Monday, 30 June 2025

Headlines and captions

Sub editors are the newspaper equivalents of set piece coaches. They operate largely in the background but occasionally come up with an absolute gem. Like today in the Times where a photo was captioned "Flora Phillips became a butcher because she loves animals". What? In the article Flora says "I tried liver for the first time and it was a straight shot in the veins...I couldn't believe it was possible to see and eat an organ of an animal....It blew my mind". So basically she loves dead, eviscerated animals. I'd advise her cat to keep her distance.

On the same page we get "Bunfight over street artist's burger mural next to McDonald's". Now the Times comes nowhere near the tabloid press in witty headlines but at least this is a decent try. Maybe 4/10.

On page 7 we have the news that the 13 times winner of the Times Crossword Championship has won the first ever World Cryptic Crossword Championships. You'd have thought this eminently worthy of a cryptic headline but the sub-editor had already butchered their way to the end of the day and all we get is "Cryptic fans square off for first world title". Now it's possible this is a monumental anagram but I couldn't see that; you'd have thought some kind of crypticism would have occurred to them.

I don't know how much newspapers use AI for headline writing but I asked ChatGPT for some help.

“Across the World and Down to the Wire: Global Minds Battle for Crossword Crown” is not particularly good and wouldn't fit the page so I asked for more tabloidy. "Clue-mageddon!" is more front page Daily Star; "Across! Down! Out Cold!" perhaps would suit The Sun. Still unsatisfactory. So I asked for an anagram of the Times' headline "Cryptic fans square off for first world title" and was given "Two old rivals sport cut-throat, fierce snuff cry" which is awesome, although inaccurate so I asked it to try again and finally it came up with "Crossword fight: top clan fuels first title fury"

I was not convinced this was a perfect anagram so I asked ChatGPT to check and it said:

Nope — “Crossword fight: top clan fuels first title fury” is not a perfect anagram of “Cryptic fans square off for first world title.” It’s a near miss — stylish, thematic, but technically not a valid anagram.

I was still not convinced so I actually got out pencil and paper. And it's right, it's not an anagram. So why give it to me? It blathered on about needing brute force software so, in the interests of not crashing the national grid, I gave up. But at least I tried, which I suspect is more than last night's sub-editor who obviously went home.



Friday, 27 June 2025

The Defense

A few days ago, I think in the recent Sunday Times Culture section, I discovered author John Banville nominating his favourite book by an underrated author to be The Defense by Vladimir Nabokov. He of Lolita fame (infamy?). It explores the life of a shambling, chaotic chess grandmaster and the parallels between chess and his life. I thought I would read it and, despite my O Level in Russian, to do so in the English translation.

The first interesting thing is that there is five page Foreword written by Nabokov himself (he collaborated in the translation) which amounts to a review of the book. An odd way to begin. Which means I don't have to work too hard to do this. He writes "Rereading this novel today..." as though he'd forgotten it. It was one of his earliest and remained untranslated - for reasons he berates certain American publishers disparagingly - from publication in 1930 until 1964. "I would like to spare the time and effort of hack reviewers...." - Ouch! - "and, generally persons who move their lips when reading and cannot be expected to tackle a dialogueless novel..." I'm determined to disprove his uncharitable assertions.

Obviously my current passion for chess drew me to the book - why else would I read an early novel by an underrated author? - and the Russian title of this novel is apparently The Luzhin Defense. The history of chess is littered with eponymous openings "invented" or inspired by famous players such as the Ruy López (16th century Spanish priest), the Evans Gambit (Captain William Davies Evans) and the Alekhine's Defence (Alexander Alekhine, 4th World Champion). Luzhin is our protagonist. By the way, neither Nabokov nor Michael Scammell the translator is an American so I'm not sure why the title has an American spelling.

A brief description of the novel is that it's a love story of a boy/man rescued from youthful awkwardness by, and later mentally destroyed by, chess. And an unnamed slightly rebellious young woman who sees in this strange, socially inept and self-absorbed man strengths that no-one else (particularly her parents) can. Why does the author not name some of the key characters? I guess because he wants to de-personalise them, their qualities being more important than their names.

Luzhin was a loner as a child, disparaged by his classmates. A chance encounter with a visitor to his father's house leads to his being taught chess by his aunt. At least for a while until she has to move away as a result of becoming rather too close to Luzhin's father. He skips school and gradually develops his skills under the tutelage of a mysterious tutor Valentinov, and becomes a Grandmaster, perambulating through Europe playing (and generally winning) chess tournaments. During one such he meets our heroine who, for reasons which we are encouraged to deduce for ourselves, is attracted to him. There are hints:

"..even in this indifference, in his clumsy words and in the cumbrous stirrings of his soul, that seemed to be drowsily turning over and falling asleep again, she fancied she saw something pathetic, a charm that was difficult to define but one that she had felt in him from the first day of their acquaintance."

"She wanted to make his acquaintance, talk Russian - so attractive did he seem to her with his uncouthness, his gloominess and his low turndown collar which for some reason made him look like a musician - and she was pleased that he did not take any notice of her and seek an excuse to talk to her..."

The peak of Luzhin's chess career looms with a match against Italian Grandmaster Turati, which seems to be a kind of playoff with the winner destined to play for the world championship. Luzhin will be playing with the black pieces and spends days, maybe weeks, preparing a surprise defence against Turati's favourite opening. Come the day Turati has his own surprise and all Luzhin's preparation is for nothing. The game progresses with Luzhin's position getting worse and his mental state worse still. Eventually the game is suspended when Luzhin collapses and is hospitalised in a sanatorium. A doctor advises that chess is a reason for his breakdown and his fiancée sets about removing all reminders from his life.

He recovers, becomes calm and happy and they marry. He has no job, no money and no purpose in life, however and it seems inevitable that his thoughts return to chess. He finds a pocket chess game in his dishevelled old jacket with a hole in the pocket and he begins to think about that suspended Turati game. Nabokov plots life events as though they are chess moves; Luzhin is now totally immersed in the game, something he has to keep from his wife and everyone else. Nothing matters except to finish the game with a win. Sadly, it's all too much and he comes to a tragic end.

Nabokov was apparently a competent chess player but wasn't interested in playing competitively, preferring to create chess problems: the kind where you get given a position in a game and have to solve the question "how does white checkmate in two moves?". So you could argue that this book creates a lifesize chess puzzle universe. I enjoyed it very much; the almost-stream-of-consciousness writing, the chess references of course, the evocation of post-war Central Europe with its Russian émigrés, Luzhin's inner struggles and his character. I don't know whether those who know little or no chess would enjoy it as much but it's definitely more than a chess novel.

