andrewducker | Interesting Links for 24-09-2018

andrewducker

Majority Of Voters Back Urgent Reform Of Westminster System: (tags: reform voting uk )
Why it matters that Bert and Ernie are gay, which they are: (tags: lgbt muppets SesameStreet )
Octopuses on MDMA reveal genetic evolution link to human social behaviors: (tags: social octopus ecstasy psychology )
Continental Drift - It's amazing how recent anything even vaguely resembling modern continents arise: (tags: geology geography video time )
How the World Map Looks Wildly Different Than You Think: (tags: video maps world size )
Solar panels replaced tarmac on a motorway. Here are the results.: (tags: solarpower roads fail )
App update rejected for mentioning iPhone XR in release notes: (tags: apple wtf )
Chechnya starts concentration camps for gay men, first time after Hitler: (tags: lgbt homosexuality Chechnya fascism bigotry OhForFucksSake )
Labour's new Brexit referendum would not offer option to remain in EU, says John McDonnell: (tags: Labour UK Europe OhForFucksSake )
No one understands why DC is now removing Batman’s penis from comic: (tags: comics penis censorship )
Malware Disguised as Job Offers Distributed on Freelance Sites: (tags: jobs malware virus OhForFucksSake )
“Unadoptable” shelter cats get second chance at life by chasing mice: (tags: cats mice jobs )

Crossposts: https://andrewducker.livejournal.com/3726743.html

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

danieldwilliam

If anything the results of the solar road are worse than I expected.

From:

jack

Honestly, I'm surprised they managed to solve "solar panels you can drive on without cracking them" AT ALL, so they did better than *I* expected.

But I'm still not sure, if the cost of mediocre solar panels minus the cost of tarmac is in any way better than the cost of normal solar panels built over something. Roofs first, but you *could* roof over roads if you're genuinely running short of area to solar-panel.

From:

danieldwilliam

Well, to be fair to your priors, I don't think the study has run long enough to conclude that the solar panels won't crack. A normal solar panel is expected to last 20 years. Evidence suggests that they are lasting longer and suffering less degradation in performance than expected. So, if the road solar panels are lasting for a few years, that's okay but they need to be lasting for 15-20-25 years before they have overcome the "not cracking" criteria.

My view is that is always going to be better to stick a solar panel almost anywhere else than the roadbed. On a roof, on a roof over a road, on a raft on a lake, on a hat, on the side of a wall because the stuff you have to do to a solar panel for it to survive on a road is almost always going to be more expensive than putting it anywhere else where also making it perform worse and it will be pointing in the wrong direction.

From:

jack

Good point. Ok, that's more like what I was originally expecting.

From:

danieldwilliam

Given that Bert and Ernie have such different outlooks on life I had always assumed that they were either lovers or had been in a foxhole together in the Ardenne. If they were just mates Bert would have strangled Ernie about 18 months in to their flat share.

From:

zotz

This point came up twentysomething years ago and one of my friends said he'd always assumed they were brothers.

From:

danieldwilliam

Brothers would also explain the relationship dynamic.

From:

danieldwilliam

I think my takeaways from the octopus link is that octopuses are basically depressed and that scientists have too much time and drugs on their hands.

From:

danieldwilliam

What is John McDonnel going to do if the result of a binary referendum is a close vote between a deal he doesn't like and no deal?

(The actual answer is nothing, because he's not going to be in a position to do anything about it because he works for Corbyn and also has no route to a general election in 2019.)

From:

mountainkiss

He can't engineer a general election. But given that May can't get anything through the House of Commons, the likelihood of one must be sufficient for it to be worth planning for.

From:

danieldwilliam

Sufficiently likely to be worth planning for but not sufficiently likely or suffiiently controllable (I think) to make the central plank of my strategy. Not in public.

I still think the Tories will hang together and the DUP will not switch sides and Sein Fein will not turn up.

Nor do I think that the Labour Party are likely to improve their position in a general election. Although, John McDonnel obviously has to publically asume that they are likely to.

From:

mountainkiss

Tories will hang together to back what?

From:

nojay

To stay in power.

From:

mountainkiss

Sorry, not clear. Behind what deal? There is no workable option currently on the table. They’ve ruled out Norway and Canada plus requires a border in the Irish Sea.

