Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - More Than Mortal

Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 67
211
Gaming / The memories
« on: August 15, 2016, 02:57:52 PM »
YouTube

212
Gaming / Scorn: a disturbing horror FPS from an indie dev
« on: August 14, 2016, 09:56:47 AM »
YouTube


From PC Gamer (it's apparently coming to consoles too):

Quote
Is it the dusty interior of HR Giger's mind? Is it an especially creepy Tool filmclip? No, it's just forthcoming horror FPS Scorn. As the image above and trailer below demonstrate, Scorn's most appealing feature is its disquieting art style, with a world that looks like it's set inside an enormous beast's oesophagus.

According to the game's Steam Greenlight page, Scorn is about being a fish out of water in a strange, unsettling world. "Isolated and lost inside this dream-like world you will explore different interconnected regions in a non-linear fashion. The unsettling environment is a character itself," studio Ebb Software writes.

The game will release in two parts, with the first expected to release in early 2017. The world of Scorn is open-ended, and players will need to pay close attention to environmental cues as there are no in-game prompts or tutorials. Apparently it'll be easy to miss crucial plot points in the game, but with an environment like this you'll probably want to take it slowly anyway.

It has guns too, of course, but ammo will be scarce by the sound of things. "Players will have to think about when to fight and when to take cover and how their actions affect the world around them. Different play styles will be needed to advance."


Early days, but I absolutely adore the aesthetic style.

213
Times of India:

Quote
BEIRUT: Islamic State group jihadists have released hundreds of civilians used as human shields while fleeing a crumbling stronghold in northern Syria, but the fate of others remained unknown Saturday.

The last remaining IS fighters abandoned Manbij near the Turkish border on Friday after a rout that the Pentagon said showed the extremists were "on the ropes".

The retreat from the city, which IS captured in 2014, marked the jihadists' worst defeat yet at the hands of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an Arab-Kurdish alliance supported by US air strikes.

Fleeing jihadists took around 2,000 civilians, including women and children, on Friday to ward off air strikes as they headed to the IS-held frontier town of Jarabulus, according to the SDF.

At least some of the civilians were later released or escaped, the alliance said on Saturday, but the whereabouts of the rest was unknown.

"There are no more IS fighters" left in Manbij, an SDF member said.

Kurdish television showed footage of jubilant civilians in Manbij, including smiling mothers who had shed their veils and women embracing Kurdish fighters.

A woman burned a black robe that the jihadists had forced residents to wear, while men who had lived for weeks under a shaving ban cut their beards with scissors.

Image album of them liberated.



214
The Flood / this is truly a rare nige
« on: August 14, 2016, 03:32:34 AM »



215
YouTube


Thoughts?

216
Gaming / Would you restrict what games you child could play?
« on: August 13, 2016, 08:17:30 AM »
Say you have a 14- or 15-year-old son; there's a fair amount of controversial aspects of video games, such as GTA V's torture scene or MW2's "No Russian" mission. While these may be appropriate for an adult, they're probably not for kids/young teens.

So, would you restrict your kid?

217
Guardian

Quote
Philip Hammond is to guarantee billions of pounds of UK government investment after Brexit for projects currently funded by the EU, including science grants and agricultural subsidies.

The chancellor’s funding commitment is designed to give a boost to the economy in what he expects to be a difficult period after the surprise result of the EU referendum in June.

The Treasury is expected to continue its funding beyond the UK’s departure from the EU for all structural and investment fund projects, as long as they are agreed before the autumn statement. If a project obtains EU funding after that, an assessment process by the Treasury will determine whether funding should be guaranteed by the UK government post-Brexit.

Current levels of agriculture funding will also be guaranteed until 2020, when the Treasury says there will be a “transition to new domestic arrangements”.

Universities and researchers will have funds guaranteed for research bids made directly to the European commission, including bids to the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme, an €80bn (£69bn) pot for science and innovation. The Treasury says it will underwrite the funding awards, even when projects continue post-Brexit.

Hammond said the government recognised the need to assuage fears in industry and in the science and research sectors that funding would be dramatically reduced post-Brexit.

“We recognise that many organisations across the UK which are in receipt of EU funding, or expect to start receiving funding, want reassurance about the flow of funding they will receive,” he said. “The government will also match the current level of agricultural funding until 2020, providing certainty to our agricultural community, who play a vital role in our country.”

The chancellor added: “We are determined to ensure that people have stability and certainty in the period leading up to our departure from the EU and that we use the opportunities that departure presents to determine our own priorities.”

One key funding pot that it had been claimed was at risk was the EU Peace programme in Northern Ireland, a community development project to help victims of the conflict.

The pledge to fund EU programmes in the UK until 2020 was made during the referendum campaign by senior figures in the leave camp, including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. However, academics have said that EU programmes for research have benefits that go beyond funding, including international collaboration opportunities and mobility for researchers.

According to the Treasury, EU funding for a range of projects amounted to more than £4.5bn in 2014-15, with businesses and universities winning a further £1.5bn through competitive bids.

During the referendum campaign, concerns were raised that the government would be unable or unwilling to compensate bodies for the loss of money from Brussels when Britain eventually leaves the EU. Hammond’s spending pledge is an attempt to allay those fears and at the same time head off the threat of recession.

Hammond’s commitment comes after Liam Fox’s Department for International Trade was forced to delete a confusing statement posted on its website, which appeared to announce that the UK would continue to trade with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules post-Brexit “until any new trade deals are negotiated”.

Businesses have previously warned that trading under WTO rules would be disastrous, meaning the imposition of steep tariffs on goods exported to the EU, including 10% on cars and 12% on clothing.

Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP who chairs the Vote Leave Watch campaign group, said being forced to trade under WTO rules would be “a hammer blow for the British economy, and would demonstrate once and for all the hollow nature of Vote Leave’s promises”. The department said the post had been issued in error.

The Treasury is keen to support the Bank of England in its attempts to stimulate activity and the chancellor has already said he will “reset” fiscal policy – taxation and public spending – in his autumn statement if he deems it necessary.

Hammond hopes that the guarantee to continue funding EU-backed projects will ensure a flurry of activity over the coming months, thus providing a boost to both demand and confidence. The government is also aware that much of the EU money spent in Britain goes to help poorer parts of the country, which voted for Brexit in the referendum.

Treasury policy has shifted markedly since the period before the referendum, when then chancellor George Osborne warned that leaving the EU would lead to a recession that would force him to impose savings of £30bn in an emergency budget.

Since 23 June, the emergency budget has been ditched, plans to put the public finances into the black by the end of this parliament have been scrapped, and hints have been dropped of higher spending on infrastructure to be announced in the autumn statement.

British scientists receive around £1bn annually from the EU, including through Horizon 2020. In leaving the EU, British access to those funds will be a matter for debate.

Already the ramifications of the Brexit vote have been felt. Jo Johnson, minister of state for universities and science, told scientists in June that “the referendum result has no immediate effect on those applying to or participating in Horizon 2020. UK researchers and businesses can continue to apply to the programme in the usual way.”

However, those in British academic institutions paint a very different picture. Since Britain voted to leave the EU, a number of scientists have revealed that they have been asked to leave existing collaborations for fear that the British share of project funding was at risk, while others say they have been excluded from taking part in new bids.

Andrew Graham, co-founder of OC Robotics in Bristol, said the news would be a huge reassurance to European colleagues and partners in consortia bidding for European commission funding that having a UK partner in those projects would not be a risk to the project.

“I and my colleagues have been campaigning hard for an assurance like that,” he said. “There have been some instances of clear reluctance on the part of some partners in those consortia – this should do a great deal to allay any fears they have about what having a UK partner means for the project. It’s fantastic news for a great many small and medium-sized enterprises and academic institutions across the country.”

Alistair Jarvis, deputy chief executive of Universities UK, said the pledge would offer “much-needed stability for British universities during the transition period as the UK exits the EU, and provide an important signal to European researchers that they can continue to collaborate with their UK colleagues as they have before”.

Jarvis added that the next stage would be to address the uncertainty faced by EU students considering applying to British universities. He said the government needed to “confirm that those beginning courses before we exit the EU will be subject to current fees levels and financial support arrangements for the duration of their course”.


218
Serious / Why did people vote to Remain or Leave: a survey of studies
« on: August 09, 2016, 04:23:39 AM »
From Simon Wren-Lewis.

Quote
After the Brexit vote, economists and others who voted Remain are quite right to say I told you so as the economic hit they expected comes to pass. The Brexit Bust needs to be labelled clearly, given the power the Leave side has over the means of communication. (Those behind that campaign are already talking utter nonsense in order to pretend it had nothing to do with them.) But those who voted Remain also need to understand why they lost.

The studies I’m going to focus on here use regressions and the breakdown of the Brexit vote district by district. [1] It is important to do regression analysis, which can look at more than one factor at a time, because influences are correlated with each other. We might note, for example, that districts are less likely to vote Leave if they contain relatively high earners, or relatively well educated people. So is it lack of education or lack of money that caused people to vote Leave? That is what any kind of multiple regression can try and sort out.

Before looking at individual studies, let me mention some things that appear to be uncontroversial. Education and age are key determinates: if you are less educated or older you tend to vote Leave. Both matter independently: although young people with few qualifications tend to vote Leave, they are less likely to do so than less qualified older people.Once you take these into account, income is not a significant factor. Geography matters in key ways. One of those is that people in Scotland and Northern Ireland were much less likely to want to leave (controlling for other factors). The other I will come to.

A key issue is whether the local level of migration has had an influence. Stephen Clarke and Matthew Whittaker at the Resolution Foundation find that the level of immigration is not important, but its recent rate of change is, in making people vote Leave. Zsolt Darvas at Bruegel also finds the level unimportant. However Monica Langella and Alan Manning from the LSE find that areas with high immigration are more likely to vote Leave, and confirm the finding that the rate of change matters too. So while two studies agree that areas with a recent large increase in immigration are more likely to vote leave, more work needs to be done on whether its actual level matters. However, even if it matters, it does not matter that much, as the large majority for Remain in London tells us.

One other area where the studies differ is employment or unemployment. Clarke and Whittaker suggest areas with a low employment rate are more likely to vote Leave, but Langella and Manning seem to find the opposite, and Darvas says any impact from levels of unemployment (which is not the same as the inverse of the employment rate) is explained by other factors which I will now come to.

There are some variables that have not been considered by all three of these studies. Darvas has one particularly interesting result: the Leave vote increases in areas where there is a lot of poverty and local inequality. Langella and Manning find that areas with long term declines in agricultural, manufacturing or public employment are more likely to vote Leave. This is also the conclusion of a team led by Bristol geographer Ron Johnston, which is worth quoting in full.

“There are substantial parts of the country where large numbers of people have lost out from the deindustrialisation and globalisation of the last few decades of neo-liberal economic policies, and where the educational system has not helped large proportions of the young to equip themselves for the new labour market. Increasing numbers in these disadvantaged groups were won over during the last few decades by the campaigns in parts of the print media, taken up by UKIP since the 1990s, linking their situations to the impact of immigration – uncontrollable because of the EU freedom of movement of labour principle. The wider Leave campaign built on that foundation in 2016, producing the geography displayed here.”