Nabokov in the Foreword: "My story was difficult to compose, but I greatly enjoyed taking advantage of this or that image and scene to introduce a fatal pattern into Luzhin's life and to endow the description of a garden, a journey, a sequence of humdrum events, with the semblance of a game of skill and, especially in the final chapters, with that of a regular chess attack demolishing the innermost elements of the poor fellow's sanity." You nailed it, Vladimir!

...the exquisite, moist melancholy peculiar to recollections of love, a thousand games that he had played in the past. He did not know which of them to choose so as to drink, sobbing, his fill of it: everything enticed and caressed his fancy, and he flew from one game to another, instantly running over this or that heart-rending combination. There were combinations, pure and harmonious, where thought ascended marble stairs to victory; there were tender stirrings in one corner of the board, and a passionate explosion, and the fanfare of the Queen going to its sacrificial doom...Everything was wonderful, all the shades of love, all the convolutions and mysterious path it had chosen. And this love was fatal.

The key was found. The aim of the attack was plain. By an implacable repetition of moves it was leading once more to that same passion which would destroy the dream of life. Devastation, horror, madness.

Thursday, 26 June 2025

Article 5

President Trump said yesterday that the key component of the NATO treaty - Article 5 - "depends on your definition...there's numerous definitions of Article 5, right?"

This of course is heresy to Western politicians and media, who have always assumed that the definition is clear that "an attack on one of us will be met by all the rest coming to our defence militarily". I recently listened to a podcast produced by Deborah Haynes for Sky News called The Wargame. There are five episodes and the scenario of an attack by Russia on the UK is acted out by a number of recently active politicians - Ben Wallace as Prime Minister, Jack Straw as Foreign Secretary, Amber Rudd as Home Secretary, Jim Murphy as Chancellor and others - and military experts. They meet in one room and a group representing Russia in other. Action takes place in real time.

The scenario starts with an attack on the Murmansk naval base in Northern Russia, probably by Chechen rebels but perhaps even by the Russians themselves. Russia of course accuses the Brits of doing it and threatens reprisals. And so on. Once Russian ships fire missiles at us, we naturally assume article 5 will be evoked and the Americans, French, Germans will weigh in with their planes, ships and special forces. But no. The American President calls on both sides to stop their "aggressive" actions. Eventually the Norwegians and Poles offer some kind of air support. And that's it.

I'm not going to bore you with anything more about the podcast except to say that it has (political?) agendas which become apparent:

  • The UK's military is woefully weak
  • Article 5 isn't worth the paper it's written on
To be fair, Haynes says right from the start that the situation has a 1% chance of actually happening. So we can take it with a pinch of salt, or we can consider the "truth" it exposes.

Let's have a look at the actual text of Article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

So it's "each of them...will assist...by taking...such action as it deems necessary". Not a very solid commitment. I suppose it comes down to trust. In previous US presidential incarnations there was an implicit confidence in Europe's reliance on the Americans to come to our rescue. I'm not sure there's any such confidence in the future after Trump's two terms are over; even a Democrat president might well think differently about Europe than we might imagine.

Then there's "in Europe or North America". So Iran's attack on a US base in Qatar doesn't count, nor would an attack on our aircraft carrier if it's in the Pacific, off the coast of Taiwan.

It makes you wonder whether Trump is right; it's all in the interpretation.

Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Shut up or suck up

How to deal with the 47th President of the United States? It's a problem national leaders have grappled with for six months now. It's gone from fawning (Starmer, Alexander Stubb) through mature assertion (Macron, Carney) to bemusement (Ramaphosa, "death, death, death") and belligerence (Zelensky, "you're gambling with World War III...it's going to be great television"). It doesn't appear to make any difference. Starmer's cringeworthy production of a letter from the King out of his pocket like a magician got us a tariff reduction to 10%. Here's how the others did:

Finland: 10% (no letter, no king)
France: 10% (no letter, definitely no king)
Canada: 25% (no letter, same king, no state visit)
South Africa: 35% (poor Cyril)
Ukraine: 10% (no letter, no punishment)

Today we saw the übermensch of cringe, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte laying down the red carpet and prostrating (castrating?) himself on it in front of President God with this extraordinarily obsequious message:

Mr President, dear Donald,

Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no-one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.

You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 percent!

Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.

Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.

Safe travels and see you at His Majesty's dinner!

- Mark Rutte

Ugh. Pass me the sick bucket. He gets paid €317,000 a year tax free for this bag of wind.

Hippocrates close your ears

"Do no harm" is not actually part of the 5th century BCE oath attributed to Hippocrates, which included things like swearing by (not at) the gods, living a virtuous life and avoiding surgery (because that's for surgeons). Modern day doctors, in their graduation ceremonies, probably feel that they don't fancy at least two of these so they typically (it varies by institution) swear to uphold codes of some fairly obvious ethics, including something like the aforesaid aphorism. It's reasonable for us as citizens to expect our medics to practise their trade in an ethical way.

The British Medical Association, which represents "junior doctors" (who apparently now want to be called resident doctors, who cares), called a series of strikes in 2023/24 covering 44 days of action - or perhaps we should say inaction - after having claims for a 35% pay rise rejected by the then Conservative government, which instead offered them 6% plus a lump sum, followed by increased offers, all of which were rejected by the docs. In September last year they finally settled with the Labour government for 22.3%, some backdated, some for the following year. The BBC reported that "more than 1.2 million appointments and treatments had to be cancelled because of the strikes".

Now they're back. It's reported in today's Times that Dr. Ross Nieuwouldt, the co-chair of the resident doctors' committee of the BMA said "the vast majority are excited to to go again" as the union prepares a new wave of strikes  in support of a 29% pay rise.

Now I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of these on the face of it ludicrous pay claims (how's that for not commenting?). What irks me is the morality of key public servants withdrawing their services. As a teacher, I never joined a union. My principle was that I didn't want other people speaking for me and that I personally would never have gone on strike and - as I saw it - deprived my students of my pearls of wisdom. That would have been immoral. Basically I'm not a joining person - I don't even belong to my residents' association; I only joined Cornwall Croquet Club because it was a closed shop - no pay, no play. Fair enough.

I am instinctively supportive of the concept of trades unions and I'd have to concede that over the years I benefited from pay rises negotiated by the teachers' unions with the governments of the day. I just don't want to join your club.

But teachers striking? Not for me. Junior doctors getting "excited" over forthcoming withdrawal of labour? No, do your jobs; serve the public. Do no harm.

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Supermajorities

23. That's the size of the majority as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (also known as the "Assisted Dying Bill") passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Voted For: 314, Against:291, Didn't Vote: probably around 37 once you exclude the Speaker and the 7 Sinn Fein members.

