@ChirpyChet @DanNeidle Pretty sure Dan counts himself as a wonk!
English
Mark Amery
7.6K posts
@DanNeidle I appreciate your thread Dan, but do not welcome wonk from any quarters. This mediocre crap every party pumps out affects us all and seems to be a never-ending "vote for us, here's our myopic short-termism". I do wish they would all seek more rounded ideas from people like you.
English
Stunned, appalled, shocked etc to see actual tax reform from a politician. This from Wes Streeting today.
A thread on why capital gains tax is broken. It's too low AND too high. & why this is a good proposal.
English
@MagistratesBlog @ry_on_x @PatrickChristys @UKLabour @Conservatives I really don't see how the footage is damning to the brothers. Male cop initiated violence - wrenching the initial arrestee's neck for no visible reason when he was not resisting - then after brother (reasonably, surely?!) tried to interfere, cop was first to throw punches too.
English
@ry_on_x @PatrickChristys @UKLabour @Conservatives I certainly agree the video footage is damning. There is no doubt about their aggression. However, we do not know the full extent of their arguments in relation to self-defence. We cannot know for definite how/why their evidence struck a chord with certain jurors.
English
Surely the CPS has to go for another retrial for these two?!
English
@ry_on_x @PatrickChristys @UKLabour @Conservatives And if his response to that entirely reasonable and human response to random unexplained brutality is to start trying to smash your face in, it would appear you can violently defend yourself, yes.
I have no problem with either result.
English
@ry_on_x @PatrickChristys @UKLabour @Conservatives If a police officer grabs your passive and unresisting brother's head from behind and starts shoving it towards the floor as hard as he can without explanation, without telling him he is under arrest or giving him any orders, it would appear you can attempt to pull him off, yes.
English
@ptrschmdtnlsn (TBC I have not in fact attempted to confirm what, if anything, the FIDE rules logically say about what happens next if you illegally capture your own king and your opponent plays on without objecting.)
English
@ptrschmdtnlsn Yeah, and there are going to be possibilities that, even if you can argue they do truly count as "making" an illegal move, nonetheless result in a descent into unplayable farce - e.g. capturing your own king, or deploying a squad of space marines to e4.
English
Under FIDE rules, if your opponent makes an illegal move in rapid/blitz and then you make a move, then it's too late, and it becomes part of the game. So if your opponent makes an illegal move don't call the arbiter until after you evaluate if it was a good move or not!
English
@rorymeakin @Graham8digits Eh, I don't think either was perfect. BMW starts swinging left and only then brakes - probably only checked mirror after starting to turn. Cyclist maybe should've approached slowly & waited to be sure BMW was stopping before pulling alongside. But it's his neck to risk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
English
@Graham8digits He was doing everything right. Filtering, traffic started to move. Rule 76 gives him priority. Checked to make sure driver was respecting the rules. Carried on. No incident other than a cabbie and people online getting upset
English
Footage has emerged of a BMW driver abiding by the Highway Code, avoiding an incident. Scientists have said that more research is required to understand this behaviour
Ducky Boy@duckyboycab
In the face of serious injury or death, it’s amazing how their sense of entitlement outweighs their common sense. 🤦🏼♂️🚴♀️
English
@Adespoto3 @HardScrape @2wheelsgoodBrum @Heilghast73 (It would be trivial to fix Rule 74 so that, even read in isolation, it is clear the instruction not to pass left-turning vehicles on the left is specific to when the cyclist is also turning left. But it won't happen any time soon. Lots of HC is badly written, frankly.)
English
@Adespoto3 @HardScrape @2wheelsgoodBrum @Heilghast73 I see that's from Rule H3. And yes, that rule and illustration also rule out one of the two possible interpretations of Rule 74. Clear enough if you read and compare all three rules what the correct interpretation is. Confusing and unclear if you read Rule 74 in isolation.
English
Both cyclists and driver followed the Highway Code.
Both went successfully on their way.
Have I missed something?
Ducky Boy@duckyboycab
In the face of serious injury or death, it’s amazing how their sense of entitlement outweighs their common sense. 🤦🏼♂️🚴♀️
English
@HardScrape @2wheelsgoodBrum @Heilghast73 It must be specific to turners (though this is confusing & unclear taking the rule in isolation), or else it would contradict rule 76. It cannot make sense to tell cyclists going straight not to pass left-turners on the left AND that they have priority to pass them on the left.