That conclusion of course goes beyond the finding that areas hard hit by globalisation tended to vote Leave, and adds an explanation that sees the press and politicians actively trying to link the experience of disadvantage to the issue of immigration. It is an argument I have also made. Unfortunately it is an argument that is very difficult to prove using regression analysis, because - as newspapers often argue - they may print just what sells newspapers, so any correlation does not imply causation.

It is also important to remember that the link between voting Leave and areas of deindustrialisation is in additional to the strong links with education and age. Education may fit in with a story where the anti-EU stance (to say bias does not do it justice) of most of the tabloid press is important, for obvious reasons. The same is true with age, as younger people are likely to get their information by other means than the tabloid press.   

There is another, very different, line of argument that tries to explain the Leave vote not in terms of class but psychology/culture. Eric Kaufmann finds simple correlations between voting Leave and authoritarianism. A story you can tell is that, for some at least, Brexit was a vote against not neoliberalism but social liberalism. The link between social liberalism and the EU is once again migration, which represents one more unwelcome change for social conservatives. Social conservatism and authoritarianism may also map more easily into nationalism and wanting to 'take control', and it was part of the tabloid 'grooming' to do exactly that. Social conservatism may also explain the importance of age and perhaps also education.

There is no reason why we need to choose between the economic and the social types of explanation. Kaufmann and Johnston et al can both be right. As Max Wind-Cowie says (quoted by Rick here):

“Bringing together the dissatisfied of Tunbridge Wells and the downtrodden of Merseyside is a remarkable feat, and it stems from UKIP’s empathy for those who have been left behind by the relentless march of globalisation and glib liberalism.”

Both these explanations see antagonism to the idea (rather than the actuality) of migration as the way an underlying grievance got translated into a dislike of the EU. But was immigration really so crucial? A widely quoted poll by Lord Ashcroft says a wish for sovereignty was more important. The problem here, of course, is that sovereignty - and a phrase like taking back control - is an all embracing term which might well be seen as more encompassing than just a concern about immigration. It really needs a follow-up asking what aspects of sovereignty are important. If we look at what Leavers thought was important, the “ability to control our own laws” seemed to have little to do with the final vote compared to more standard concerns, including immigration.

However there are other aspects of the Ashcroft poll that I think are revealing. First, economic arguments were important for Remain voters. The economic message did get through to many voters. Second, the NHS was important to Leave voters, so the point economists also made that ending free movement would harm the NHS was either not believed or did not get through to this group. Indeed “more than two thirds (69%) of leavers, by contrast, thought the decision “might make us a bit better or worse off as a country, but there probably isn’t much in it either way””. Whether they did not know about the overwhelming consensus among economists who thought otherwise, or chose to ignore it, we cannot tell.

Third, Leave voters are far more pessimistic about the future, and also tend to believe that life today is much worse than life 30 years ago. Finally, those who thought the following were a source of ill rather than good - multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, globalisation, the internet, the green movement and immigration - tended by large majorities to vote Leave. Only in the case of capitalism did as many Remain and Leave voters cite it as a source of ill. These results suggest that Leave voters were those left behind in modern society in either an economic or social way (or perhaps both).

Taking all this evidence into account it seems that the Brexit vote was a protest vote against both the impact of globalisation and social liberalism. The two are connected by immigration, and of course the one certainty of the Brexit debate was that free movement prevented controls on EU migration. But that does not mean defeat was inevitable, as Chris makes clear. Kevin O’Rourke points out that the state can play an active role in compensating the losers from globalisation, and of course in recent years there has been an attempt to roll back the state. Furthermore, as Johnston et al suggest, the connection between economic decline and immigration is more manufactured than real. Tomorrow I’ll discuss both the campaign and what implications this all might have.

219
The Flood / NSFW T H I C C 👌🔥
« on: August 08, 2016, 07:56:33 AM »

220
Chicago Booth Review

Lubos Pastor - "Diminished market access for the UK; diminished global influence for the EU"

Spoiler
Te outcome of the Brexit vote is clearly bad news for the UK. At the macroeconomic level, if Britain loses access to the single market, that’s going to harm the British economy. Until the negotiations about the single market are completed, there will be a lot of policy uncertainty about what kind of deal we’re going to end up with, and until then, investment in Britain will be lower. There will also be less spending. Hopefully, the large drop in the pound that we have seen will be strong enough to offset this blow to the British economy.

One opportunity for the UK, the easy opportunity to preserve access to the single market, is to follow the so-called Norway model. In other words, join the European economic area, which currently includes not only Norway but also other non-EU countries such as Iceland and Liechtenstein. However, I do not think this is a viable solution for Britain in the long run. Yes, it would preserve access to the single market, but it would come at the expense of free movement of labor, which British voters clearly don’t want, by revealed preference. Britain would also have to continue paying into the EU budget, which they don’t like. And Britain would have to abide by the EU rules, over which it would have no say, which I don’t see the British liking at all.

The Brexit vote is also bad news for the rest of Europe. Brexit, if it takes place, will reverse the long-term process of European integration, which has contributed significantly to peace and prosperity in Europe. Losing Britain will be bad for the EU, both externally and internally.

Externally, the UK has been a strong member of the EU; it’s been able to contribute militarily, and it’s been able to contribute diplomatically. Losing the UK means losing a big voice. The EU will now be smaller and less important on the global stage. Internally, in losing the UK, the EU is going to lose an important voice of reason that has often argued for market-driven solutions inside the EU.