I do wonder whether such a narrow victory (less than 4%) is sufficient to endorse a highly contentious change to life in the UK. I always thought that the Brexit referendum, as a constitutional issue, should have required some kind of supermajority in order to pass. Typically in constitutional matters of all kinds - the constitution of your local tennis club, for example - something like a two-thirds majority is required to succeed. It's a protection against short term changes in people's opinions, unexpected consequences and even voter persuasion/manipulation. The Assisted Dying Bill is not a constitutional issue, it doesn't change the way our country is run but it fundamentally affects an aspect of our way of life, of our culture, maybe our understanding of our humanity. Most of all, once the change is made it's extremely difficult to reverse even if the consequences prove to be perverse (as some would say of Brexit).

I have always been ambivalent about this Bill, mostly because I cannot separate my own feelings on it (which I genuinely can't anticipate) from the "greater good" arguments which seem to emphasise the benefits for perhaps small numbers of people. It's the thought that I simply don't know how this will work in practice that would have me vote against it were I an MP. That isn't to say I'm against all change; I'm happy to see fundamental (in the sense that it is almost certainly irreversible) change if there is a huge proportion of informed opinion (and therefore, in Parliament, votes) in favour.

Most of what our elected representatives vote on is transactional: increase this tax now, we can change it later if fiscal circumstances change or a new government is voted in. A majority of 1 is OK. But generational change is different and in my opinion requires much greater support. Not 100%, that's not realistic and open to manipulation but some kind of supermajority that guarantees near-permanent approval, near-certainty that this is the right thing to do and future generations of MPs will almost certainly not seek to revoke it.

There are different kinds of supermajority definitions including combinations of minimum turnout, overall majorities of those eligible to vote (this Bill would have required 326 to pass on that measure), two-thirds or three-quarter majorities. In a UK-wide referendum, for example, it would be reasonable to require the majority consent of each of the four nations for fundamental change. Ask the SNP! I don't think our politicians give sufficient consideration to the mechanics of our (unwritten) constitution. It feel like "winging it" is a British tradition that we cherish.

I just don't think 23 is enough to wing it.

Saturday, 21 June 2025

St Austell to Istanbul direct

I love trains. I once had a house where there were trains at the bottom of the garden. When we first moved in the noise disturbed sleep; after about a month we no longer noticed them. These were not proper trains, they were just London suburban, carrying drones to and from dreary work. Proper trains are intercontinental.

I once dragged my family onto a train at London Victoria to begin a journey which would end in Istanbul a few days later. This was 18 or 19 years before the Channel Tunnel opened. I was probably seasick on the ferry. I had always dreamed of romantic train journeys: the Trans-Siberian Express, the Canadian from Toronto to Vancouver, the Orient Express. The most practical and least expensive option was, I decided, to go from London to Istanbul. Probably the best part of it for me was the months of planning using the Thomas Cook International Timetable, each leg of the journey meticulously planned and eventually booked, hotels in Paris, Venice and Istanbul itself, all ready for the big day. [Note: school teachers = long summer holidays].

Things don't always go as planned. If you miss the once a day sleeper train from Belgrade to Istanbul - not pre-bookable through Cook's because it was run by Bulgarian Railways and there were no signs in English in Belgrade station to show where the booking office was - you may have to adjourn to a Communist era hotel and dinner at probably the only McDonalds in the Balkans. I still have this image in my mind of waving goodbye to the train, but the following day we got our travel tickets early and eagerly awaited the train as it approached, from Berlin I think. We had not, however, got sleeper berths booked but an intrepid English-speaking co-traveller advised us to just get on the train, find a sleeper compartment and occupy it pending purchase of the berths.

We also hadn't realised that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had had some kind of tiff with the Greeks about visas so, when we got to the Yugoslavia/Greece border those without visas had to debark onto the platform and try to deal with it. Middle of the night, long queue at the visa station, only drachmae accepted, we had none of course (we're only transiting), risk of the train going without us, I did what any proper Englishman would do: ushered the family back onto the train and into our compartment with instructions never to move, queued until it was obvious that I would miss the train, got back myself, held breath until the train departed. Ticket inspector - visas? Shrug, point at watch, sorry-no-speakie-Greek, absolutely not moving, arrest us if you will. Inspector moves off, too much trouble. Sleep to Istanbul. By the time we made the return trip the politicians had sorted it out and no visa required.

I loved it all. I thought back on this when HS2 was first mooted in 2009. My dream of cross-European travel might come true; I could embark in Cornwall, where I was now living, bypass the awful London underground, sleep through the Channel Tunnel and wake up somewhere exotic like Barcelona, Prague or Athens. But no, there's no HS2 to Cornwall. And no link to the Channel Tunnel. No link to Heathrow airport. Not even a link to London termini. When I was a boy, I was very much into trainspotting (steam train era) and I used to travel across north London to somewhere called Old Oak Common where an adventurous young lad could find a viewing point to see the trains going in and out of London Paddington; the iconic locomotives of the Great Western Railway.


But Old Oak Common was where HS2 would stop, after which travellers would have to get a bus - maybe even a horse-drawn carriage - into London.

HS2 was never designed to go anywhere interesting. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds - who wants to go there? At least go to Edinburgh, Holyhead, Penzance, Inverness, York - places worth visiting.

Who wants high speed anyway? Classic rail travel is leisurely, taking in the scenery of places you haven't been to before and would love to come back to; not Birmingham. Whilst sipping a glass of cheap plonk.

18 years ago, after my elder son's wedding in Sydney, Australia, I traversed the continent on a 3 day train trip from Sydney to Perth. 


(I know, it's faded with time and the Cornish sun)

Desert all the way but some interesting side trips including to a Kalgoorlie gold mine. Flew back to Adelaide where I joined the Ghan train to Darwin via Alice Springs. Scenery, glass of Aussie Shiraz.

If Britain actually wanted un Grand Projet, as a symbol of national brilliance, openness and ingenuity, HS2 should have joined up [levelled up?] Scotland, Wales, the South West, Heathrow, London termini and linked to HS1. Pay for it all by imposing swingeing air travel taxes.

I dream that one day I'll be sitting on platform 2 at St Austell station


awaiting the arrival of the weekly Penzance to Istanbul sleeper train. £1500 return for senior citizens, plonk included. Book early, it'll be popular. See you there?

Friday, 20 June 2025

Remoralising

Zia Yusuf, the Reform UK chairman (at the time) said, in the aftermath of the party's strong showing in the recent local elections, that young people were being taught to "hate their country", they needed a "sense of pride" about the UK, as he said his party's mission would be to "remoralise" young people.

