted:

Hello there UKPol Thread.

At the advice of LightningKnight I am here to raise your awareness of the apocalyptic bushfires currently engulfing much of the south of Australia.

You may think you understand. "Australia always has fires," you will say "The news says its a big one but it's always a big one."

I'm here to tell you it isn't. This is the single most devastating environmental disaster we have faced in Australia ever. Point blank ever.

Please read the first few pages of this thread and share the news of what is happening with your friends and family:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3908888