From:

nojay

The Tories will hang together because if they break apart they lose power in the House of Commons and thus control of the Government.

There is no deal they can agree to, "Norway" has that icky free movement of people immigration requirement which millions of their voters would object to never mind payments to the EU, supremacy of the ECJ and more. Canada plus plus loses them the DUP and thus the House of Commons. There is nothing else except their fantasy Chequers cherry-picking exercise which cannot be accepted by the EU from a country outside the EU's rules since it directly contradicts the four freedoms core of the EU's structure. The Tories can't revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU because they'd lose power for a generation and more, and power is why they're in Government in the first place.

We're headed for a no-deal exit.

From:

mountainkiss

I do not think the statement "they will hang together" has any meaning if they are not hanging together behind something. And I do not believe (perhaps wrongly) that they will hang together behind a no-deal exit to the extent that they can get it through Parliament, given how slim their majority is. The number of people needed to block this getting through is pretty small.

From:

danieldwilliam

The Tories can vote for a No Deal Brexit. We effectively default on our existing obligations and become a pariah nation for a decade. Our economy shrinks by 10% in Q2 of CY2019. A quarter of million poor people die. The pound hits US$0.90. It's less than ideal but it's better than the Tory Party splitting.

From:

mountainkiss

Okay. I'm going to nail my colours to the mast and say that I don't think there's a majority in the party for that. I could be wrong. They don't need many people to refuse to endorse it before they lose the ability to get it through Parliament.

From:

danieldwilliam

You are less cynical about the Tory party than I am.

As you know, I come from a long, long line of Labour activists and whilst I might be on hiatus from the tribe you can take the boy out of Labour but you can't take the Labour out of the boy.

For enough Tories to vote to effectively bring down their own government they need to be comfortable with losing their jobs, their friends and allies losing their jobs, being banished from their tribe and risking both a Corbyn government and a permanent split in the Tory party and vote They also need to be sure that sufficient other Tories will vote with them, or else they have isolated themselves and sacrificed themselves for no good purpose.

You may be right about them but I've always been with Nye Bevan on the subject of Tories.

From:

mountainkiss

I mean, don't get me wrong, I do genuinely think there's a good chance of no deal - currently putting it at 40%. But I don't think that'll come from a vote. I think it'll come from the lack of one.

From:

danieldwilliam

I'm not trying to split hairs here but what sort of scenario are you thinking of when you say not a vote.

It's open to backbenchers to trigger various proceedures in the Commons, up to and including a vote of No Confidence - so they ought to be able to force a vote.

I currently think 60%

From:

mountainkiss

Sorry, I mean a vote that legitimises leaving the EU without a deal.

From:

danieldwilliam

I see.

I think the reality is that it's all going to be murky, up to and including threats of violence. So, who knows what anyone will do.

From:

mountainkiss

I also do not think that a Tory government would survive a no-deal scenario for very long, and some of the politicians whose sole aim is the survival of the party will take this into account.

From:

danieldwilliam

I fear many of them have decided that the die is cast and the only way out is to go through and out the other side.

From:

andrewducker

Yup, with you there.

From:

jack

I really hope there isn't, but most worried about labour MPs supporting a no deal (or bad deal) brexit :(

From:

mountainkiss

There will be some, yes. Hoey, Field, another one whom I've forgotten. But I (possibly wrongly) don't think there will be so many that it makes the passage of no deal inevitable. The Labour Party will be strongly whipped to vote against it.

From:

mountainkiss

I think an accidental no-deal is a very real possibility, just because the clock stops ticking before there's any possibility of a deal. But I think it's pretty unlikely to be a deliberate outcome.

From:

danieldwilliam

The same thing they always hang together to back when times get tough - the continued existence of a Tory government.

From:

mountainkiss

See reply to nojay above. They still have to vote for something, and that something then has to be agreed with the EU.

From:

aldabra

They vote against all possible options; the EU says right, no options then; we leave on March 29th with no deal. They don't have to vote for that; they just have to vote against everything else.

From:

mountainkiss

Yes, but that's not quite what this thread was about. It was about whether the Tories would unite around an option.

From:

danieldwilliam

I think there is a difference between uniting around an option and everyone deciding not to push their own faction's prefered option, and by doing that actively cause a split with the end result being no deal, either because we run out of time, or the EU says enough is enough or it is easier for the Tory Party to blame the EU for a no deal than it is to blame one of its factions for the content of an actual deal that is hugely flawed.