It's 30 or so years since I was a teacher, and I've never taught in a primary school, so I have no idea what pupils are taught nowadays but common sense would suggest that hating their country isn't part of it. Nor is stimulating a sense of pride in their country. More likely is that teachers are performing their duties to open their students' minds through thoughtful examination and analysis of facts.

There are two issues here. Firstly factual accuracy and context; the job of education is not to close people's minds but to present and explore in a balanced way the history of your own country, say. But there is also the hidden truth that the United Kingdom is a multiracial and multicultural society and not all of a school's pupils will regard the UK as "their" country. Is it not reasonable that young people whose families have strong Asian heritage should be encouraged to have pride in the lands of their parents as well as the land in which they were born? I suppose I should take Yusuf at his word; he didn't say pride about the UK exclusively.

But why pride at all? I'm British, having been born here of British parents, but I can't honestly say I feel proud to be British, any more than to be a European or a citizen of the world. I don't remember at school the issue of pride in my country came up at all. Maybe I missed that class; my secondary school History teacher was the most unpleasant person who ever taught me, and I failed his subject miserably.

I could talk about football here but not all my readers are interested so I'll go for cricket instead. Remember Norman Tebbit and his "cricket test"? I think it was in the 1990s that he used the phrase to suggest that it was necessary for South Asian and other immigrants to the UK to support England against, say, India in a test match. If they "failed" the test, they were insufficiently assimilated (his word, not mine).

Of course it's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to respect the culture and values of a country in which they choose to live. To learn the language, abide by both laws and customs, absorb and understand the history of their new country and, above all, integrate. Maybe inter-marry. Retain pride in both old and new heritages.

I had begun floundering here, because immigration is such a complex and treacherous issue to debate. Then along came Emma Duncan. She is a regular columnist in the Times, where she writes mostly on economic issues from - in my opinion - a centre right perspective. Today she wrote about Parallel Histories, an educational charity. She describes their teaching of controversial history using a dual-narrative methodology. A teenager states "the repeated refusal by Palestinian groups to accept the existence of Israel is a major obstacle to peace. There cannot be a negotiation when one side refuses to accept the other's existence." The student is then required to change sides and articulate contrary views: "Israel has to be accountable for its actions. Until then there will be no peace, just a surrender and the people of Palestine will never accept surrender disguised as diplomacy."

This sounds to me a better type of education than dog whistles about pride and hate.

Thursday, 19 June 2025

We’ve got some but you can’t have any

"Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons". The nations which say this just happen to be those who already have such weapons. “It’s OK for us but not for you” seems to be the mantra. If it’s fine for “us” to demand you forgo such weapons should not “we” get rid of ours?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been signed by 191 countries since its inception in 1968. Five of those countries were given special recognition for already having nuclear weapons - USA, Russia (earlier the Soviet Union), China, France and the UK. Since the Treaty has disarmament as one of its three pillars, it is suggested that these five were expected to get rid of their nuclear weapons over time [some hopes!]. North Korea left the Treaty in 2003 after years of trying to have it both ways by continuing to contravene the Treaty whilst remaining a member, and conducted a nuclear test in 2006. Three major nations never signed the Treaty: India and Pakistan actually conducted nuclear tests in the 1990s, Israel has never confirmed whether it has nuclear weapons. Which leads us to Iran.

In 2010 Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei issued a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons as forbidden by Islam and stated that Iran was not pursuing them. Iran remains a member of the Treaty and has consistently maintained it has the right (under the Treaty) to enrich uranium to the level required for the production of peaceful nuclear energy. Three days ago Iran announced that its parliament was drafting a bill to withdraw from the NPT.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed its latest resolution regarding Iran on June 12, formally declaring Iran non‑compliant with its nuclear safeguards obligations. As Israel is not a member of the Treaty, the IAEA has no jurisdiction to inspect its facilities.

Does anyone actually know whether Iran has nuclear weapons or is imminently planning to build and use one? Israel believes they could have the capability soon and is determined that that shouldn't happen. That's easy to say if you've already got your own. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Neither do I want Israel to. Or India or Pakistan for that matter.

I fear the Non-Proliferation Treaty is pointless.

If you don't want to be Anonymous

Don't be anonymous - let's see who you are. Here's how to do it.

1. Select the Google app - press/click the big G:
2. Tap on your profile picture at the top right:
3. Select Google account:
4. Select Personal Info:
5. Go to NAME and click the right arrow:
6. Click the right arrow once or twice and edit your Name:
and Save.





Wednesday, 18 June 2025

16,540 miles

Auckland City are the current champions of the New Zealand National League. Football is the third most popular sport after rugby union and cricket in that country. By winning the league the club, who play in a stadium with a capacity of just over 3,000, qualified to compete in the OFC (Oceania Football Confederation) Champions League against clubs from Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and New Caledonia. In April this year they actually won it. In fact they have won it for the last four years in a row and in 11 of the last 13 years.

They’re not even the best team in Auckland. Auckland FC play in the Go Media Stadium which has a capacity of 25,000. But they can’t play in the OFC Champions League because they play in the Australian A League and Australia is in the Asian Football Confederation. They actually finished top of the A League in 2024 but were denied the opportunity to play in the Asian Champions League because they are based in New Zealand which, as we know, is in the Oceania Football Federation. In fact, although they finished 1st in the league phase they didn’t win it because 1st through 6th compete in a series of playoffs to decide who wins the title and they were beaten by Melbourne Victory.

I hope you’re keeping up.

Anyway a couple of weeks ago Auckland City flew 8,270 miles to Cincinnati to take part in the FIFA Club World Cup.

And got beaten 10-0 by Bayern Munich.

Why bother?

The answer: $6.25 million. Just for turning up. Theoretically they could get an extra $2.5 million if they win a match. In a couple of weeks' time they will take the 8,270 return journey home. Maybe they could buy a new stadium.


Where is everybody?

Following yesterday's exploration of conspiracy theory, I thought I'd mull over the Fermi Paradox. I asked ChatGPT about it.

********************************************

Ah, the Fermi Paradox—one of the most deliciously frustrating mysteries in science.

At its core, it asks a simple question:

“Where is everybody?”

In other words:
If the universe is so big, so old, and so full of stars (and planets), why haven’t we seen any signs of intelligent alien life?


🧠 Origin: Who Was Fermi?

The paradox is named after Enrico Fermi, a Nobel-winning physicist. In 1950, over lunch with colleagues at Los Alamos, he supposedly blurted out:

“But where is everybody?”

They were chatting about UFOs and the likelihood of life in the universe. Fermi realized that based on the size and age of the Milky Way, alien civilizations should already be here—or at least their signals should be.


