@hblyle.bsky.social
Author of The Irregular series of historical spy thrillers, Hodder in UK, Mobius in US. 'Wiggins is the Best' Other life as screenplay development exec/screenwriter - looking for/trying to be the UK's answer to William Goldman. (I did say 'trying')
The future of Oxford’s much loved independent cinema, the Ultimate Picture Palace (UPP), is at great risk
Help us persuade landlord @orieloxford.bsky.social to extend our lease so we can stay where we belong.
www.change.org/p/save-the-u...
Can I ask what you're using it for? There are so many dangers with the models I see, the most prevalent of which is it makes the users more stupid than they used to be, because it outsources thinking. Obviously, it helps with certain tasks but I am curious to see how it has improved your work.
Not sure I buy the 'otherwise improving' Badenoch line. Right on the dunderheadedness of her Iran position though.
Jeez, even when the BBC does something good they get bashed. Of course it doesn't 'beggar belief' that it hasn't been digitised. Do you know the size of the BBC archive? You could literally write this story about ANYTHING in the archive and say it's a scandal. (It's not.)
What is wrong with you - they are meant to be 'dull'! More dull fiscal statements please. Anything other than dull is a disaster.
I agree that it's a really good book and a really good read, but I think it only paints a certain strata of London life well. I think when it moves out of that strata (or alludes to wider London life), it gets the city wrong. Read it for the story, not for an accurate picture of London.
I think Trump's complaint helps him on this score a bit. He's got to find that line between 'treaty obligations to an ally, and no more' and 'we not helping at all, this is madness'
Who is it even aimed at, that's what I can't get. I mean, in some sense it might be at their core vote, but I do wonder how many of those really want GB to just bend over to Trump whenever he asks.
Private Eye very good this week on Fleet St hindsight
This was never a scandal that got me particularly worked up. Sure, it was bad that so many of them fiddled their expenses but the amounts were miniscule compared to far bigger scandalous cock-ups and nefarious arrangements. I know I'm in a minority, but this is nothing like e.g. covid procurement
Surely, the reasoning must go, if someone's prepared to hit themselves with a hammer then they probably won't think twice about hitting you. Not a great advert.
By this logic you could throw out almost all sociology, ethnography and, indeed, cultural studies. Obviously, it's a stupid opinion but again, if we're now telling people to 'just say not for me' rather than giving an opinion aren't you, well, putting yourself and your colleagues out of a job?
This was the word that struck me as being AI too, though I have no idea. It's just not a word any person would ever say in real life, and thus it looks weird in an opinion piece.
I keep mine in a cupboard and only bring it out to cook. He's right. A trully great invention
Whatever you possibly think this could be, it’s even better. All in the delivery.
Really good answer from Kompany on Mourinho, Vinicius Jr and all that:
This piece by Roger Mosey just reads like, I don't know, sanity? Suggest news editors and commentators across the board take a look.
Sorry to hear that, and yes, I see in your post you mentioned young women too. I guess I'm more worked up about the men because we all know that if this is their public persona, what goes on privately could be far more dangerous.
See my reply to Stephen as to why this is. And I direct you to Bella Mackie's novel How To Kill Your Family, which in no way acknowledges KHAC ANYWHERE, but which is a direct 'remake' - which is why when they adapted it for TV they ended up having to acknowledge studio canal as the rights holder
In general, the rights holder (Studio Canal in this case) doesn't like calling these films remakes because they get roasted in the press when it's not as good as the original. However, they DO like them being acknoweldged as remakes to the extent they can claim their share of the money.
Not sure this is London only, but either way the thing that really baffles me is - why are men such w**kers? And what can we do about it? I mean, if the cause is high rents, stress, rush hours etc, these things all apply to women - but they're not behaving this way in the street, ever.
This is so true. Railways ruined so many investors (read Victorian/Edwardian literature), and the internet is just as aposite an example. Same re social media. Most bubbles, in fact, come about because there is value there - it's not all South Sea - it just becomes over-valued.
It's hard to know whether or not it would have been even worse. The real problem is the local councils. I hear the GLA is trying to take licensing laws application away from local councils and this would be a game-changer I think. The Mayor is doing what he can (e.g. 24hr tube) but needs more power
The absolute centre is actually some of the worse for this, partly to do with Westminster council. Tooting, Shoreditch, and a few other areas actually have a more lively late night scene. Still not great, but central London is the worst.
This is the Gov looking for your input on the BBC. It takes a while to complete (15/20 mins) but it’s pretty comprehensive and covers most aspects.
Please share. I’m surprised many people haven’t seen it yet.
www.gov.uk/government/c...
The flip side to this is that, as your children are young (like me) you can at least teach them to think properly without AI. By the time they are adults, this will be elite level privilege. And always remember, it's much harder to drown in AI slop if you're not online (live music/theatre/comedy etc
It's a distortion now. I think it was a decent metric when the lottery funding started (olympic success = greater exposure = hopefully great participation in sport generally) and it's easy to judge. But when it becomes the only metric, then the whole point of the funding is lost.
I hear from a friend working in GP practice management that this is a real problem. Complaint letters about treatment written by AI, big waste of time responding. We'll probably get into a state where AI needed to respond to AI complaints.
Oh, I have no evidence of that. It's just it delivered them a raft of negative headlines (old women being hauled up for holding a sign etc) and now a defeat in court. I would be suprised if at least some involved in the decision didn't regret it, even if they still think it was right.
Isn't this good news all around, even for the government? (I mean, I sense they may have regretted the initial decision and now this allows them a way out?)