| Last post |
[Oct. 5th, 2014|10:44 am]
Steve
|
I woke up this morning with a phrase in my mind. Turned backward from the normal, and right because of that. "May her soul have mercy on God".
I met Kate Harding on a Tuesday evening in October 1996. The internet forgets nothing, and tells me that it was the 22nd. The same list of events reminds me of two previous occasions on which I might have encountered her in passing, but I believe that had I spoken with her on either of them I would have remembered. One does not forget Kate's full attention.
On the evening of Tuesday 22nd October 1996, Kate and her best friend Amanda ate chicken and chips, and then needed to transform themselves respectively into Meridian Macey-Dare and Aesha van Dieman. They needed the tissues I happened to be carrying before they could touch their costumes. Both were suprisingly grateful, but I soon realised how much these transformations mattered to them both.
Naturally Meridian Macey-Dare, adventuress extraordinaire, turned out to be a false identity for a Russian noble. Kate always committed to her fiction, and would not pretend to be one person when she could pretend to be two.
My second truly important memory of Kate involved food too, and must have been close to a year later. As a poor student, a bacon sandwich was an impressive gift to me, especially coming from the housemate of the person I was really there to see. I will never know whether this gift and the urgent phrase "Have more bacon! Have more bacon!" signified as much to her as they did to me. It seems unlikely, since all it really was, was the moment I realised I had a friendship coming my way. Kate intended that already. I could not have known then how joyful that friendship would be, or how special my friend, how wonderful and magical. The memory pushes it all to one point. Since then Kate was one of my people, and I was one of hers.
Kate gave me many other things. Most of all her time, which alone would have been gift enough. Her insight. Her advice and support through some tough patches. Her mockery when I needed it, since I am a man who appreciates mockery and she read me well enough to know when to give it. One time an angel made from a shuttlecock, with paper wings and a piped icing face. Another time a total eclipse of the sun, which astronomers claim has something to do with the moon's orbit. My ability to see it had much to do with the very generous hosting of Kate's grandmother and parents. I know this but still, to me, it was another experience Kate arranged for her friends to enjoy together. She gave me transient things that last forever.
Of course the games. The play-acting through which many of us were working out how to live. At one time or another Kate has become, for a few hours at a stretch, a sister to me, a lover, a daughter or a wife. Sometimes an enemy, but still a joy and always an inspiration. We pretended those relationships, but what was real, what we were both saying, was "I love you, I trust you, and we will always be friends".
Turned backward from the normal, any time she knew the normal was wrong. May her soul have mercy on God. I don't believe in God, and Kate might have laughed at that inconsistency. To those who do believe and are offended I apologise, it is not my intent to say anything about Him. But what my sleeping mind was saying about Kate is true. Those who loved her feared her judgement, and rightly so. When she told you what was wrong with you, it was not to complain. It was because she knew she could make you see it too, and make you a better person for seeing.
It is a privilege to have known that the world had such a person in it. It is an outrage that the world, through her illness, tied Kate down and stopped her doing what she loved, that those around her loved too. I should have done more for her. But, if everyone who loved Kate spent as much time with her as they wanted to and could have done, then she would not have had a moment's peace in over 40 years.
To within a month, I knew Kate for 18 years. Within a month, half my life. It was easily the better half. I have had nothing but love and happiness from her over those years and I am a better person for it. Thank you, Kate, and good bye. I love you. |
|
|
| Orbital, Oxford used-to-be-the-Zodiac, Thu 13th December 2012, 7pm |
[Apr. 13th, 2012|11:40 am]
Steve
|
Message reads as header. https://www.wegottickets.com/event/164147
[Edit: date changed from 6th to 13th, according to both wegottickets.com and seetickets.com] |
|
|
| Woohoo, Google reader de-borked! |
[Jun. 23rd, 2011|11:45 am]
Steve
|
If you were using "Better GReader", in particular the "preview" feature, you were probably disappointed that Firefox 4 semi-broke that feature. I certainly was, but not as disappointed as I was when Firefox 5 completely broke it.
Since Better GReader was never updated with a fix for 4, it seems unlikely it will be for 5 either.
This GreaseMonkey script appears to replace it (the preview feature, not the whole of Better GReader), and works for me in Firefox 5, so well done jordan117:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/105342 |
|
|
| Why we don't *need* AV (aka: I lost, of course I'm bitter) |
[May. 8th, 2011|05:13 pm]
Steve
|
I'm sure every no-voter has their own reasons, and obviously I'm disappointed by the result. But seriously? You actually *like* FPTP? What is *wrong* with you people?