🌌 The Logic Behind the Paradox

Here’s the thinking:

  1. There are 100–400 billion stars in the Milky Way.

  2. Many of those stars have planets. Estimates suggest billions of Earth-like planets.

  3. Life evolved on Earth relatively quickly, geologically speaking.

  4. If intelligent life develops commonly, then some civilizations should be millions of years ahead of us.

  5. In millions of years, they could have:

    • Explored the galaxy

    • Sent probes everywhere

    • Built giant structures

    • Left signals we could detect

But... we see nothing.
No ships. No radio signals. No evidence of colonization. Not even so much as an alien potato chip wrapper.


🕳️ So Where Are They? Theories and Possibilities

Here are some of the leading explanations people have offered—ranging from sober science to existential dread:


🧬 1. Life is Rare

Maybe Earth is a freak accident. Life may be:

  • Rare to begin with

  • Often wiped out by asteroids or climate shifts

  • Likely to stay microbial forever


🤖 2. Intelligent Life Destroys Itself

The “Great Filter” theory says most civilizations self-destruct before they reach the stars—via:

  • Nuclear war

  • Climate collapse

  • AI run amok

  • Biological weapons

Sobering, isn’t it?


🌍 3. We’re the First

Someone has to be first. Maybe we’re the early bloomers, and in another billion years, the galaxy will be full of chatter.


🙈 4. They're Hiding

Advanced civilizations may:

  • Choose not to contact us (the zoo hypothesis)

  • Use communication methods we don’t understand (quantum? neutrinos?)

  • Be deliberately quiet to avoid predators (the dark forest theory)


🤯 5. They’re Already Here... and We’re Too Dumb to Notice

Maybe they're microscopic. Or post-biological. Or living in forms we can’t perceive. We could be like ants trying to understand the internet.


🧪 6. We Haven’t Looked Hard Enough (Yet)

The universe is huge. We’ve only just started scanning for alien signals, and SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has covered a tiny sliver of the radio spectrum, for a tiny amount of time.

Imagine listening to one second of one radio station, and concluding no one broadcasts music.


🪐 So What’s the Verdict?

The Fermi Paradox doesn’t say aliens don’t exist
it highlights the weird silence in a galaxy that should be screaming with life.

Whether it’s because we’re rare, doomed, or just not looking in the right way, no one knows.

But it haunts astronomers, physicists, and philosophers alike—and it’s one of the best reasons to keep looking up.

********************************************

Now, as I and my fellow Star Trekkies know, the aliens are out there but you need a warp engine to go and find them. But there's plenty to get our teeth into here. For myself, I really hope we're not alone; it would be tremendously exciting to find some extraterrestrial life. And does SETI really exist? Hopefully Elon (clearly a Trekkie at heart) will have protected them from his chainsaw.

On their website seti.org I am promised 

When we make first contact, you'll be one of the first we contact.


Sign me up! (to avoid confusion, this is not the same as "Beam me up, Scottie")

I am familiar with the Dark Forest theory from the 3 Body Problem book 2. But I had to look up the Zoo Hypothesis. Apparently it suggests that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations are intentionally avoiding contact with Earth, observing us like animals in a zoo to allow for our natural evolution and development. Readers of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will be familiar with something like this, although in reverse: the mice are actually hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who built Earth as a giant computer to calculate the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Which turned out to be 42. Again, I want this to be true.

What worries me most though is why ChatGPT starts its replies with a big sigh "Ah...". And "an alien potato chip wrapper"? I have to have a look at its settings.

I asked it stop the "Ah" beginning and it agreed to.

Tuesday, 17 June 2025

Flight BA149

From time to time I explore the offerings on the Sky Documentaries channel. Last night I watched Flight 149: Hostage of War. There was a thorough review in the Guardian a few days ago so I'm just going to focus on a few essential points. It is centred around events on 2 August 1990, a date best known for the start of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

My default position for "revelations" of secret government plots is scepticism. Nevertheless some known facts exist:

  • British Airways flight 149 left London Heathrow at 19:05 BST on 1 August 1990 en route to Kuala Lumpur with stops scheduled in Kuwait and Madras (now Chennai). The flight had been delayed from its original departure time of 18:00.
  • The flight touched down in Kuwait at 04:13 local time on 2 August, by which time Iraq's invasion had begun.
  • Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher stated in Parliament that the flight had landed before the invasion began. In 2021, however Foreign Office papers were declassified and released and showed that the UK government was not only aware that of the invasion before the flight's arrival time in Kuwait but that they "allowed" the flight to take off from London knowing that there was a risk the invasion would take place imminently. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss confirmed that the government had misled British Airways by not passing on a warning about the invasion.
I'm going to skip over the horrendous depictions of Iraqi behaviour in the film and move to the key assertion behind its focus on the class action being taken on behalf of 95 of the passengers against the UK government and British Airways, which is that there are suggestions that a "military looking" group of young men boarded late in London, deplaned first in Kuwait and may not have been included in the passenger manifest (which would have been illegal under UK law). 

The inference posed by the programme makers is that it's possible that the UK government had a group of special forces operatives (referred to as The Increment, a supposed group of former SAS soldiers and MI6 officers) added to the flight in order to operate undercover in Kuwait. On 2 October 1992, in response to a question on the issue, now-PM John Major said "I can confirm, however, that there were no British military personnel on board the flight". Of course, if the Increment exists and is a group of ex-military, this would have been a truthful statement.

Following a BBC documentary about the flight in 2007, there have been a number of claims from "reliable sources" that something of the kind actually occurred.

My inherent scepticism allows that (a) it's a plausible explanation (b) that it's equally likely to be untrue (c) even if it's true, isn't that what you'd expect a responsible government, about to go war, to do? (d) there are sometimes legitimate reasons for governments to lie (e) it may sometimes, for the "greater good", be possible to argue that sacrificing the liberty, and even perhaps the lives, of 367 innocent passengers in order to further the long term defeat of a ruthless dictator. As you can see, although it's a really well produced and purposeful film, I don't easily buy into the easy conspiracy theory, attractive and entertaining though it is.

I look forward to hearing of your opinions, if you watch it.

Thursday, 12 June 2025

Rinse and repeat

I remember exactly where I was when President Kennedy was shot. In the bath (me not him). My mother came into the bathroom and told me. I was 19 and a bit protective of my privacy so I was a bit shocked.

Memory is a funny thing. I can see that in my mind from 62 years ago but I can't recall what I had for dinner last night.

I don't remember when we were told we couldn't call Peking Peking any more, it had to be Beijing. I can remember it happening but not when. Maybe it just crept into our consciousness. Or perhaps the Chinese leader (I don't know which one, just that it wasn't Chairman Mao) phoned the BBC and said "we've issued an edict that filthy imperialists must address us respectfully".