Another unfortunate consequence of the Brexit vote is that over the next few months and possibly years, European politicians will be dealing with Brexit instead of with important problems such as immigration, Greece, and fiscal issues. That’s unfortunate—it’s almost unfair of the British to put Europe in this position.

Steven J. Davis - "Brexit has upside potential for both the UK and the EU"

Spoiler
There are considerable downside risks to what might happen in the wake of the referendum, but Brexit also presents some important upside opportunities for the UK. It will have the opportunity to take a freer hand in its own trade policy, its own immigration policy, its own regulatory policy, and there’s at least the possibility that it could do so in a more progrowth way than would likely have happened if it had remained part of the EU. If it takes advantage of that freedom to construct a regulatory environment that facilitates the formation of new businesses and the creation of new jobs, that’s likely to be good for workers across the spectrum in the UK economy.

On the other hand, if Brexit is really the first step toward an inward retreat with respect to trade, capital flows, immigration, and so on, that’s likely to choke off growth prospects for the UK for some time to come.

One big political issue is how well and how soon the EU and the UK will establish a new trade arrangement. The sooner the better, in my view. The Economic Policy Uncertainty Index for the UK is at historically high levels. (The Index quantifies newspaper coverage of policy-related economic uncertainty.) Until the EU and the UK come to a new understanding about trade in goods and services, capital flows, and financial relationships, that uncertainty will forestall long-term investments, hiring decisions, and other activity. That’s going to spill over to the entire UK economy if it persists for long.

Just as there are opportunities for Britain, this could have a positive impact on the EU. For one thing, the referendum and the larger dissatisfaction in many EU countries suggest that the EU suffers from a shortfall of democratic accountability. People, rightly or wrongly, blame some of the failure to perform economically on decisions made by the EU, and it’s easier to blame the EU when you don’t really have a strong say in how it functions. I would encourage folks in the EU to think about how it is that they can restore both the perceptions and the reality of greater accountability to the citizens of EU member countries.

Many of the aspects of globalization that come with EU membership can be achieved without something akin to political integration. There’s been a long-standing trajectory since the end of World War II—through the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades), the WTO (World Trade Organization), and free-trade agreements, which have all promoted greater trade globalization while respecting the sovereignty of individual countries. It would be wise to step back and unpack the elements of globalization and ask, “Which ones can we promote in a way that’s likely to be most beneficial economically and most hospitable to the electorates in democratic societies?”

Amir Sufi - "A bigger pie, but some left starving"

Spoiler
What Brexit shows more than anything else is that policies associated with globalization—in particular free trade and removal of restrictions on immigration—have been met by certain groups with resistance. These groups are angry about these policies, and it makes a lot of sense that the vote went the way it did given this anger. We will see an increase in these nationalistic, anti-immigrant, antitrade-type votes across the board in almost all the advanced countries. 

One of the big problems economists have had is that these policies they have been advocating—more trade, more immigration—which I agree make the size of the pie larger and are the right policies in the long run, have negative distributional consequences. Some groups are negatively affected, and economists and policy makers mostly ignore these effects. We now have solid evidence showing the negative consequences of globalization on certain groups. For example, in the United States we know counties that previously produced goods that end up being exported by China into the US have been devastated. We see higher unemployment, higher suicide rates, and even higher opioid addiction.

Economists and policy makers often think policies that increase the size of the pie will automatically benefit everyone, and that’s just counterfactual. If you are going to get the true fruits of some of the policies associated with globalization, you have to think seriously about the groups within a country that are adversely affected by those policies. You cannot just assume everything will work out for these groups.

Christian Leuz - "The Brexit vote is an opportunity for the EU to find new resolve"

Spoiler
Since the referendum, it has become clear that the negative economic consequences of a Brexit are real and potentially severe, just as many economists and experts predicted. For the UK, an important political question is whether or not it can and will remain united. The Brexit vote also raises big political questions for the EU and its leaders, who must learn important lessons and adjust.

Of course, at this point, there is still massive uncertainty about whether and when the UK will actually exit. The British Parliament has the final say on the decision, and it probably also needs to first authorize May’s government to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which lays out the procedures for a withdrawal from the EU. A lot can happen in the next few months, as well as during the exit negotiations. It is entirely possible that once the negative economic consequences take hold, the British mood changes and new elections take place, after which the Parliament could decide against following through with a Brexit. On the flipside, more time could also allow the UK and the EU to mitigate the Brexit fallout.

For the UK going forward, there will be strong political forces pulling toward a breakup. It is not clear to me how one can respect the will of the people expressed in the referendum, yet deny Scotland another independence referendum of its own if the UK follows through with the Brexit. A similar issue could arise in Northern Ireland.

As the EU is largely a political project, it is also essential to view things through a political lens, rather than just from an economic perspective. Politics often prevails over economics, as we saw in the Greek sovereign-debt crisis. Politics will also dominate the exit negotiations. Therefore, most of the Brexit consequences for the EU are, in my mind, political in nature as well. The biggest loss is the change in the balance of power within the EU. Here the UK played an important role as a liberal and free-markets force. Thus, future EU negotiations will be substantially different.

The Brexit vote should be used as an opportunity to find a new resolve. First and foremost, the EU and its leaders need to do a much better job communicating what the political project is all about. There are actually many successes that are worth emphasizing. There are more abstract ones, such as peace and a staunch defense of basic human rights. Conflicts of interest between countries are dealt with in an entirely different way, instead of the old saber rattling. But there are also concrete achievements. For instance, the EU and its predecessors played an important role in the demise of the dictatorships in southern Europe and the stability of those countries afterward. Another example are EU student exchanges such as the very successful Erasmus Programme (European Region Action Scheme for Mobility of University Students), which has offered millions of students the opportunity to study abroad and has done a lot for joint cultural understanding. In addition, there are concrete economic successes. For instance, the euro has had a profound effect on price competition within the eurozone, ultimately benefiting consumers.