I might have to concede: not all that much beyond preferring politics as it is, to an uncertain change.
Since any change is uncertain, I think that puts those who disapprove of politics as it is, but voted "No" anyway, in a bit of a bind, but that's for them to figure their way out of and suggest something they think would be an an improvement. Nothing so far.
With the possible exception of some rascally politicians, everyone would like the government to rule by the will of the people, but except at a time of widespread revolutionary fervor that's pretty difficult to achieve.
In fact, we'll settle for a government ruling by the consent of the people. There may be many possible governments that could gain consent, and by definition of "consent" we'll put up with any one of them regardless of what we'd prefer. Regardless even of whether a majority of people would all prefer some other particular government, were it offered. And that's exactly what FPTP delivers a lot of the time - a winning candidate and a government that would lose to some other candidate or some other government, were they the only two on offer.
68% of 42% of the electorate is at the least prepared to consent to the FPTP winner, and in many cases actively wants that person to win even when they voted for someone else. And 58% of the electorate doesn't give a stuff either way. Aside from a tiny number that doesn't vote because it doesn't consent to the whole damn system, they all consent to the FPTP winner too.
If over 85% of the electorate is satisfied or better with what we've got, it's pretty clear firstly that there's no democratic basis for a change, and secondly that there's to be no complaining from any of them that the system sucks. And this means Lord Owen too: you'd rather have FPTP than AV, and you've got FPTP. Well done you. By all means continue to campaign for PR, but recognizing that you no longer have any right to criticize the consequences of winners by plurality.
AV aims to choose as your parliamentary representative, someone who has the preference of as many voters as possible[*]. It is about challenging those who win a plurality in three-or-more-party constituencies, about encouraging more parties, with more manifesto suggestions and more points of view, to participate in elections, and about choosing a better, more representative MP for your constituency. Lord Owen and the mainstream No2AV campaign both pointed out that it doesn't solve all the problems that constituency FPTP creates at a national level. They won without really doing much more than that (well, making up some nonsense, but the people who believed that rubbish about "person in third wins" or "costs 250 million quid" essentially can't be reasoned with -- either they were voting "No" for other reasons and had no incentive to question it, which is fair enough, or else they'll vote for whoever runs the shinier campaign. Which is lamentable, but gullible people's votes have to count too or else where would it end?).
Even in countries that use PR, so that their parliament is representative of the electorate as a whole, many use closed or partly-closed party lists. This is back to consent, rather than expressing a preference between multiple options. Unlike No2AV, I'm a big believer in the citizen's ability to fill in a simple form[**], but even I'd admit that completely open lists and MTV start to get a bit taxing.
So there's the fundamental problem - why make the effort to choose a better candidate or a better electoral system, when the one you have is good enough to prevent violent revolution? 58% of the electorate, as referendum abstainers, think there's no reason at all, and that's a majority before you even count the "No"s. I'm not sure it can really matter whether the rest of us are rabidly pro-AV, pro-FPTP or pro- some form of PR. The whole debate and both campaigns may well be in minority opinion that political systems matter at all beyond a basic nod towards having some kind of election every now and again. That nod did Hosni Mubarak fine for very nearly 30 years, which is a decent run by any politician's standards. I don't claim that those who take no view on AV vs FPTP would consent to a one-party dictatorial police state, but I can't be sure they wouldn't.
I have a pretty strong hunch that unless held at the same time as a general election, no proposed electoral reform would attract a much better turnout than this one did. Even given that polling said it wasn't close, which tends to depress turnout a bit in any vote, I think that Britain broadly speaking doesn't care how MPs are selected. Or, I suspect, whether they're any good. So if the next lot are awful: that's why.
[*] well, perhaps not as many as possible, since you could accept Condorcet winners whereas the AV proposal here didn't. But I think as many as possible subject to the simplifying principle that everyone gets a single vote (which in AV is transferable from round to round, as in any runoff system) and the person with the most votes at the end wins. Condorcet violates this by considering all of your preferences simultaneously. AV doesn't.
[**] On which subject, is it even faintly consistent to believe firstly that AV is too complicated, and secondly that at least one member of every residence in the country must fill in the census on pain of a 1000 pound fine? I don't really see how it could be. |
|
|
| At least this one isn't lying |
[Apr. 22nd, 2011|06:45 pm]
Steve
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12618624
"I oppose the abolition of slavery for three reasons:
The first is that every parliamentary or congressional democracy in the world has long and hard studied the various manners in which labour is managed.