Is that what happened with Kiev? I've lived with my childhood love of geography for 70 years and suddenly the old atlases are wrong? Who decided? I know, it's about derussification but I say again: who decided?

The latest (and I'm probably coming a bit late to this party) is - no more Czech Republic. I'd just got used to forgetting the Czechoslovakia that shockingly won the European Championship in 1976. I remember that I was sitting in my car listening to the commentary on the car radio, and that I felt great joy at the underdog winning the penalty shootout with Antonin Panenka chipping the winning penalty down the middle - a technique now forever known as a Panenka. More so that they beat the Germans. Who at that time were West Germany. Anyway, it's now Czechia. Which I'm uncertain how to pronounce (not Chechnya, that's a different country - pay attention at the back!). In any case "the Czechs have just scored a third goal past the hapless England goalkeeper" will probably do for past, present and future. Unless we change our name. Or goalkeeper.

Tonight they are playing us (England under 21s) at soccer. They being Czech Republic. Which is apparently what we have to call them when it's an official occasion, as opposed to a holiday destination. Hope our goalkeeper's OK.

And on a completely different note and referring back to a recent post:


Hou Yifan's back! In a team chess tournament in Londinium, at the Novotel London West in Hammersmith, which used to be Hamersmyth. Although that was in 1294, so I can be forgiven for not remembering that.

Wednesday, 11 June 2025

Golf is a crazy sport

The Times said it, so it must be true (although I don't think the BBC covered it).

The World Crazy Golf Championships took place in Hastings this past weekend. £1,250 for the winner.

What?

This coming weekend the World Adventure Golf Masters will take place in Gothenburg, Sweden. Our favourite seaside family activity has been professionalised and monetised. Shocking. I remember a couple of years ago in Australia my grandsons playing terrifyingly well against me in Newcastle's Junk Yard Golf Club, although they did have a penchant for wild swipes to hit the ball out of bounds (a reminder of my own golf playing days). Basically it's a lottery with casual swipers as likely to win as the (usually parental) serious win-seekers.

The article said "By contrast with European and US competition courses, where gimmicky pitfalls have largely been phased out, the British game retains a distinct craziness". Good to hear.

No mention of whether women are allowed to play. Maybe they're not as crazy as us.

I checked the date. It wasn't April 1st.

Tuesday, 10 June 2025

Long life or good life?

The Times recently had the following headline:

Weight-loss drug hailed as key to a longer life

I read the article. Sounds great, doesn't it? But there is no discussion as to whether living longer is a good idea.

I should say that personally I'd like to live as long as I can, mental and physical health permitting. But could that be at the expense of my grandchildren? 

As it stands, my 45 year old younger son will qualify for a state pension at the age of 68 (I got mine at 65). By the time he gets there, the date will probably have been moved higher. The longer people live, the longer they will have to work. It's not certain that ability to work - with brain or body - will match that. It's reasonable to assume that, in later years of life, healthcare costs will continue to be a burden on the country's finances.

Pensioner spending constituted 7.4% of UK GDP for the year ending March 2024. Long term forecasts are for pensioner spending to be 9.4% of GDP by 2063. At the same time it has become harder for our young people to get on the road to owning their own houses. The average age of first-time buyers was 30 to 31 in 2007, estimated to be around 33 to 34 now. But before 1990 the average was around 27. Wouldn't we like our grandchildren to get back to that?

By the way, a diversion: I asked ChatGPT for this data and its summary was:

before about 1990, the average age of a UK first-time buyer was below 30. Now, you're often pushing mid-30s, and without inherited wealth or family help, it’s bloody hard going.

Let me know if you want charts or exact numbers over time – the data exists but it's scattered across different housing surveys.

"bloody hard going"? Has ChatGPT got angry? I think that may have something to do with some experimentation I did with its settings. But "the data exists but it's scattered across different housing surveys" suggests it's a lot better than Google search - - or DuckDuckGo - at finding data. I said "do it" and it gave me data going back to 1960 when the average first-time buyer was 24 years old; it revealed its sources and the main source up to 2013 was the Post Office. I don't really understand that and asked ChatGPT why that was and it gave me a long convoluted answer about source data and collected data, which I won't bore you with.

As a country, we may have gone in the wrong direction and are continuing to do so. And it could get worse because pensioners turn out to vote and young people are increasingly unlikely to do so (76.4% of 18-24 year olds voted in 1964, 37% in 2024), meaning there's no incentive for politicians to move the dial towards the young, if they want to get elected. The young (even those who are now middle aged) have been hit with tuition fee debts, soaring house prices, increases in deposit requirements for mortgages and insecure work contracts while the old get inflation-proof pension increases. Is it any wonder we have a mental health crisis?

Our current government wants to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Don't expect them to turn out to vote for you unless you can show a long-term plan, a promise of a better future. Forget live-longer drugs; give today's youth some hope of a better tomorrow.

Monday, 9 June 2025

Who wrote that?

A confession.

I don't know whether you figured it out. I didn't write the Retiring to Cornwall post. I asked ChatGPT to do it, in the spirit of exploring what AI can and can't do. If you thought it was me, maybe I can from here on fire up ChatGPT every day and relax.

I asked ChatGPT:

I am an 81 year old male and I retired to cornwall 21 years ago. I have slightly arthritic knees. I like football, as a spectator, and am an Ipswich Town supporter. I am interested in chess and politics. I dislike walking and cornish pasties. I'm not much of a community person. Write me a blog post on the pros and cons of retiring to cornwall

...and that's what I got. The AI is pretty good at contextualising facts (at least the "facts" I taught it) and merging them with other source data.

Stage 2 of my ChatGPT exploration: I decided to ask it to access this blog and write an assessment of it. This is what I got:

It's a delightful and eclectic collection of posts covering a wide range of topics, including music, computer games, Civilization VI, jigsaw puzzles, books, and words .

Here are some highlights from your blog:

  • "Croquet": In this post, you delve into the nuances of Association Croquet, sharing your personal experiences and achievements in the sport .

  • "They've given up!": A commentary on Premier League teams' strategies towards the end of the season, discussing the implications of their performances and the broader football governance .

  • "Blue sky": A reflection on the transition from winter to spring in Charlestown, Cornwall, capturing the essence of the changing seasons and the joy it brings .

  • "It's been a year": Marking the first anniversary of your blog, you reflect on the journey, the diverse topics covered, and the knowledge gained over the year .

  • "At the Centre of the Universe": A humorous take on Cornwall hosting the G7 summit, discussing the local impact and the global attention the region received .

Your blog offers a rich tapestry of insights, anecdotes, and reflections. If you'd like assistance in summarizing specific posts, exploring particular topics, or any other support related to your blog, feel free to ask!