But it is not just a matter of communication. EU leaders must change as well. They need to recognize that Europe needs a more democratically legitimized foundation. The paternalistic attitude of current and former EU leaders that says, “Trust us. We know what is best for Europe,” will not work going forward. The recent rise of populism all over the EU illustrates that the leaders and elites have lost thought leadership, or the “sovereignty of interpretation” of what is happening in the world. EU leaders need to regain the trust of their people and to do so need to explain their plans and actions in a more transparent and extensive way.

Ultimately, the EU needs more time. It is a project that should be judged in decades or perhaps even centuries, not years. But there is a real risk of losing the achievements of the last 50 years if European leaders do not stabilize the EU and rein in centrifugal forces.

Luigi Zingales - "Brexit proves we need to restore public trust in expert opinion"

Spoiler
One of the most important—and least discussed—aspects of the vote for Brexit has been the failure of most pollsters and newspapers to predict and understand the reasons for it. Even the betting market, generally much more reliable, got it wrong. This phenomenon is not unique to Brexit. Most pundits and pollsters missed the importance of Trump. Why?

What we have observed in Britain and what we are observing in the US with Trump is a growing mistrust toward experts. In the Brexit debate it was hard to find any economist justifying a departure from the EU. In fact, many were willing to make forecasts so pessimistic as to be accused of scaremongering. Not only did these forecasts fail to rally the vote for “Remain,” they probably contributed to the victory of “Leave.”

Some have lamented this phenomenon as an example of voters’ irrationality. I fear this has nothing to do with irrationality and has everything to do with mistrust, a mistrust that, while exaggerated, has a rational basis: the disconnect between the intellectual elite and the population at large.

Today wealth concentration allows a few rich individuals to singlehandedly fund think tanks, which have increasingly become loudspeakers of vested interests rather than centers for the elaboration of public policy. Campaign financing and future lobbying jobs are increasingly transforming elected officers from representatives of the people to “butlers of industrial interests,” to use a famous muckraking expression. Doctors are perceived to promote the medicines of the companies that sponsor their lunches; scientists to minimize the effect of pollutants produced by companies that fund their labs; economists to defend the interests of banks that pay them hefty consulting fees. Even journalists, when they are not perceived to promote the interest of their advertisers and owners, are accused at least of turning a blind eye to certain problems.

Fault does not lie with people who mistrust the experts. We need to rebuild that trust. It is not sufficient that most doctors, intellectuals, and journalists do a fine job. We should have transparency rules in place to ensure that they are all free from conflicts of interest. We should have admission rules that favor not just ethnic diversity but economic and social diversity. We should have campaign-financing rules that free our representatives from the yoke of vested interests.

We need to create the conditions to undermine this mistrust of experts. This is the most important lesson from Brexit.

Tarek Hassan - "Brexit could be costly: the UK economy thrives on multiculturalism"

Spoiler
One idea that’s become associated with pro-Brexit sentiment is the notion that foreigners come into an area and take jobs or displace people who don’t have a lot of human capital. A number of people have looked long and hard at the data and the cost of migration, investigating this concern, and it is hard to find support for it. For example, if you look at the correlation between changes in unemployment and changes in migration in different areas of the UK, you don’t find any association, except at the very low end of the income distribution. The best work on this suggests immigration has a positive economic effect. It’s hard to find an economic rationale for the majority to have voted to essentially constrain migration; the reasons are all political.

Immigration has economic significance apart from the job market. My research suggests that if you accept migrants today, 30 years down the road, they will facilitate investment in their host country, particularly if their country of origin takes off economically. The social ties they create between their country of origin and their host country make that investment more likely.

The UK has already benefited from its rich mix of residents. London has a central position in the global social network. Lots of business done between Romania and the US, for example, goes through London. In a variety of ways, having an exchange of populations in the long run makes it much easier to interact economically. London is important in the world economy precisely because it has an ethnic mix. It’s one of the few places in the world where you can find a significant population from Bangladesh and a significant population from Romania, for example.

Overall, for the European economy, and the world economy, it’s going to be hard to substitute for London in that respect. There’s a lot of talk about Frankfurt and Paris benefiting significantly from this; we’ll see how that plays out, but London is a diverse place, and there’s really nothing similar in the rest of Europe, at least on that scale.

This idea of economic interaction also speaks to the dangers of the UK fragmenting as a result of Brexit. Putting a border somewhere is costly; we have plenty of research in economics that talks about the border effect. If you look at the amount of economic interaction between Seattle and San Francisco, for example, it’s orders-of-magnitude larger than the economic interaction between Seattle and Vancouver, Canada. All of that lack of economic interaction between Seattle and Vancouver means fewer jobs, fewer opportunities for people to do business, and fewer opportunities to create wealth for the economy. A breakup of the UK would be costly, both because of a long period of economic and political uncertainty, and because there will have to be a border somewhere.

Erik Hurst - "Brexit will harm lower-skilled workers in the UK"

Spoiler
While many people are focusing on the consequences of Brexit, I find the causes to be equally troubling. Much of the pro-Brexit media coverage prior to the vote focused on limiting immigration into the UK. These arguments resonated because, as within the US, the labor market has remained quite weak for workers with lower levels of schooling. There was a belief that migrants entering Britain were partly responsible for the weak labor market there. In fact, many of the pro-Brexit arguments primarily focused on this issue in the weeks prior to the vote.

