Scott G

@GLabsPlus @Math_files The answer depends why the original information is provided. But as you have it, I think the (bt,bt) 1 needs to be greyed out too. She doesn’t say ‘at least one’. She is specific and says ‘one’. So the answer is 14/26, or 7/13 as I’d calc it, ~=53.8%.

@Math_files The chart below may help explain things. It shows all 27 possibilities with a Tuesday boy in white, 14 of which include a girl. The two left most columns are the 1st kid, and the top two rows are the 2nd kid. Each white or Grey cell is a possible combination of 2 kids.

@donhutch4 That video res isn’t good enough to see if Thiaw is doing a ‘Harry Kane’ or not: Hold the defender’s jersey and hold the defender’s arm across your own body; drag the defender down, then appeal for a pen.

Stone wall pen 🤷🏻‍♂️

@liam_crad @ethan_stevenson @tier_1st Just pointing out that the ‘Cole stepped on Woltemade’ argument is bollocks. The correct argument is that the contact is not enough. Arguable. But I guarantee that if the ref gives the pen, VAR does not challenge it. We have a problem in the game. There’s no consistency.

@ScottGPerson @ethan_stevenson @tier_1st If that foul was given the other way for a Newcastle you'd be going mad. If he's not giving the Thiaw penalty, he's not giving that one... For what it's worth, I think the ref got both right

Liam Rosenior couldn’t believe Cole Palmer wasn’t given a penalty and started begging for it. How on earth is that not a penalty when there’s clear contact?

@ethan_stevenson @onfosec @fairscup1969 @tier_1st The argument against is that the contact is not enough. But we’ve both had worse go against us. Thing that grates me is that VAR is so inconsistent. Live I though Thiaw was holding onto Reece trying to drag him down, Harry Kane style. But haven’t seen a replay.

@ScottGPerson @onfosec @fairscup1969 @tier_1st Soft is an understatement, what do you think of Reece James rugby tackling thiaw in the box whilst never even once looking up for the ball?

@ethan_stevenson @onfosec @fairscup1969 @tier_1st You two do realise that Cole’s foot lands *after* the foul? Woltemade goes for the ball. Misses. Kicks the side of Cole’s foot. A bit later, Cole’s foot lands on Woltemade’s. Soft, but ask yourself this: if the ref gives the pen, is there any chance VAR intervenes? No. 0%.

@onfosec @ScottGPerson @fairscup1969 @tier_1st Can’t argue with stupid, I wouldn’t bother

@fairscup1969 @ethan_stevenson @tier_1st Fair enough, it is in the FA rules: Rule 15.7b - you can trip someone provided you kick them from underneath.

@ScottGPerson @ethan_stevenson @tier_1st Palmers foot clearly lands on woltermades foot whatever angle you look at it so never a pen that’s why var agreed palmer fell over because he stood on our player hence he didn’t get booked for simulation = totally correct decision

@ethan_stevenson @tier_1st You melt. He trips him from the side and lands underneath.

@tier_1st “If you stop it right thyyyyyyere”

@fesshole What a wanker.

Bus driver here. If I'm approaching a stop and you're sat in the stop on your phone not paying attention I will just drive on by even if I know it's the only service that serves that stop. The only exception being if I'm over 10 minutes late I'll concede that one.

@typesfast The notice period should be used to navigate the vessel to a safe area. Would you prefer cover remained throughout and shipowners risked the crew’s lives to gouge a huge profit doing death runs?

Can someone smarter than me explain why war risk insurance gets canceled when there’s a war?

@johnkonrad Can confirm this is almost entirely absolute bollocks.