Obviously it's programmed to be polite and positive. Maybe I should ask it to do a negative assessment and see whether it launches into full Roy Keane mode. Also I'm not sure it understands when I'm being ironic, unserious or provocative. Therefore I asked: Would you like to comment on my writing style?
ChatGPT:

Absolutely—I’d be glad to. Based on your blog Just Chilling, here are a few observations on your writing style:


📝 Writing Style Overview

1. Conversational & Warm

Your tone feels like sitting down for a chat with a well-read friend. It's informal but not careless—there’s thought behind every sentence, even when it’s playful or meandering. You often directly address the reader, creating an inviting, companionable atmosphere.

Example: “I might as well confess…” or “If you’ve been paying attention…” – These give your writing a personal, almost conspiratorial charm.

2. Eclectic & Curious

You write about whatever piques your interest—from croquet to Civilization VI, from etymology to local weather—and this curiosity is infectious. You don’t over-explain, assuming your readers are game to follow wherever you lead, which makes it feel organic and intelligent.

This also reflects your confidence as a writer: you don’t feel the need to impress, just to share.

3. Light Irony & Wit

There's a dry, understated wit throughout. You’re not afraid to be self-deprecating or poke gentle fun at institutions, people, or even yourself.

Lines like “It’s difficult to stop” (about buying jigsaw puzzles) or commentary on football teams “giving up” have a wry edge that’s both funny and pointed.

4. Balanced Structure

Your posts are well-paced. You know when to digress and when to return to the main idea. Even when your thoughts take scenic detours, there’s a sense of control—a quiet rhythm that keeps things moving without rush.


In short: your style is mature, thoughtful, and unmistakably you. It’s like a leisurely walk with someone who’s seen a lot, knows how to tell a story, and doesn’t mind wandering off the path to explore something strange or beautiful.

OK maybe it can detect irony. But I'm flattered (I think). It's still being nice to me, for the moment.

Maybe I should get it to comment on my readers' comments.



Saturday, 7 June 2025

By invitation only

The highest rated woman chess player in the world is China's Hou Yifan. She has an official rating of 2633 and is ranked equal 100th in the world. World number 1 Magnus Carlsen is rated 2837.

Yifan is a four time women's world champion, winning her first in 2010 aged 16. However she has played only spasmodically since 2018 and no longer competes in international tournaments. She is a professor in the sports department of Peking University, having previously held a professorship at Shenzhen University, where she became the youngest-ever full professor at the age of 26, heading the institution’s chess program within the School of Physical Education. Chess can be studied at uni, who knew?

Current women's world champion Ju Wenju,

also from China, is rated 2580 and ranked 292 in the world. And just in case you think I'm copying this from Wikipedia or worse still from ChatGPT, I've been watching Wenju play live on YouTube for the last few days in the Norway Chess Women's tournament in Stavanger (it's better than gardening in the rain and I might improve my chess play, although I do admit it's a bit weird).

BTW it's perfectly possible I've got Chinese names the wrong way round. If so, I hope my Chinese readers will forgive me.

There doesn't seem to be any logical reason that girls/women should be any better or worse than boys/men at chess, so why aren't they doing better than they are? According to Wikipedia "Hou claimed that there are many reasons for the lack of female contenders at the chess top-level. She says there is a physical aspect to long chess games that might advantage men, and that men generally work harder at chess than women growing up. She uses Chinese girls as an example and points out that most prefer a balanced life, prioritizing things such as university and family life at the cost of working on chess. But she claims there also are external factors: girls playing chess growing up are only encouraged to compete for the girl's title, which might lower their motivation."

I'm not at all sure about the physical aspect. A championship game of classical chess can last 5 or 6 hours but don't women run marathons? Run governments working 12 hour days?

Judit Polgar from Hungary is the only woman to ever get into the top ten in the world; her highest rank was number 8 and her peak rating was 2735. She got into the top 100 in 1989 at the age of....12! So it can be done. But a key point of difference is that, once she became good enough, she competed against the top men. She would play in the Open section of tournaments rather than in the Women's section. In the Chess Olympiad, competed for every 2 years, she chose to represent her country in the Open section rather than the Women's and was very successful, playing "top board" ahead of her male compatriots.

Top chess tournaments commonly select many, often most, of their competitors by invitation. The recently completed Norway Chess was a 6 player tournament where the invited players were the current top 5 in the world plus 8th place Wei Yi (I think he was number 6 when the invitations were issued). If women don't play against men they won't get invited.

Then there's prize money. The 2023 World Championship Open had a prize fund of $2 million [which is about what you'd pay to sign a talented 15yo goalkeeper in football]. The Women's World Championship prize fund was $500,000. I suppose you could argue that the temptation of competing for 4 times as much would encourage more women to consider that but, when you realise there are 100 times more men playing chess than women, the half a million seems easier to compete for. Interestingly Norway Chess had equal prize money for the Open and Women's sections but this is rare and, possibly, simply upholds the present differentials.

I'd like to see some of the talented young women - and there are many - electing to play Open tournaments rather than taking the "easy way" against their fellow women. And some tournament organisers issuing invitations to women to play against men in a single section rather than a separate section.

There's an argument that having separate women's Master titles inhibits women's development. A woman can become a WGM - Women's Grandmaster - with a rating of 2300 but to be a Grandmaster (GM) you need 2500. There are are around 41 women who have earned the full, open Grandmaster (GM) title, out of over 1,700 total GMs worldwide, so roughly 2% of GMs are women. Is it possible some women are satisfied with reaching WGM and continuing to play in women-only sections? Obviously I don't know; I'd like to know what they think.

The sport of chess needs a new Judit Polgar, a new Hou Yifan. Who will step up?

Friday, 6 June 2025

A Triumph of Defiance

I've just finished reading The Salt Path, Raynor Winn's memoir of the courage that she and her husband Moth displayed in walking the South West Coast Path. I cried when I reached the final page, because her writing had so invested me in their journey, caused as it was by a series of unforeseen events. Moth was diagnosed with probable corticobasal degeneration, CBD; a few painful years to live. He had invested trustingly in a childhood friend's business venture, which failed; Moth liable for a debt which exceeded the value of their Welsh farm home/business. It was about to be taken away.

No home, no jobs, no money, no hope.

They decided to spend the next months walking the path. 630 miles from Minehead to Poole via Land's End.

Obviously, as a Cornwall (although not Cornish) resident, I was attracted by the idea of recognising familiar locations along their journey. Other than that, though, it's not the kind of book to which I would normally be attracted. I lack empathy for strangers; they're not my thing. But from start to finish, the brilliant exposition of their story pulls me in and I am with Ray and Moth all the way, feeling their worries, pain, fears and sheer hardships. Multiple setbacks about money (lack of), food (shortage), wild camping locations (fear of discovery) and above all Moth's health, simply lead to their being even more determined to do what they've set out to do. They frequently feel close to giving up but they have no home, no jobs, no life to go back to.