From:

mountainkiss

I expect you are right but have no idea how to parse this sentence, so am not quite sure. Could it be two?

From:

jack

I notice it says that correlates with vote leave -- maybe that's a worthwhile target for "everything is fucked, something must change" feelings?

From:

aldabra

Yes. I'd vote independence from Westminster. I wish we'd had that one first.

From:

nojay

It isn't going to happen as there isn't time to pass the legislation to make it happen, decide on the wording, organise it, arrange for the balloting, allow for sufficient campaigning etc. before B-day on March 29 next year. Wishful thinking on the subject isn't going to help.

A referendum can't be made binding on Parliament which is sovereign even over the EU, despite the claims of the Loony Leavers. Retail politics, the horrible gooey stuff on the underside of the rock you lift to examine the process, demanded the victors on the day got their A50 declaration from the seated Government of the time because failing to do so would mean Opposition status for the next decade or two due to millions of ukippers walking away from the Conservatives. It's the same reason Labour is so antsy about reversing A50 even if they were given the chance as a seated Government. It's very unlikely May or her successor will offer them that chance by calling yet another General Election soon. She could do it after B-day and leave them to clean up the mess, of course.

Out means out. We're leaving, unless the current Government is willing to commit electoral suicide for a generation or more by recalling their Article 50 declaration. Worst case, say hello to Prime Minister Farage. Don't think it couldn't happen here.

From:

danieldwilliam

There isn't time to organise a properly run referendum according to UK norms.

The legislation could be passed in a day if needed and the referendum could be held next week, if Parliament so willed it.

Whether this would improve the situation for the UK, for Scotland, for Parliament, for the any of the parties, factions or individuals at Westminister and beyond or for the concepts of democracy and legitimate government is a moot point.

I think a less damaging route to a second referendum lies in a failed vote in Parliament, the Tories collapsing, an inconclusive general election and the the new minority government being told that it has to extend Article 50 and have a referendum to work out what its position is.

Beyond that the prospect of a second referendum plays the role of a fleet in being. So long as it is talked about it widens the range of the Overton Window and keeps Remainers circa 2020 with a grievance about the process that led up a poor Brexit sufficiently so that it gives comfort a Rejoin campaign.

From:

nojay

There's no will in Parliament (meaning on the Government benches which can command a majority of the House, there would be no open vote on this, full three-line whips) for a second Referendum. It would take months of pressure and movement to get to that point. A hastily-arranged referendum would be a disaster with the losing side claiming vote-rigging, cheating, financial irregularities, sore losers yadda yadda. The realists on all sides know this and are keeping the concept at arm's length.

We're headed for a no-deal exit, all other options on the table have deal-breakers for the British (Norway, Canada plus) or the EU (cherry-picking). With luck we'll have some administrative stuff in place by March 29, aircraft and pilot licencing etc. but trade is going to be destroyed until the pieces can be picked up and glued back together, months or years after. My view is that the consequences will hit so hard we'll petition to rejoin the EU promptly by but that's the best hope for a shit situation.

From:

danieldwilliam

I think you're right about the lack of will in Parliament. Until we experience the reality it will be difficult to articulate clearly and persuasively a change in the mood of the nation in the way that translate in to Parliamentary action.

Legitimacy is the word. A second referendum in a hurry might be a useful way for a government or for Parliament absent an effective government to shift responsibility for whatever might be about to happen from themselves to the people but you are right it would be open to all kinds of legitimacy issues.

We are certainly heading for something breaking. Either the UK or the Tory Party.

From:

ckd

We are certainly heading for something breaking. Either the UK or the Tory Party.

I know which one of those I'm more willing to dispense with. Unfortunately I see non-trivial odds that both will go, which will give me a little bit of schadenfreude at the fall of the party responsible while not mitigating the problems of the fall of the UK one whit.

From:

agoodwinsmith

I can't even click on the Chechnya article - the title is distressing enough. So much malice everywhere.

However, the unadoptable cats patrolling warehouses was very comforting. I think whoever thought up the "Blue Collar Cats" name for the program in warehouses was/is brilliant.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

andrewducker

My NotZen Website

August 2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Aug. 31st, 2025 10:42 pm