jakee

Why are you taking credit for Mondrian’s achievement when you think he’s a hack?

The Pres needs to stop saying what he said in summer 2021 because what's happening in fall 2022 is different? I'm going to take a WAG that he has stopped saying it, otherwise you'd be using a newer quote...

That's not even really the point. Imagine if the vaccination rate was 100%, and imagine if the VAERS reporting rate was 100% with all real information. You'd be getting reports of every single major illness suffered by every single person in the country over a window of several months. Man, that vaccine would look terrifying if you didn't understand what was really hapening.

Well, obviously. First that's not the point of the study and second, so what? Double the risk of death is double the risk of death no matter who kills you. Here's a paragraph that's quite pertinent to the question you asked; People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners. Why aren't you addressing that instead of just pivoting onto the next talking point? If it was important enough for you to demand proof in the first place then it's important enough to take the time to acknowledge it, no? The case of Billy Vance was mentioned above - bought guns for the first time ever to protect his family, within a year had killed them all and himself. Does it matter that their vanishingly small chance of being hurt in a home invasion was just a little bit smaller in those few months?

Maybe. For sure he painted a whole bunch of stuff that all looked about the same for a while, but then he painted stuff that looked different too. But the (very little) I know about him suggests he was genuine about what he was doing even if I can't understand a word of his explanation of what it's supposed to be. And it was something new and different, and for some reason it makes me (and a bunch of other people) happy to look at it. That's good enough for me.

Well this sounds fun. “I’ve said this before and I’ll say this again: the Bronx civil court is the greatest instrument of wealth redistribution since the Red Army,” Trump protestor assault lawsuit going to trial

I don’t know if anyone ever thought to track the record for how quickly a minister in a great office of state has been appointed, sacked, re-appointed and re-sacked but I’m pretty sure Suella Braverman is about to break it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63444573

I don't think Mondrian himself could be a hack for a few reasons, first because he was clearly a bloody good painter before he ever discovered rectangles. Also because he genuinely believed in what he was doing, even decorating his own studios/homes like they were giant 3D living versions of his works. Also because a lot of his stuff (though I don't get that one at all) is really cool to look at. It's fun. It might look simple but it's always easy to dismiss something simple after it's been thought of. It’s not easy to think of it in the first place and it takes balls to put out into the world something so completely brand new. Mostly though, it inspired one of the most iconic pro cycling kits ever, worn it one of the greatest Tour de France battles ever. The sponsor still makes Mondrian inspired bikes and they still look really cool. The people who definitely are hacks are the critics who profess to be able to tell you what it all means while not even noticing that two versions of the same composition weren't the same way up for 40 years. I think it's pretty well established that almost the entire modern art dealership scene is one massive money laundering cartel anyway.

Hehe. Amusing, but I don't think any of these guys will get the reaction they're looking for (unless by posting nothing but the same picture every day they get marked as spambots, which would be completely fair). Musk might be wierd, impulsive and reckless but he's not stupid enough to tell Twitter to make overtly biased and personal moderation decisions, even when it's about him.

The fun's not over yet. After his first speech as PM highlighted the need for integrity and accountability to return to the government, Sunak has already created his first completely pointless and totally avoidable scandal. Suella Braverman is Home Secretary again, six days after being fired as Home Secretary by Truss after committing a serious security breach and multiple violations of the ministerial code. She probably also lied to Truss and Downing Street civil servants about the extent of her actions while she was being fired. But she's back now, all is forgiven, and there's no need for any investigation into whether this was a one time thing or a pattern. Even though the government can't even say if she's been given a full security clearance back. After 12 years in power these people think they're all invincible and they can do whatever the fuck they want. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/27/rishi-sunak-pressed-suella-braverman-serious-breach

Because it isn't true, for a start. In WW2 Asian Americans probably didn't feel very unified from their internment camps and black soldiers in their segregated units may not have felt it either. Muslim Americans during the height if the war on terror, same thing. A whole bunch of people were sure as hell giving a shit about ethnicity during all of that time.