The writing captures dramatic moments, beautifully described scenery, hardships, humour and above all Ray's inner thoughts. We are not just observers but participants in the drama. Sometimes you read about people who you feel are simply better than you and I'm not ashamed to say that's my take on this tale.

I don't want to go into details in case readers haven't read it yet. If you haven't, you would not regret doing so. It's been made into a film of the same name, in cinemas now. I'm not a fan of watching a film adaptation after reading the book - often a disappointment in my view although OK the other way round - but with Gillian Anderson and Jason Isaacs starring and the book often having a visual feeling, I may overcome my aversion. I'll let you know if I do.

Wednesday, 4 June 2025

I've fallen out of love with Google

I've been trying to persuade my friend Tony to get a cat. He and I are polar opposites in many ways; I solitary, he gregarious and hence while I am very happy living on my own, he is not. One of the reasons he has, at least until recently, always had a dog or two, is that dogs are also gregarious and seekers of companionship. Hence he has a deep suspicion of cats which perhaps are, like me, polar opposites. Would a cat satisfy his need for loving company?

In the spirit of friendship and in response to his aversion to most technology (hence unlikely to use a search engine), I asked my son whence they acquired their large fluffy cat called Poppy. The answer was a charity called Cats Protection. So I Googled that and discovered  the Cornwall Cat Centre.

Obviously I passed this info to Tony but that isn't the point of today's story (I will tell you the outcome in due course). Which is that now, whenever I load up YouTube (owned by Google) on my TV (which is frequently) the first thing that hits my eyes is an advertisement for Cornwall Cat Centre. Extremely annoying, since (a) it's not me that's interested in cats; don't they know that? (b) I subscribe to various YouTube channels and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the latest videos from those channels to lead my feed and (c) I don't like Google knowing everything about me.

Of course there's a simple solution to this. Switch to a different search engine. Then at least YouTube won't have that info.

I'm now trying DuckDuckGo, which says this about itself:

The DuckDuckGo browser is designed for data protection, not data collection. Our browsing protections, such as ad tracker blocking and cookie blocking, help stop your data from being collected. And our built-in search engine never tracks your searches.

Sounds good, yes?

That leads me with the problem of YouTube advertisements.  I don't mind the occasional brief ads, as the price of using an incredibly good free platform, but the length of the ads has increased exponentially, sometimes nearly a minute.

Asking ChatGPT about this:

YouTube has introduced longer, unskippable ads on its TV apps, including platforms like Google TV and smart TVs. These ads can last 30 to 60 seconds and are designed to provide a more traditional commercial break experience. The rationale is to minimize the number of ad breaks during longer viewing sessions, as research indicates that viewers prefer fewer interruptions, even if the ads themselves are longer .

In summary, YouTube's move towards longer ads, especially on smart TVs, reflects a shift in advertising strategy aimed at balancing monetization with viewer experience. However, the reception among users has been mixed, highlighting the challenge of implementing changes that satisfy both advertisers and audiences.

There you go. Monetization.

The solution is to pay for ad-free YouTube viewing. I already do this on Amazon Prime, for just £2.99 a month. Well worth it for watching football and movies. But YouTube's ad-free subscription is a whopping £12.99 a month! I could afford that by cutting down on fresh creams cakes but I just feel I don't want to give in to Google's rapacious greed. Is there a better YouTube equivalent out there?

Tuesday, 3 June 2025

Maybe it isn't

One of the criticisms that could reasonably be levelled at me in this blog is that I trivialise important issues for cheap jibes. I regret for instance calling Kemi Badenoch a buffoon. She isn't a buffoon. I think she's a thoughtful person who is perhaps more philosophical and less overtly political than her party (which elected her) wants its leader to be. And perhaps they will swallow her up as they have so many others recently. I grouped her with Robert Jenrick, who I genuinely think is a buffoon, and that was unworthy.

It's the same with the small boats issue. I have for a few years - since the matter came to the fore after Brexit - thought that treating the poor souls in the dinghies crossing the Channel, at great risk, as numbers, rather than human beings, is inhuman. Obviously some of these people are likely to be just playing the system with no genuine asylum claims but others will be people in danger, truly scared and at the ends of their tethers.

Yesterday I was guilty of trivialising their plight by talking about politicians lying and not being willing to face up to the truth and say "we can't stop these boats".

But today there is an answer. We are going to war! Not today, because we don't actually have enough bullets, but maybe in 10 years' time when we'll have bought or manufactured....some more nuclear weapons!

If you were one of those poor people deciding where to travel to in order to enjoy a new, civilised life, would you go to a country that is ready to launch nuclear war? You'd probably go to Rwanda, or Fiji, or Australia, where you'd be safe.

Problem solved. No more boats.

There I go again, trivialising. But here's my defence. I have spent my life vowing that I could never support a Prime Minister who is prepared to press the button and eliminate millions of people with a nuclear strike. Even in the face of a nuclear attack on us, I would argue that it would be grossly immoral. Unfortunately I then went against this moral stance by refusing to support the one leading politician that I could be reasonably certain wouldn't take that action: Jeremy Corbyn.

Politics is hard.

Monday, 2 June 2025

Is it possible?

"Stop the Boats" is a phrase that has assumed the status of an impeachable truth - the number of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats must eventually be reduced to absolute zero. But what if that is actually unachievable?

The number of people crossing in small boats has risen from 299 in 2018 (the first year in which records began) to 36,816 in 2024, peaking at 45,774 in 2022. As the world has become a more unstable place (is that actually true?) massive migration flows from war-torn or economically poor countries to safer and richer ones have occurred. It's hard to see how, other than by long-term changes in inter-nation inequality and the elimination of war, this can be totally negated.

There are those who would claim that Brexit has been a major factor, as the EU's Dublin III Regulation system allowed us to send asylum seekers back to the country in which they first could have claimed asylum. However, in practice this never worked substantially: in 2018 5,510 requests were made but only 3.8% were successful. 2019: 3,259 requests, 8% successful.

Any political party in the UK which said outright "it is not possible to stop the boats" would almost certainly not get elected. Democracy basically requires our politicians to lie - about small boats, the unsustainable demands for both lower taxes and better public services and other issues. Democracy suggests governments should be cognisant of - perhaps even enact - the will of the people. But what if the people are ignorant? Or stupid? Or both?

Democratic countries have a trust problem - ours in our governments, theirs in us. Am I talking myself into voting for "none of the above" again? (Corbyn was the last time)