Search results for:

Oh I see where we're crossing wires. I'm not saying they'll regret it after death — christ, that's stupid.

I mean, yeah, they might. I don't pretend to know what goes on in the mind of people in that state.

No, I'm not religious. The patient, of course.

They might regret it, and I'd hope the process has a swift procedure for nullifying any previous decision. I don't think you can be categorical about this.

Really sorry to hear that,

We looked after my partner's mum in palliative care at home and it was both one of the most horrific and, oddly, rewarding things I've ever done, in terms of helping someone in their moment of greatest need.

It's not semantics at all? It's not exactly controversial to want strong protections for any process that results in death.

I'm in favour of people having choice by the way.

That sounds about right, from a total outsider's perspective. I should probably dig into the documentation tbh

That's beside the point. This is about consent, and that's entirely in the mind of the patient to decide, but requires strong protections given the medical reality of most in palliative care.

It’s not a bad argument to be fair, depending on what the process is. Coercion could be a very real risk.

Does anybody know what the suggested process is? I’ve not been following it, so can’t say.

Better than nothing though, I suppose…

It’s nice to see rent control on the agenda, despite it being for such a small selection of buildings and fairly mediocre terms. The Mayor has limited power for deep change, but it could be much fairer than this:

To ensure the new homes are “genuinely affordable”, Mr Khan is proposing to set the rents at 40 per cent of average key worker household incomes after tax.

Annual rent increases would potentially be set in line with wage rises, or at two per cent each year, depending on which is higher.

Affordable rents tend to be understood as less than a third of take-home pay, not 40%.

And if the increases will behave similarly to market rents anyway (wage increases get transferred into rents as it stands), this won’t really improve things dramatically. Public sector rents should be at, or close to, the cost of provision, with allowances for inflation on maintenance work. Defining rules for future wage theft on a percentage basis seems rather arbitrary.

thanks, will check that out!

On the acer front our red one always gets too much sun and burns too, even in a part-sun/part-shade spot.

Looks lovely, but surely that (single?) door can't pass regs?

Yeah, that just about sums up my cynicism about it too

Thanks for posting those, I'd not seen those episodes

I don't know how it's considered news when they can say "The chancellor set out a series of changes" and just… not describe them in any detail.

“These changes have resulted in a system which sought to eliminate risk-taking. That has gone too far and, in places, it has had unintended consequences, which we must now address.”

That article is so unspecific. Depending on your position, it could be presenting a change in regulation to reduce rentierism in finance, or be incredibly laissez-faire.

Although given the standard definitions of growth and financial stability in Westminster, I suspect this is not good news:

The chancellor set out a series of changes, some of which were proposed by her immediate predecessor, Jeremy Hunt. These include obliging regulators to take into account growth, as well as financial stability; and replacing the current “certification” regime for investment professionals, with a “more proportionate approach”.

There is an interesting cross over between facist, communist and capitalist architecture.

To add to this a little more, it’s interesting to me that Marx had a very different viewpoint on this to both state or capital authoritarians and the modern city-oriented non-authoritarian left.

His view was that there should be no real distinction between urban and rural forms, partially to undermine central power structures and to otherwise make sure that land access was distributed relatively evenly.

That probably looks something more like (squints eyes) modern suburbia than many would like to admit, albeit without strict delineated land ownership, before the idea of the car, and with a more autonomous and active community.

There's a similar undertone to rural heritage styles too, to be fair — all that's required is that they've been extracted from their original context and applied in a selective manner for a projected political future. Centres of power need large, dominant structures, but they also rely on a Maoist/Fascist throwback to simple cottage life to sustain their support without interference.

This seems to be playing out in the US to some degree too, with the rise of homesteading and the like.

I almost wrote my dissertation on it.

Damn, would have loved to read it!

That’s about where I mount them without using a mudflap, works pretty well, no wet feet!

I think technically it’s meant to be shifted further forward so there’s more of a drop at the front, but it’s not very important

Man, I love that guy

https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-failure-of-democrats.html

Shit, he spotted us

$10 t shirt

Would love to see the cost breakdown of production and distribution for this. The fashion industry is pretty fucked, relying on terrible labour pay and conditions from the cotton farms all the way through to stitching the final garment.

Crucially though, the margins often get larger the closer they get to the consumer, domestic retail at the point of sale usually taking the most. American firms may well only have to pay a small additional fee on the import of blanks, and then take a hit where they’re doubling the price for domestic consumers. They’ll obviously try and pass through that cost though, not that they need to.

T-shirts aren’t representative of the whole economy but there’s more to it than just ‘tariffs bad’

What irks me is that it seems like such a crass ideology for one based upon the existence of intelligent visionaries.

Maybe you’re right though and it’s not that complicated.

I do wonder if they’re not so much in favour of autocracy per se, but more that they know there’s no way of installing their preferred libertarian system through any sort of democratic process.

I guess that’s why it’s a nebulous strongman they allude to, but don’t go on to describe in detail the specific bureaucracy or system necessary for their model society. In any case, that would go against their libertarianism, so they’re just stuck being elite reactionaries in a political and theoretical dead end.