Yup. Betfair in the UK didn’t close or settle their 2020 market for months, even though the terms of the market were about who was declared winner on election night, and were long since met with 100% certainty. That was some very easy money.
I mean some fraction of that market is for sure addicted, which possibly stretches the definition of “like”.
This is frustratingly common. Who has the resources and incentive to run such studies?
Finding the same thing with evidence for the effectiveness of AI copilots. Everyone doing wonk on it has a finger in the pie. So in order to believe the research you have to trust the integrity and discipline of people you never met, not to mention trust a whole organizational to be culturally respectful of the scientific method (which probability near zero for a large corporate).
Could at least have chosen something halal/kosher.
So has lobotomy for certain mental health patients. What’s your point?
Yeah, what was legal/feasible 100 years ago might not be the best guide today. I mean no reasonable person would deny it would be better for public health.
That’s actually an interesting question. All the people I know who still smoke are left leaning and probably pro vaccine. I guess I don’t know many of the main smoking population (older lower socioeconomic status) so maybe there there’s more than coincidental overlap. It would be coherent I guess for the freedom over everything type people I suppose, depressingly.
Everyone who chooses to drive in a city centre has a directionally similar impact (potentially bigger magnitude because vehicle traffic is pretty lethal). I don’t think anyone disagrees with the principal, they just have different thresholds for personal freedom vs impact on those around you.
I think it’s hard not to see a culture/class aspect to this when wood burners continue to be used without much limitation.
That’s not a terrible analogy, but doesn’t resounding support a ban. It’s virtually unimaginable (and I suspect more or less legally impossible) that vaccination would be obligatory.
“bOtH sIdEs”. no. absolutely not. Criticise starmer, sure, but it’s a joke to even begin to compare him to the decade of enablement by the tories.
They want Westminster to be disfunctional. That’s the path towards independence. They’re actively opposed to progressive wins. This goes both ways BTW, Labour won’t ally with them either. Structurally adversarial politics is crap. Only electoral reform will make it possible for natural allies to actually work together (on the issues where they align).
“derisking” is just making explicit the agency problems that came to light in the financial crisis. If private money isn’t being rewarded for bearing some of the risk, what is it for? Such a stupid idea.
I wish I didn’t. Manosphere bilge.
In fairness. “net zero” has a precise but pimited meaning. If anything using “net zero” as shorthand for “zero net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide” is deficient in the first place. It’s snappy and (reasonably) clear but very easy to twist or repurpose or reframe.
I don’t see it. And who gives a shit what the logo is? Is this all journalism has to offer?Bacon sandwich-gate tier piss taking…
AV was a different kettle of fish. Garbage turnout and masses of undecideds in polling. I don’t think anyone ever thought it was nailed on even if technically AV was ahead in some polls. Point stands though.
He’s using those words to defend not giving benefits to the parents of a third child though. It’s just double speak: “it’s not about handouts is about a social safety net”. By playing into the framing of social safety nets as handouts he just defends the status quo. Definitely no evidence he really gets it.
Why reference a fable at all if you’re going to totally ignore it’s message?
The tories have been the same arrogant, entitled breed the whole time. Labour have still lost to them repeatedly so it seems weird to chalk it up to luck this time.
Best I’ve seen so far is the independent and, while they add some sensible context, even they are quoting sunak as if he’s speaking in good faith.
It pisses me off that this getting coverage when it contains no actual new information and is so obviously a conservative communications strategy.
Rishi is not accepting the rejection of his ideas at all. He’s conjuring the spectre of hung parliament as a rallying cry to disaffected tory voters. Maria Caulfield quote about the differences between local and govt elections really hammers this home and every media outfit is blithely repeating it all like they’re tory sock puppets.
Only has a fraction of the strategy and deck building of the actual TCG. Just seems like the usual mobile garbage to me (stamina mechanics, a million currency types, pay to win), shame.