• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Riedquat

  • Rank
    I live on HPC!
  1. That's back to how you define overpopulated. I go with saying that it is for two reasons - we can't feed our population (and couldn't even if we pushed agriculture as far as possible), and because it would be pleasanter with a lot fewer. If you accept importing food as a necessity (which works if you've got something to trade for it) and aren't bothered about the second then you could support an awful lot more people in the UK, but there are no upsides at all in doing so.
  2. Ditto, which is why I get tired of people bringing up the strawman of xenophobia. I'd happily replace millions of useless homegrown Brits with useful people, except who else would want our waste, and they probably need their useful people themselves. Better still though would be to have to have our useless wastes of space become useful and responsible.
  3. Sure, the seventies wasn't a great time by all accounts (strictly speaking I just about remember it but since I was still a young child by the time it ended it doesn't really count). But such ups and downs are par for the course for society to be honest. They don't last forever. And was life really that grim for most during that time? That's why it's a price worth paying. Even if the drop in wealth turned out to be permanent it's the change to the new state that causes the problems, not the new state itself, that'll be adjusted to in time. The burgeoning population can only end one way - badly. Whether it's enough for you now or you're indifferent enough to your surroundings that it won't be a problem for some time, it will eventually. The economy, on the other hand, should be less of a problem. I don't think there's any theoretical reason why it can't keep growing without the downsides, but the way it's organised now it's impossible not to. Plus in any case the "everlasting growth" attitude towards it feels more like an arms race - got to keep running ahead just to avoid being trampled, rather than anything of real benefit. Damned if I know how to solve that though.
  4. Why do people want to see coverups all the time? Several people in the same place in a very intense fire - a grisly, unpleasant task in separating them enough to even know how many, and sometimes not even possible. The reported death toll will be those confirmed, that doesn't rule out a higher one even without coverups.
  5. Who has ever claimed they expect good state management by Westminster? All along I don't think anyone's said anything other than the EU is one problem, the UK government is another. And the tired old ignorant bigoted accusations of xenophobia rear their heads again.
  6. My assumption (which is all it is, I'd like to know the actual answer) is that the testing being done now and is failing isn't "look how flammable this stuff is" but "this isn't the stuff we thought was there."
  7. It's still not clear what is being tested right now - is it the material being used turning out to not be the material that was thought to be used? The lab tech will probably have done exactly what he was supposed to have done, tested samples against a set of specifications. It's unlikely that that's changed. AFAIK there's been no accusation that a particular material is more flammable than it was believed to be, it's all whether the material used was the one specified, or whether the regulations allowed materials to be used that shouldn't have been, or to be fitted in a way that they shouldn't have been.
  8. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing but, like the buildings, it's a case of not doing a bodge job of it. Looking for red tape that doesn't do much other than to get bits of paper shuffled around and removing that is a worthwhile exercise. And too much of the safety culture involves using a sledegehammer to crack a walnut - wrap everything in cotton wool, treat everyone as incapable of any sort of responsibility even to themselves. It works but also produces a mindset of ticking all the right boxes rather than actually thinking about things, and has a "boy who cried wolf" effect. The last thing you want in a safety-critical situation is someone who thinks they're safe just because they know all the rules, with such people they won't question and will just, for example, stick up flammable panels without thought as long as the H&S checklist has been followed. So some streamlining where possible is also reasonable there. Of course the last thing you want to do in revising it is give any weight to those just seeking to cut corners.
  9. You are believing that your way is better. An assumption that wealth for all is a worthwhile goal (nothing comes without a price) - how much wealth? It sounds like a very materialistic approach. As for choice of how to live, again, you are imposing yours, especially if you go beyond an individual's specific circumstances and into the wider society that they live in. And yes, being rendered irrelevent by machines is something I do find threatening, to become worthless blobs of fat incapable of providing for themselves.
  10. I'd choose by expecting anything I'm spending money on to have some evidence that it works - in the case of the computer controlled tests and comparisons. How they work isn't so important there, beyond having a general idea of the capabilities of computers. So far the vast majority of computer "intelligence" is being able to churn through human-provided models rapidly with different variables, and thus provide the best or most likely outcome based on a set of human-provided criteria.
  11. I'm deluded because I realise that young people eventually become old people? Err, no, unless you believe we're also going to implement a Logan's Run-type rule, and thankfully no-one's suggested that. There was a population boom. Your "solution" to it is to maintain it rather than let a bulge work its way through the system. The type of "delusion" that I suffer from is the type of delusion that says "Hang on - house prices can't keep going up above wages forever" in the face of people who refuse to acknowledge that rather mathematically simple truth.
  12. Usually but one short and a spark can sometimes be enough.
  13. No we don't, you're making the old "we need a pyramid scheme" style argument. Better to just work our way through that - it really shouldn't be beyond a country like the UK in this day and age.
  14. The question isn't is it still legal but is it still justified? Once you'd have built up a lot of very useful experience of the railways before being allowed to drive. Nowdays there's much less justification for most of it, but on the other hand chucking someone behind the controls without much idea of how the railways work still isn't great, and nothing ever beats experience.