• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dgul

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,785 profile views
  1. I've always had this temptation to do something like this, but just use a random number generator. Not necessarily DNA -- maybe astrology, some kind of Wiccan thing, anything really. So long as you kept the organisation at arm's length and then wrapped it all up once you'd made enough money (and then start up a new, slightly different one) I think you'd just keep on getting away with it. Alas, I have insufficient cad in my genes (or perhaps bounder).
  2. I didn't listen to it all, but got the 'mitochrondrial DNA' part. I don't see where the shock lies.
  3. Right -- and they'll blame the weather (or Brexit) for what is actually a return to saner times compared with the 20 year period of irrational over-consumption.
  4. dgul

    US Treasuries, Yield Curves

    Normality resumes when cease being interested in swapping their real goods with UK assets (whether shares, property, gilts, whatever). At that point it is probably too late and the currency will collapse. How low it takes to get to that point is unknown.
  5. It's largely irrelevant for Christmas shopping. People have a certain quantity of presents that need to be bought, and will spend the money to buy them come what may. What matters is: How much they want to spend this year vs previous years. Whether they can be organised enough to do the shopping on the internet.
  6. dgul

    Rimless toilet. Anyone got one?

    As is always the case with things like this -- look at what the professionals do. Do new buildings come with rimless toilets? Do building managers refit rimless to cut on cleaning costs? Do professional cleaners give a better rate for toilets where the pans are rimless? If the answer to those questions is 'no' then it suggests that the professionals have a different take on it than the people selling the things.
  7. dgul

    The dangers of smart motorways

    Back in news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46553654 IMO this is a perfect example of how things should be done, and then aren't. The current smart motorways were introduced as an experiment -- try them and see what happens, and use the outcome to drive forwards a nationwide policy / rollout. So, they did the 100 odd miles of. And what they found was: To me this seems like excellent research -- we tried it, but the outcomes weren't good -- we'll dial down the current bits done and not do any more... ...But that's not how things are done these days. The decision has been made. The purpose of the 'experiment' is to support the decision -- if the data doesn't support it then ignore it. Whatever happens, you can't change the decision once made. [I'll accept that the current bits of smart motorway are the busiest bits, so it isn't a simple 'multiply by 18' problem -- but pretty much everywhere is busy now, so I think there is much that can be read from the broad outcomes. That said, it would still have been nice to have data from the smart motorway areas alone (before vs after), but that data doesn't seem to be available. It wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't bothered measuring it properly]
  8. dgul

    next to a school

    For the most part that would be okay, but it would be hell on parent's evenings, school performance, after-school activity day, etc, etc.
  9. dgul

    A Corbyn Goverment

    What they should have done is instigated an EU wide 'minimum level of welfare' -- which all states would have to offer. Then, migrant workers should have been entitled to the EU level of welfare, not whatever safety net each country makes for its citizens. The discussion from all the countries about the right level of welfare would have been interesting... Even better would be to have had a 'migrant labour employment insurance scheme' paid in to EU coffers by all migrant labour (instead of to the safety-net component of each country's tax/insurance schemes), and then paid out to that migrant labour as a safety net on redundancy, etc. That would really have focused a few minds.
  10. Actually, that's something I find rather depressing. Years ago the typical petrolhead would be buying up an older car, then keeping it going, doing stuff to the engine (fancier carb, camshaft change, etc). These days most are just buying fancy cars on HP and it's all about how much debt you can take on. The occasional person interested in 'doing stuff' might rechip (hardly engineering), but otherwise it's cosmetics. I'm sure it doesn't really make any difference (why is it good to keep an older car going...?), but it just all seems so fake to me. [Sure, there are people actually into rebuilding and tuning, but it is the minority -- for most it is about buying the M230 not the M220 and dreaming that you could have got the M240.]
  11. dgul

    Egypt Tomb Discovery

    It's one of those odd stories where I wonder what the agenda is. They find tombs fairly regularly. Sure, this is 'one of a kind' in that it's a high priest -- but it's always 'one of a kind' -- one of a kind worker's tomb, one of a kind early, one of a kind late, one of a kind converted into a desirable flat. We had a 'one of a kind' tomb a few weeks ago -- that one was worker's tomb. I guess it's just that 100 year old 'Wow -- Egypt' effect, which means an automatic front page story, but maybe it's to do with distracting us from something else.
  12. Quite. I've always been interested in engine design flow. An interesting example is the Austin seven engine, which was developed by Austin from 1922, developed for years (albeit with some serious development, like changing from 3- to 5-bearing for the crankshaft), then taken over by Reliant, given an ohv conversion in the 60's, then stayed in production (by Reliant) until 2002 or so -- 80 years of production of what was essentially the same fundamental engine design.
  13. dgul

    A Corbyn Goverment

    That's the missing point of the current argument, IMO. Just as we're arguing what 'leave' means, we should have an understanding of what 'stay' means. Does it include (over a lifetime timescale as that's the level that the young are allegedly worrying over -- that we've destroyed their future -- let's call it 30 years or so): Effectively-mandated adoption of the Euro in the UK A European army, with only limited militia per country. Forced Europe-wide immigration targets EU wide financial sector shared risk (eg, we carry the risk of Italian banks mucking up their lending) The formation of Eurobonds to remove the need for Gilt issuance Centralisation of powers to Brussels, leaving UK parliaments/assemblies to only cover a limited subset of domestic duties. Centralisation of laws to Brussels, removing the influence of UK lawmakers. The harmonisation of welfare systems across Europe The harmonisation of healthcare provision across Europe The mandatory education of 'European Harmony Studies' for all of the EU's youth And the list goes on. Will any of these things happen? Will all of them happen? It is what is wanted by some? The majority? I just don't know. But what I do know is, the EU seems to be on a trajectory of being a USEurope, and I'd bet that that thing looks more like the list above than the status quo. See, as far as I can tell, the argument that is being had currently is exactly the opposite argument that should be made. We're being told that the choice is between a certain status quo vs an uncertain, different world. This is playing into TPTB 'remainer's' hands -- people are usually scared of change -- indeed, I'd suggest that the Brexit vote two years ago was amazing, in that the majority voted for an uncertain future. But that's because the masses can see through the smokescreen -- if the future controlled by London is bad we can vote them out, but if the future in the EU is bad it isn't clear what could be done -- it has certainly proven difficult to remove ourselves from the. So, I'd say we've actually got two uncertains to choose between, one which is in the UK's control, the other which is in the hands of Brussels.
  14. This is itself because the housing market in the UK is so mucked up. It is normal around the world for people to rent. It is very convenient, particularly at the early part of one's career, when you might want to be travelling around to get promotions, etc. The problem with the UK is that there's precious little in the way of security of tenure, and because there are historical financial incentives to buy (ie, the promotion of house price inflation as a good thing). The UK would be much better off if the rental market was 'better'. IMO, this could best be achieved through proper security of tenure (actual security, not the '3 years!' idea), rather than rent controls (as Khan thinks it means).
  15. Even if rent controls did work, and even if it was possible to introduce them without negative effects, and even if there was a recognised formula which, when adopted, would lead to a positive outcome for everyone -- he would still muck it up.