On that, she and Rees-Mogg (the time travelling Victorian lounge lizard) had come up with a bill that will hopefully be scrapped now, which would put a sunset date of Dec 31st 2023 for every single piece of legislation inherited from the EU. Employment protections, worker's rights, health and safety, environmental protections, every aspect of airline and aircraft safety, pollution and waste dumping - you name it. 2,400 laws from 50 years of Work and co-operation with the EU that would all have to be actively reviewed and the minister responsible would have to decide to keep them or they would simply disappear. It's crazy to put that much power in the hands of a few ministers with no oversight, even crazier to think they could genuinely accomplish the task in one year, with everything else they have to do, and make the right decisions. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/25/rees-mogg-lambasts-critics-of-eu-laws-bill-after-quitting-government

For the entirety of the situation, yes. For Truss being completely oblivious about the damage her ideas would cause even after they've caused that damage, no. The interesting thing is that Britain could still rejoin the single market. Leaving the single market was not the question that was voted on, and lots of people voted for Brexit thinking we would stay in the single market (or could somehow keep our trade terms intact without being officially in it - which was obviously a complete fantasy but still). The Conservatives would never do it, but Labour could, unfortunately so far they've appeared utterly terrified of proposing anything that might annoy the Brexiteer hardcore.

I think Liz just beamed in her farewell speech from an alternate dimension where all her ideas were amazing and her time in office has been absolutely fabulous for the UK.

I'd take that article with a major pinch of salt, but it's funny the Brexiteers quoted who'd leave the party because of Sunak, a man who was already campaigning for Brexit back when his mum still packed his lunches. So since he's not a remainer, what problem would a big bunch of Brexit voters all have with Rishi Sunak? Answers on the back of a postcard

Well, having created the current mess by trying to lower taxes on the rich they're clearly about to try and pay for the damage by cutting benefits and services for the poor, so there's a certain dark humour in that. But I get your point, without the circus level clown show below the existential dread of their anti living human being policies does kinda drown out the comedy.

Have a little faith next time, Phil Sunak ahead as Bojo concedes.

Man who claims to represent the average Conservative Party member explains why he wouldn't ever vote for Rishi Sunak. Spoiler alert - it's exactly the reason you think it's gonna be. It might be one of the most toxic side effects of the Brexit debate, specifically how much of it was around immigration and border control, that these people really seem to be freshly emboldened to share their views out loud in public.

Right, he floated the idea of charging for it (which really means the US government paying) but he is still providing it for free. What other major American companies are doing the same?

That sounds extremely optimistic given that most Tory back benchers would lose their own seats in a snap election. These turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

In a whiplash inducingly fast return to form, Boris is claiming to have the required 100 (unnamed) backers already, with plenty of other Tory MPs calling that ‘hogwash’ ‘garbage’ and ‘numbers plucked from thin air to make the headlines.’ So he’s been back in the country for less than half a day and he’s lying to everyone already.

Just like the Daily Mail "At last a true Tory budget!" and the editor of the Sunday Telegraph "The best budget I have ever heard a British Chancellor deliver by a massive margin. The tax cuts were so huge and bold, the language so extraordinary, that at times, listening to Kwasi Kwarteng, I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming, that I hadn’t been transported to a distant land that actually believed in the economics of Milton Friedman and FA Hayek." These people who need us to believe they know what they're talking about pushed for this, applauded every detail of the mini-budget, told us it was guaranteed to be an unrivaled success... then watched as their ideology shattered to smithereens on first contact with reality. And it won't make any difference at all. They'll simply forget this episode ever happened and go back to telling us over and over again why they know what's best for us and who we should be voting for. Funny that we've had all these 'saviours' and nothing seems to have improved...

I thought you supported him just because he would vote straight down the line on the Republican / Trumpist agenda? Where does ‘being tough’ come into it?

Honestly I think those tweets came from simple ignorance and a need to be the centre of attention rather than pushing a pro-Putin agenda. We should be careful to recognise that Musk is actually providing a hugely important and very expensive service to Ukraine for free and footing the bill himself - I don’t think the likes of Boeing, Lockheed, AT&T can say the same. So while he is an asshole who doesn’t know when to shut up, his company has (so far) really gone above and beyond in support of Ukraine.

Per an actual relevant point - given that Musk can simply decide on the level of moderation he wants Twitter to have, why is 5000 people losing their jobs a good thing?