Spain abolished slavery in 1542, and restored it only 3 years later. One of the others to abolish it is -- of all places -- Haiti. If it were so brilliant, it would be universal[*].
Secondly, it would be beneficial to some people I don't like. Slaves, for starters.
Thirdly, some people support it as a compromise[**] even though what they really want is universal suffrage.
The richest and strongest democracy in the world is the United States, and it uses slavery too.[***]"
[*] "How many No to AV campaigners does it take to change a light bulb?" "CHANGE? If the new light bulb were any better, we'd already have it!"
[**] Absolutely shameful, and never happens under FPTP electoral systems. That's a scientific fact.
[***] Sort of breaks the necessary historical setting of a slavery debate, mind, since at the time of course the richest and strongest democracy was Britain. Or anyway, what passed at the time for democracy, which is kind of the point here too.
Disclaimer, in case t'were needed: FPTP is nothing like slavery. However, the argument "I'm a conservative, the way things are is good enough for me" can apply to literally anything, no matter how awful. There's very little point customizing it to fit a particular issue, or a particular bunch of foreigners for whom you show contempt based on no grounds other than their nationality. |
|
|
| Yes to AV |
[Apr. 18th, 2011|09:26 pm]
Steve
|
At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?
- Yes
- No, babies need cardiac facilities
- No, soldiers need bulletproof vests
Job done. |
|
|
| Statistical discrimination |
[Mar. 7th, 2011|05:07 pm]
Steve
|
Which of the following is OK?
* Because women drivers (as a group, on average) demonstrably have fewer accidents than men, charge women less for car insurance.
* Supposing that people living in Britain but with French nationality could be demonstrated (as a group, on average) to have fewer accidents than those of British nationality, to charge French drivers less for car insurance.
* Same thing, black drivers.
* Same thing, those who live in an area lived in by a lot of black people[*]
* Same thing, those who attend a Christian church service at least 26 times per year. (Of course on the basis of non-discrimination, before allowing this you'd demand that the insurance company also checked the profile for other religions, and perhaps for those who are in some sense convincingly atheist).
* Same thing, those who own a large home[**].
* Supposing that sex is a factor in life expectancy, incorporating it into the life expectancy used when selling an annuity.
* Supposing that women (as a group, on average) could be demonstrated to remain in their first job for fewer years than men, to offer lower initial salaries to female recruits.[***]
It seems to me that insurance is a field which is almost entirely about profiling people according to whatever demographic or other information you can possibly lay your hands on, in order to compute the most accurate possible odds on something bad happening to them. In other words, discrimination.
I'm pretty sure that insurers don't prefer to charge women less because they subscribe to some biological or psychological theory about gender disparities in aggressive or risk-taking behaviour, or because they have some quaint notion that women only have the car one day a week anyway to do the big shop, or because they think women are "better drivers". It's because a statistician with records of every claim ever made against the company, told them that female customers are cheaper to have on the books. [****]
Changing the price of insurance probably won't change what the statistician sees. I suppose it's possible that men have more accidents because they pay more for insurance, that that the disparity will vanish once the prices change. I can't quite see the mechanism by which that would occur.
Employment, on the other hand, is an area where we expect people to make decisions based on relevant factors directly displayed by the individual, not demographic averages. So we don't think much of employers who say things like, "well, women might quit to have kids, and so we don't really want women working here", and instead we wittily riposte, "if you weren't such an ass-hat to women, maybe your female employees wouldn't quit".
Is it definitely clever though to move insurance away from gender discrimination? Or looking at it another way, since insurers already do also take into account a lot of individual factors such as past driving record, is it clever to provide car insurance in a way slightly closer to the NHS model that you pay based on a "fair" contribution, and slightly less based on the statistical risk taken by the insurer, given all information available?
Maybe it is clever, especially when the factor under consideration is one that the individual cannot change. In which case what about annuities? If you have a genetic trait that will most likely kill you by 75, thus making you cheaper to provide an annuity to, should insurers be permitted to offer you a bigger annual payout for the same price, or is that unreasonable discrimination because you *might* live just as long as anyone else? Is a rare genetic trait ethically different from a very common genetic trait (sex)?