However, this belief turns out not to have merit. Immigration played, at most, only a small part in weak demand for lower-skilled workers. The decline in manufacturing, and in routine jobs more broadly—within both the US and UK—has depressed employment rates and wages for those workers without a bachelor’s degree. That has nothing to do with immigration.

I predict that Brexit will actually make lower-skilled workers in Britain much worse off. Leaving the EU may curtail immigration, but it will likely further serve to reduce Britain’s manufacturing industry—because it will be harder to ship goods abroad.

One of the things I am most concerned with is that the stagnation of wages and declines in employment rates for lower-skilled workers are common across many industrialized countries. As these workers struggle, there is a strong populist movement that wants to limit immigration and restrict trade across countries. We are seeing similar patterns within the US: Donald Trump is promoting policies that are similar in spirit to those promoted by the politicians supporting Brexit, policies that restrict both immigration and trade.

While it is likely that Brexit will have large effects on the UK and the European economy broadly, the underlying factors that led to support of the referendum are also very much present in the US economy. I am really not sure how these factors will play out within the US political landscape.


Brent Neiman - "Don’t take globalization for granted"

Spoiler
The Brexit referendum, and some of the political discourse in the US presidential election, shows clearly that there is pushback on globalization. Globalization is a term that I think of as referring to integration across countries in essentially three types of markets: for capital, for goods and services, and for labor. It’s easy to take for granted that the world will always become more and more globalized over time. But it’s not a technological law that globalization must march forward.

In my own lifetime and in my students’ lifetimes, there have been no sustained reversals in the progress of globalization. We’ve seen more and more trade in goods relative to GDP; more trade in assets relative to GDP; more workers crossing international borders. You might assume that things have to trend this way. But if you go back to the late 19th or early 20th century, when the world was also globalizing quite rapidly, people may very well have also taken for granted then that the world would continue to get more and more integrated. Yet, it did not. From about 1914 to about 1945, globalization actually reversed. International capital flows collapsed, as did goods traded relative to GDP in some periods.

For those of us who think enhanced cooperation and cross border flows in goods, services, capital, and labor are important things for productivity, poverty alleviation, and welfare around the globe, it’s important to remind ourselves of these benefits and that we shouldn’t take them for granted.

And further, while globalization might make us better off on average, it certainly doesn’t have to help everyone. Some people gain, and others may lose. For those of us who want globalization to continue moving forward, it’s obviously become more and more important to think harder about ways to make sure the benefits are shared by a broader set of people than perhaps has been the case in some places.


Randall Kroszner - "In the wake of Brexit, the UK could become a low-tax haven"

Spoiler
The British people have spoken; it’s important that the Parliament, as well as Prime Minister Theresa May, take that seriously. I don’t think there’s any need to move immediately—they need to have a plan if they are going to go through with this. You shouldn’t just start on some sort of adventure and not know where you’re going. But they shouldn’t wait years to do this because uncertainty can be costly.

The key to the long-term impact is really going to be the policy changes within the UK as well as the relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. Britain can respond to this by dramatically changing domestic policy to make it much more business friendly. For example, former Chancellor George Osborne proposed cutting corporate taxes significantly; though Osborne has been replaced, the idea remains worth exploring. Perhaps the UK, rather than Ireland, could become the low-tax haven in Europe.

To whatever extent the UK needed to move in a more business-friendly direction, this is an opportunity for them to say, “We’ve got to do this now, because otherwise we’re going to go off a cliff.” I don’t think their economy will go off a cliff, but if that’s what it takes to get them to really reform their policies and produce higher growth, that’s going to be good for everyone across the UK, particularly for those with low incomes. If the policy makers don’t take that opportunity, I think low-income workers will be disappointed with the effects of Brexit, because immigration’s effect on the job market was not as great as many people thought it was, and because slow economic growth tends to hurt low-income people more than the wealthy.

221
Gaming / Battlefield 4 loadout?
« on: August 06, 2016, 09:51:37 AM »
I've been playing Battlefield 4 quite a bit over the past few weeks, so I was wondering what everybody's preferred loadout is.

I tend to use the Type 88 with a 4x scope, heavy barrel and angled grip (although I also like the U-100 MK5). For equipment I tend to just spam ammo if I'm playing hardcore TDM on Operation Locker, or the airburst/mortar/claymore with an ammo box if I'm playing conquest. Field upgrade is defensive.

222




Social issues:
Spoiler

Immigration issues:
Spoiler

Foreign policy:
Spoiler

Economic policy:
Spoiler

Education:
Spoiler

Healthcare:
Spoiler

Domestic policy:
Spoiler

Science:
Spoiler

Electoral issues:
Spoiler

Environmental:
Spoiler

Law enforcement:
Spoiler


Can be found here.

223
Sydney Morning Herald

Quote
Dashcam footage and audio recordings showing a police officer allegedly shooting a man three times from point blank range, and then planting a knife on his body, have been put to a Melbourne court.

Leading Senior Constable Timothy Howard Baker, 44, is accused of murdering Vlado Micetic, 46, on August 25, 2013, after pulling him over for a routine traffic stop on Union Street in Windsor.

The Crown alleges Mr Baker killed Mr Micetic before taking a small flick-knife from his own pocket and putting it near the body.

The video was shown on the first day of Mr Baker's committal hearing at the Melbourne Magistrates Court, during which a magistrate must decide whether Mr Baker will stand trial for murder.

From his unmarked police car, Mr Baker saw Mr Micetic and a female passenger driving in a car with stolen plates. He flicked on the lights and sirens, and Mr Micetic pulled over and got out.