This is potentially the biggest Iran story nobody is talking about: the global insurance market may be heading toward a systemic crisis. Here’s why… Most people don’t realize London isn’t just a financial center it’s THE center of global insurance. Lloyd’s underwrites ~40% of the world’s marine cargo. Ship sinks, port gets bombed, canal gets blocked the bill lands in London. This is why the UK punches above its weight. Not the Royal Navy. Not diplomacy. Insurance. Control insurance, control trade. And London doesn’t just control the 90% of global trade that moves by sea. Lloyd’s and the London market are major insurers of almost everything skyscrapers, factories, ports, satellites, entire supply chains. You can’t participate in public markets or raise large amounts of capital without insurance. Now, the normal playbook for war risk is repricing, not cancellation. Canceling coverage entirely is a massive escalation in underwriting posture. It signals something beyond risk, it signals uncertainty so deep the underwriter can’t even price it. The question everyone should be asking: why? Why not just jack up premiums and make a fortune off the crisis like they did in the Black Sea off Ukraine? To answer that, you have to understand WHY London has maintained a stranglehold on global insurance while losing nearly submarket related to ships. The answer: better intelligence. It is no coincidence that MI6 headquarters sits directly across the Thames from the @IMOHQ, the world’s maritime regulator & a short distance from Lloyd’s itself. I have no proof of a direct pipeline, but it has long been speculated in the industry that intelligence flows from MI6 to Lloyd’s. Having the best intel in the world would be the single greatest competitive advantage any insurer could possess: the ability to price risk that competitors can only guess at. Here’s the problem: the majority of MI6’s intel doesn’t come from its own agents. It comes from Five Eyes the alliance comprising the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. And within 5Eyes, the dominant partner is obvious. The CIA, NSA, NRO, etc generate the lion’s share of intel. So if Lloyd’s pricing advantage flows from MI6, and MI6’s best intelligence flows from the US… what happens when that data pipeline gets throttled? All indications are that @Keir_Starmer was blindsided by the size and scope of the US/Israel strikes on Iran this weekend. That alone tells you something about the current state of transatlantic intelligence sharing. And we know there has been serious anger in Washington over the UK’s decision to sell Diego Garcia, home to America’s most strategically important base in the Indian Ocean, to Mauritius. It is not a huge leap to conclude that the submarine cables linking Langley to London have gone dark, or at minimum have been significantly throttled. What this means for UK national security is a question for the Brits. But what it means for EVERY company globally that’s insured through the London market has massive implications for the entire financial system. Because most large insurers worldwide don’t do independent intelligence work. They index off Lloyd’s rates. If you’re insuring a skyscraper in Tokyo, a semiconductor fab in Taiwan, or a port in Argentina you get a Lloyd’s quote, then shop that price around. Other insurers see Lloyd’s number and assume the diligence was done. They price accordingly. This means if London is suddenly flying blind it’s not just Lloyd’s policyholders at risk. It’s the entire global reinsurance chain. The cancellation of war risk coverage on ships isn’t the crisis. It’s the canary. If this hypothesis is correct, we could be looking at a systemic repricing event across global insurance markets…. the kind of cascading uncertainty that defined 2008 and COVID. Watch Lloyd’s. Watch reinsurance spreads. What Five Eyes. That’s where this story, and possibly Wall Street, breaks. CC @BillAckman

Military historian here: this is a widespread but erroneous assumption, propagated by people who don’t understand war. Wars are won by winning them, in most cases by bringing about the military defeat of the enemy. And, by the way, if you think that Iran was going to give up its millenarian fantasies because of a deal with Oman, you don’t understand jihad and shouldn’t be the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

Such “Pitiful, low effort stuff” here that the replies are turned off. Why anyone would seek legal advice from a professional bullshitter (ie politics grad, journalist, temporary spad) is beyond me!

@themagic_tophat Happens *all the time* at corners. A defender is fouling an attacker. Moments pass. As the ball comes in the attacker shoves the defender away and then scores. VAR will not rule the goal out. But if the defender had not been fouling, the shove from the attacker is a free kick.

@ScottGPerson No it wasn’t. Two separate incidents. If they’re tugging eachothers shirts at the same time in an actual tussle then sure. But it was one pull back then after, another. Not analogous with what you’re describing.

People are saying VAR was wrong and that they should just “play advantage”. They do that and it’s no goal and a foul by Haaland; freekick to Liverpool for the tug on Szo. By Haaland making that tug back, he gave VAR no choice. Don’t understand why folks can’t comprehend that.

@themagic_tophat Two separate actions, yes, but it was one ‘duel’ for the ball. The ref team should have just done what they do *literally every game* with holding at corners. Otherwise you reward cheating, and no one wants that.

@ScottGPerson But they can’t. It wasn’t an entire tussle. It was two separate fouls. Haaland just had to not foul him, it’s that simple. More likely he would have smashed it into his own net than clear it

@ClarkeMicah … 2) Shoo Lee insisted he would only get involved provided the results of his review would be released in full regardless of whether they were incriminating or exculpatory. The Lee review was skimmed over too quickly. Don’t watch the doc. Do watch the Lee review on Youtube.

@ClarkeMicah A terrible documentary. Two huge things missing from it: 1) The genesis of the ‘shift chart’. Evans’ first review had Letby on shift for 18/28 incidents. Only after focusing solely on Letby and excluding incidents where she was not on shift did it become 25/25. (1/2)

My review, in today’sDaily Mail, of the new Netflix Letby programme.

@jo21878 @HPluckrose I suspect a cruelty of fate could do a fair job. I’d like to think it could all be talked out, but over a lifetime most of us will encounter the odd very, very unlikely coincidence. And sorry, with hindsight my use of ‘performative’ was unnecessary and harsh. Wish you both well.

@HPluckrose @ScottGPerson 47 yrs here. So pregnancy is really out of the question for both of us. 🤣. I would assume some sort of brain hemorrhage or something, and we would be off to the Dr.

Me too. You can't go forward with that level of distrust & disrespect. It'd be like saying you'd only have children if he undertook regular lie detector tests & answered whether he was sexually abusing the child. He should agree to it to clear his character but leave her.

@cjsnowdon Without the prejudicial editing: “I killed them on purpose *because I’m not good enough*”

"I killed them on purpose... I AM EVIL I DID THIS"