On the other hand, maybe it's dumb, and if prices are indeed equalized then insurers will suddenly want female customers more than they want male ones, because they'll be more profitable. But they won't be allowed to charge them less. So if you're a new driver, expect to see a lot of "free" crap coming with your car insurance, that insurers think women will probably want, and that men will pay for in return for the fact that they still cost more to insure. Because a court can't actually stop people crashing into stuff, even in the name of equality. And if you're an experienced driver, maybe expect more punishment for making claims, since insurers are being asked to discriminate more based on individual records and less on demographics.
Also, since I've just claimed that sex is genetic: does this ruling solve or create any problems for transgender drivers (or other insurees), that everyone should know about?
[*] In fact car insurance of course does discriminate by postcode. Postcode correlates somewhat with race, although I doubt that insurers take race directly into account when setting rates.
[**] This does tend to make your insurance cheaper, because typically it means you can park off-road, but is not the specific basis of the discrimination.
[***] A red herring really. Even if employers believe this (and I don't know how many do, just that it's the kind of thing I've heard in the past offered as a possible reason) this single factor on its own is not responsible for the whole mess of the gender pay gap. But let it stand for any hypothetical statistical factor meaning that, all else being equal, female employees do on average benefit your company slightly less than male employees for some reason which cannot be predicted with confidence for particular women and men at time of hiring.
[****] Or perhaps they're more price-discriminating, and all that's really happening is men are just as expensive but more profitable because they'll pay any old ridiculous fee. If the advice came from the marketing department rather than from the actuaries, then perhaps there's a very different argument to have, but I don't think it did. |
|
|
| Another quote off the telly |
[Dec. 10th, 2010|06:02 pm]
Steve
|
"People have come to London today intent on causing violent disorder, not coming to peacefully protest, and that can be proven by the number of people that deviated from the agreed route" - Police Supt Julia Pendry, speaking to the BBC.
I don't doubt there were protesters who went to London yesterday intent on causing violent disorder. Don't mind the police saying that.
But do note that if you try to avoid kettling, by avoiding the agreed route, then the Met Police will consider this *proof* of the intent to cause violent disorder.
Presumably the Met knows that independently of the violent faction, groups of protesters have been avoiding large numbers of police, because they fear being detained for hours in freezing temperatures. Students have said as much to journalists before yesterday. It's possible that she's missed a memo, or intended her words to be taken as an exaggeration for rhetorical purpose, but it seems most likely that Police Supt Julia Pendry of the Met Police either mis-spoke (and should issue a correction), or is a liar.
If we're to take her words at face value, then with multiple people co-operating, presumably the intent to cause violent disorder is a crime of conspiracy. So don't be too surprised if next time, people are arrested (or trampled by horses) simply for deviating from an agreed demonstration route. The Met Police thinks it has proof that such people are violent, although whether the CPS would agree is another matter.
The British police makes much of the fact that it operates by the consent of the populace. You *cannot* police a protest by consent, if you routinely kettle people. All else being equal most protesters don't mind walking an agreed route, but they simply will not walk into a heffalump trap.
Surely there is now a risk of worse violence from protesters trying to figure out how a crowd can *break out* of a kettle, or counter a cavalry charge (if there are any history students present, presumably they're calling for high ground, pointy sticks and longbows). I don't doubt that those people exist too, and that the Met will express similar faked outrage if and when a demo manages either trick. Quite a few people on both sides will get hurt in the process, so I would think that the sensible thing for the police to do is to address the issue of crowd control tactics sooner rather than later. |
|
|
| Lamb to the slaughter. |
[Dec. 10th, 2010|12:02 pm]
Steve
|
Perhaps an unwise effort to derail a conversation about tuition fees:
"You know the scandal in this country, the scandal, is that 40 youngsters, just 40 youngsters on free school meals got into Oxford and Cambridge in the last year. That is outrageous, and not a single black person got into one Oxford College[*] over several years. That's the sort of scandal we ought to be protesting about." -- Norman Lamb, MP, on BBC Question Time, 9th December 2010.
Well, OK Mr Lamb, since you asked, I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a black or asian Lib Dem MEP, MSP, or AM. It has had one MP[**] from an ethnic minority, for one year. Where and on what date will you be welcoming organised protest against this sort of scandal, as opposed to the "breaking promises" sort of scandal?
I think that Oxford and Cambridge should be criticised over accessibility, but they probably shouldn't be criticised in such crude terms of cherry-picked statistics, by a rich white man representing an organisation with even greater accessibility problems of its own.
[*] Merton.
[**] Parmjit Singh Gill, MP for Leicester South, 2004-2005. Not a black person. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