The police dashcam footage is grainy, and the figures are illuminated only by the police car's headlights. It was played to a full court including many supporters of Mr Micetic.

What goes on in the dark and grainy footage will be key to the hearing.

Mr Baker appears to struggle to restrain and handcuff Mr Micetic, before Mr Micetic falls to the ground.

Mr Micetic then gets up, and the two men go out of view of the camera before three shots are heard.

Audio from Mr Baker's voice recorder during the attempted arrest was also played. The officer tells Mr Micetic "Do as you're told. I don't want to use force... Do it until I figure out what's going on".

"Put your hands behind your back. You've done this before,"

Mr Micetic later says "What are you doing this for? You're going to get in trouble. You're going to lose your job."

The court heard Mr Baker later told police he had wrestled with Mr Micetic, who was resisting arrest.

"We wrestled and I saw the knife. I had the spray out, but it was too close to use. I had my gun out and yeah," Crown Prosecutor Andrew Tinney told the court Mr Baker had said to police.

He said there was "nothing to suggest" Mr Baker had ever reached for his canister of pepper spray, and described Mr Baker's story about the knife as a "fabrication".

"During the entire time Mr Micetic was in view [of the camera] ... There was nothing to indicate that [Mr Micetic] reached his hand into his pocket or any other part of clothing. At no time could he be seen to be in possession of a knife," the prosecutor told the court.

"At no time before shooting did the accused say anything about the deceased's possession of a knife."

Analysis had been carried out on Mr Baker's audio recorder, and a specialist had discovered a sound like a flick-knife being opened – a full 15 seconds after the first gunshot was fired, the prosecutor told the court.

The knife had a mixed DNA profile on it, but part of that profile likely included Mr Baker's DNA, the prosecutor said.

During cross-examination of witnesses, the court heard that Mr Micetic drank a large amount of whisky on the day he was killed, and was very intoxicated when he was arrested.

One of Mr Micetic's relatives also told the court he kept several knives at his property. He suffered from paranoia and schizophrenia, the relative told the court.

But the relative denied the suggestion by Mr Baker's counsel that Mr Micetic's nickname was "knifeman".

224
The Flood / Hypocrisy
« on: August 01, 2016, 04:37:22 PM »

225
BBC4 podcast.

Well worth the listen.

226
YouTube

227
Politico.

Quote
The European Commission’s budget and human resources chief said Wednesday she would order a “freeze” on the hiring of men in the institution unless some of its departments gave more top jobs to women.

Kristalina Georgieva, a Commission vice president who is sometimes referred to as the EU executive body’s chief operating officer, has sought to increase the number of women in senior positions in the institution to 40 percent by 2019. But after a meeting of commissioners Wednesday at which she presented a report on progress toward that goal, she said more needed to be done.

“My determination is that if it is necessary, I will freeze appointments,” Georgieva told POLITICO. “Some departments have to reach their targets, and if they don’t, sanctions are coming.”

Georgieva said that currently about 30 percent of Commission senior managers and 33 percent of middle managers are women. She said that many Commission departments, including for communication, home affairs, justice, research and innovation, had hit the 40 percent target. However, the Commission is far behind its targets in several powerful departments, including competition, environment, single market and the EU’s anti-fraud office.

228
Serious / Bullet point comparison of the RNC and DNC platforms
« on: July 27, 2016, 07:40:17 AM »
Google doc made by some redditor.

Covers a lot of areas.

231
Reuters
Quote
Britain could borrow nearly 65 billion pounds more than planned in the next couple of years as new Chancellor Philip Hammond seeks to 'reset' government budget policy to ease the shock of last month's vote to leave the European Union.

Ratings agencies and economists widely expect borrowing to rise materially next year for the first time since 2010, as Hammond has to call time - temporarily - on the austerity which dominated his predecessor George Osborne's six years in office.

After taking office two weeks ago, Hammond said the darker post-Brexit outlook meant policies the Conservative government had pursued since 2010 needed to change - and economists are now starting to put numbers on what this might mean.

Hammond told reporters on Sunday the scale of any stimulus would hinge on how rapidly the economy was slowing by the time of the Autumn Statement, the half-yearly budget update that usually comes in late November or early December.

"There is going to need to be a rethink," said Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a non-partisan think-tank which scrutinises the public finances.

Just sticking with the plans Osborne set out in March means borrowing is likely to overshoot its target by tens of billions of pounds as tax revenues fall and spending on social security for the low-paid and unemployed rises, Johnson said.

Several economists - working partly off rules of thumb from Britain's budget watchdog - estimate on average that borrowing this tax year and next combined will be almost 65 billion pounds above forecast, even if the economy dodges recession. They did not forecast further out because of uncertainty over the economy and the government's budget plans.

Total public borrowing in 2015/16 was 75 billion pounds - a hefty 4 percent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March it would drop to 55.5 billion pounds this year and 38.8 billion in 2017/18.

By contrast, Sam Hill, an economist at Royal Bank of Canada, expects weaker growth alone will stop borrowing falling this year, and see it rise to 85 billion pounds next year - double March's forecast.

"The numbers could get even bigger than that – and I think there's a good chance that they do," Hill said.

Hammond has said the Bank of England will be the first public body to offer stimulus if needed - possibly as soon as its meeting next week - but there will be greater pressure than before on the finance ministry to act too.

Unlike when Britain last entered recession in 2008, interest rates and government bond yields are already at a record low, limiting the BoE's scope to boost growth through rate cuts or quantitative easing.

Britain's situation now has some parallels with Japan, where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has ordered his government to take advantage of ultra-low interest rates to unveil a large spending package by the end of the month to spur investment.

