Most recent activity
-
I don't remember having to sign up for or redeem anything to get an Apple watch delivered, when I bought one as a gift in the past.
I just checked, and last year I got a "we're processing your order" email, followed by dispatch notification, and an invoice. Nothing else.
Are you buying this direct from Apple?
-
That's fair, it's just the explanation I've settled on for journalists choosing the AI angle on every story with even a sniff of it.
-
Journalists are obsessed with LLMs for the understandable reason that a lot of their low-grade listicle-writing and press-release-rephrasing jobs are at immediate risk.
And there's nothing journalists love more than writing about journalism and things that affect it.
-
if I'm doing anything wrong...
It's really down to individual risk appetite, so very hard to say. I have mostly equity index trackers in my ISA, some UK but various outside for a bit of diversity.
In practice market-cap weighting means this still ends up being massively over-weight US tech and their overseas suppliers, finance and pharma in terms of sector risk.
This is on top of various SIPPs from ex-employers that are mostly in lifestyle things similar to the one you have already, although they're at various stages of drawing down from equities to fixed income since I'm older.
-
Yes: there was more variety, but I agree it wasn't in a healthy state.
I just don't think it was derelict, or necessarily agree that the only way to improve the market was to halve its size and build a branch of fucking Giraffe
-
Spitalfields is a good example, it’s not perfect but the project took a derelict part of London
It wasn't derelict, there was a market in there. They just upgraded the market to make it warmer and more tourist friendly, and of course to convert half of it into shops and chain restaurants.
-
No, the something we're discussing is a pile of money - the NCQG - which is intended to underwrite renewable transition projects, subsidize the closure of coal plants and/or protect carbon sinks like forests, and pay for mitigation and adaptation (ie, flood defences).
If the countries that are going to find themselves underwater don't think they can afford the necessary flood defences, why shouldn't they complain? Why shouldn't they walk out, or negotiate however they choose?
Yes, it could be the case that some leaders are padding their costs to skim some off. It could also be the developed world are low-balling them.
I don't know, and I doubt @Ben689908 does either. Half a flood defence is not, in many cases, any better than no flood defence.
-
I never actually said this
No, but that's the only way I can explain
Are the developing nations better off walking out with nothing or walking away with something?
If the "something" isn't enough to achieve its stated aim, why would you help the donor countries get their greenwashing press release?
Unless you're convinced the "something" they're turning down is enough, based on some carefully costed scheme you're just choosing not to share.
-
Perhaps that your stated conclusion doesn't seem to follow from everything else you've said.
The poorer developing nations, which are generally disadvantaged by lack of resources and/or colonial history, are being asked to skip the only development path any existing country has ever successfully followed, directly to a utopian carbon-neutral future that no existing rich country has achieved despite vastly greater resources.
This unprecedented great leap forward is, apparently, "their bit".
The fact that it's all based on importing technology from China or the developed world, who coincidentally emitted most of the carbon that made this necessary, is no reason to negotiate for more money, right?
It's more important to know their place and act grateful than it is to ensure that enough resources are allocated to actually achieve anything.
You can get a 4/5g SIM with no contract, but then you need to buy a suitable router up-front (unless you have a spare phone you can use to set up a hotspot)