English
@2wheelsgoodBrum @Heilghast73 It does, that section is general advice, its not specific to turners.
English
@davidmanheim @JimDMiller @tdietterich @arxiv But he's not talking about citing it himself. He's talking about another author citing it in a paper in which he is named as coauthor (but which he may not have written a single word of, given the broad nature of "authorship").
English
@JimDMiller @tdietterich @arxiv Some would tell you to simply not cite a specific piece of evidence if you are unsure if the evidence exists, or unsure that it shows what you think it does. (I guess those people are now called "luddites"?)
x.com/JimDMiller/sta…
James Miller@JimDMiller
So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate? What if it's beyond the ability of one of the authors to verify one of the citations because that citation is in a language he doesn't know or concerns technical material he doesn't understand but another author on the paper does?
English
Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. 1/
English
@XplodingCabbage @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray I'm kinda low on sleep atm, and not at my most eloquent
but wanted to reiterate how much I appreciate the pointer; I didn't have this factor in my mental model at all.
English
-Competitive field exists
-Form of cheating is discovered which is not feasibly detectable
-Cheaters outcompete noncheaters over time
-Field now mostly or entirely cheaters
-Someone discovers how to detect cheating
"We can't come down hard on this because everyone's doing it"
/
English
@defencewithac @deloreancars @cammyk_67 (I realise we can be confident of the true meaning if we read rules 74 & 76 together and observe that 76 contradicts any interpretation of 74 as forbidding filtering straight past left-turning traffic. But we shouldn't need to work that hard to extract the meaning from the text!)
English
@defencewithac @deloreancars @cammyk_67 Well, they COULD, by having ALL the things that apply only "If you intend to turn left" in bullets after a heading saying "If you intend to turn left:". The rule is ambiguous if read in isolation; not obvious "If you intend to turn left" implicitly applies to the next sentence.
English
This is the driver's fault, but I think we have reached the point where the law needs to be amended. The idea that a cyclist can just ride up the inside of a turning car and expect it to give way is stupid and inconsistent with how other road users work.
Ducky Boy@duckyboycab
In the face of serious injury or death, it’s amazing how their sense of entitlement outweighs their common sense. 🤦🏼♂️🚴♀️
English
@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray (If I remember right, I was never even given a chance to see that paper before it got submitted to the journal. Don't have access to my old work email to confirm, that though. Not going to name any parties involved given my imperfect memory of events.)
English
@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray Caveat: I am not an academic, & only once briefly have I worked in an authorship-qualifying-way on a (ultimately rejected) paper. I am just someone who has googled some policies (and Reddit/etc threads about authorship disputes) to try and decide what I think about this stuff.
English
@CelestialFlea @defencewithac I agree (and already, pre-emptively, said so). He should've approached more cautiously and satisfied himself that the BMW wasn't going to swing left without looking before he passed on the left. That's a different point to saying he shouldn't've passed on the left at all.
English
@XplodingCabbage @defencewithac H3 also advices them to make sure they can proceed SAFELY.. "Check that you can proceed safely, particularly when approaching junctions on the left alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic. "
This dolt on the bike failed to make sure it was safe to proceed.
English
@CelestialFlea @defencewithac No, the rule literally says "If you intend to turn left", words you elided when you quoted it.
English
The specific rule is for cyclists approaching junctions with a left turn telling them NOT to approach the inside of the vehicle if they are indicating. It doesn't mention it's for the left turning cyclist, just for junctions WITH a left turn.
But if you want to get yourself run over, sure go ahead and go through at speed with a vehicle clearly in the process of turning left. Let me know how it turns out for you.
Use common sense on the road ALWAYS. It doesn't even matter who has priority, if you can avoid a collision by exercising said common sense then do so.
English
@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray When such a definition of authorship is in play, & especially when a statement of each author's contributions is required or provided, I really don't see why authors should be culpable for other authors' wrongdoing. They've told you precisely what they accept responsibility for!)
English
@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray (Besides scenarios where accepting author status is compelled by policy, there are going to be many others where a journal's authorship policy is quite explicit that each author is agreeing to be "personally accountable for the author's own contributions" only, not the whole.
English