STIMULUS CHOICES

If Hammond does offer more stimulus, he will have to choose how to spend it.

Long-term public investment offers the biggest boost per pound spent, according to the OBR, giving three times the return of tax cuts, and 50 percent more than general public spending.

Its main downside is that effective projects take more time than tax cuts or public-sector pay rises, which immediately put more money in Britons' pockets.

But Johnson and Hill say the case for investment is stronger than in a normal short-lived downturn, as uncertainty about Britain's EU relations could weigh on the economy for years due to the likely length of exit negotiations.

Public investment has also been squeezed, dropping to 34 billion pounds last year from 51 billion in 2009/10.

In March, the government listed 425 billion pounds of investment projects which needed private involvement, ranging from offshore wind farms to high-speed rail links.

If a more immediate boost was needed, tax measures which rewarded business investment would be a better option than repeating 2009's temporary cut in value-added tax, as business spending appears weaker than consumer sentiment.

NEW RULE, OLD RULE

There is no sense that Hammond or the finance ministry have a fixed figure in mind for how much borrowing would be too much.

Earlier this month, he said the low cost of borrowing meant it had "great attractions" to fund investment, but that Britain needed to be careful about the signal it gave financial markets.

Last week he told parliament he wanted a clear framework to achieve "fiscal balance" in a reasonable time frame.

Hammond may be tempted to revert to the rule Osborne devised in 2010, which gave him a reputation as a fiscal hawk but in practice allowed lots of back-sliding when the recovery faltered in 2011 and 2012.

This rule was monitored by the OBR and required the government to target a budget surplus within five years. But this surplus did not include investment spending - an exemption Osborne made little use of - and also allowed adjustments for economic weakness annual extensions to the surplus deadline.

This could give Hammond upwards of 40 billion pounds a year of discretionary spending to play with - equivalent to an annual stimulus of 2 percent - and still allow Hammond to claim to be as prudent as his predecessor, RBC's Hill said.

"It's got the hallmarks of a political compromise which he might find appealing," Hill said.

Markets were unlikely to baulk at funding a large British budget deficit at a time when even record-low gilt yields were much higher than those for Japanese and German debt, he added.

Higher borrowing, however, could only be a temporary solution until the longer-run impact of leaving the EU became clear, the IFS's Johnson said.

"If you borrow more now, you have to pay it back in the end. That will inevitably extend austerity – but with a break in the middle," he said.

232
The Flood / I wanna meet this guy
« on: July 26, 2016, 05:07:27 AM »
YouTube

234
The Telegraph

Quote
One of the UK’s leading scientists has said he has seen no evidence that European funding bodies are discriminating against British research projects as a result of the vote to leave the EU.

Royal Society President Sir Venki Ramakrishnan yesterday said Britain’s strength as a centre of scientific excellence was distinct from its EU membership.

The Nobel Prize-winning biologist, who is originally from India, Venki Ramakrishnan y to establish a “streamlined, efficient and rapid” visa system that enables academics from all parts of the world to work in the UK.

His intervention contradicts early reports following the referendum last month that British scholars are being overlooked for research funding.

Sir Venki said he did not believe that leaving the union would deter foreign academics from coming to Britain, which he described as “one of the most tolerant places in the world.”

“The reality is the UK is an incredibly strong science country, and its membership in the EU is only one of many considerations that people take into account when they come here,” he said.

235
Serious / CNN: Donald Trump polling ahead of Clinton
« on: July 25, 2016, 09:47:27 AM »
CNN
Quote
Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups.

There hasn't been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN's polling since 2000. That year Al Gore and George W. Bush both boosted their numbers by an identical 8 points post-convention before ultimately battling all the way to the Supreme Court.

National polls don't have a large enough sample to accurately reflect the state of play in key battlegrounds, and there is little information thus far on how Trump's convention performance has affected the presidential race state-by-state.

The new findings mark Trump's best showing in a CNN/ORC Poll against Clinton since September 2015. Trump's new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump's convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein.

236
The Flood / do we really care about the LAPD beating rodney king
« on: July 24, 2016, 11:22:15 AM »
we have a man who led the CHP on a high speed chase, with a blood alcohol level twice over the legal limit, because a DUI would violate his parole for a prior robbery conviction and then when they finally stopped him and the LAPD showed up he resisted arrest

the dude then rushes towards an officer, gets beat down and the cops keep hitting him with their paddywhackers every time he tries to get up

being outraged over genuine racism i can understand, but why the fuck did people riot over this dumb cunt getting his ass beat after what he did

237
The Flood / what causes misanthropy
« on: July 24, 2016, 12:33:34 AM »
seriously

238
The Flood / get the fuck in here
« on: July 23, 2016, 07:42:42 PM »
https://plug.dj/aoki

godda,mn faggots

239
Fuck me.

Tories are on 40pc (+10).
Labour are on 29pc (-4).
UKIP are on 12pc (-8).

240
The Telegraph.

Quote
The pound has extended its gains against the dollar and is now up 0.6pc on the day at $1.3194 following a strong jobs report and the Bank of England agents report.

Jasper Lawler, of CMC Markets, said: "​The positive labour market data surprise coupled with the Bank of England saying it sees “no evidence of a sharp slowing of activity” after the referendum triggered gains in the British pound. The ONS was careful to point out that data was collected before the vote was known, but it now seems undeniable that there was no slowdown in economic activity as a result of uncertainty before the referendum.

The question that remains unanswered is whether the economy has begun to slow afterwards. Still, based on available data, the Bank of England has scant evidence to justify a big easing of monetary policy. Retail sales on Thursday will be the next test."

Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 67