If it's an illness that he doesn't want to talk about, and which is sapping his strength even some considerable time after he has recovered, then it sounds very much like Covid. I can imagine that if he caught it, given his well-publicised lack of vaccination and all the chaos around his deportation from Australia, then he would be extremely reluctant to admit he'd caught it. IIRC he did catch Covid quite early on in the pandemic, but of course there is nothing to stop someone catching it twice, especially with the later variants.

The problems earlier in his career that sapped his energy were dietary, weren't they? I think it was the switch to a highly-restrictive and gluten-free diet that transformed him from being a good player into a world-beating superman. I don't think his current issues could relate to that.

Of course the problem could be simply that after all his time off, he's a bit rusty and not fully match-fit... and just doesn't want to admit it.

But you're assuming that the UBI is set at a level that disincentivises work. The UBI can be set at any level. What if your neighbour who just stays at home all day makes much less than you? That's still possible with a UBI, and I'd argue this is the more likely scenario.




I think it's just a question of degree, and the level at which the UBI is set. Yes, if taken too far it would be a bad idea, but that's true of anything. At the other end of the scale, a very low UBI could simply be viewed as a more efficient and less wasteful implementation of the welfare system, which most people (whether on the left or the right) would probably think is a good idea.

Yes, you're right. I think it was widely expected that Ferrari would be faster here, and I did expect them to extend their advantage from the previous race, and maybe even get a 1-2 here with Max back in 3rd. It's a bit of a surprise, but it does keep things interesting. If it really is the case that the RB and Ferrari are evenly matched, and whoever is fastest will vary from circuit to circuit, then I think we're in for a good season.

I'd argue that if the percentage of people who are capable of critical and independent thought was to increase, then the percentage of people who hold your viewpoint would decrease. Is your position really that the (overwhelmingly) old, white men who control the world are actively plotting their own downfall in order to usher in some sort of trans-gender/gay/black/feminist/whatever-else-you-don't-like dystopia ruled entirely by oppressed minorities?

I think the Red Bull issue is that it's either forced to retire, or it isn't. I don't think there's much question on (or impact on) the raw speed. Maybe they've fixed the issues, maybe not, but it's not the difference between 1st and 2nd, it's the difference between finish (whether 1st or 2nd) and DNF.

Ferrari looked faster last time around. RB looked faster this time around. I'm not sure this says much other than the cars are pretty evenly-matched, and some tracks suit RB more than they suit Ferrari, and vice versa.

... but of course this is all speculation, really it's still too early to answer anything for sure (other than that Mercedes would be better off dropping their car down to Formula 2, where it might be able to compete. Or if they're still struggling there, drop them down again to compete against go-karts).

I find it hard to believe he would actually retire now. The unification fight would definitely mark a fitting end, and he would truly then have achieved everything. I can't see him passing up that chance, especially if it's against Joshua (but also if it's Usyk).

One other thing I do still find hard to believe is that Mike Tyson is not even the most successful heavyweight boxer named Tyson!

UBI is a great idea, but is often misunderstood. It's simply not true that new money has to come from somewhere, or that everyone's taxes will go up. There is no need for new money to fund a UBI, it is self-funding. It can be considered (simplistically) as being similar to a modification of tax bandings.

If you are an average earner, then under UBI you would expect to receive around the same total amount of money each month. You'd get your guaranteed minimum UBI from the state, which of course forms part of your income.

Some sample figures* to illustrate the point:

You earn $3k per month under the current system. You get your first $1k per month tax-free, then pay 20% on the next $1k, then 40% on the next $1k... so you get $3k, and pay (1000*.20 + 1000*.40) = $600 tax, so keep $2400 after tax.

Under UBI, you get a guaranteed UBI of $1k per month. You still earn $3k per month, so you now receive $4k in total before tax. You still get your first $1k tax-free (the UBI), your next $1k is taxed at 40%, your next $1k at 50%, your next $1k at 60%... you pay (1000*0.40 + 1000*0.50 + 1000*0.60) = $1500 tax, so get to keep $4000 - $1500 = $2500 after tax.

Your income has increased slightly, because everyone gets a UBI, so the state no longer has to use your taxes to fund the welfare system.
You will also note that someone on an ultra-low income of $1k per month kept $1k under the current system, but ($2k - $1k*0.40) = $1.6k under the UBI system, and is much better off.

Obviously a bit of a simplification, but that's the basics of how it would work.





* Please don't try to argue that $3k is less/more than average income. I chose this amount simply because it is easier to demonstrate the principle.

I think lying sometimes has always been a part of human nature, for at least as long as we have lived together in groups and possessed sufficient intelligence to misrepresent the world to others.
From an evolutionary perspective though, persistent liars will be selected against, and people with a tendency for habitual deceit will gradually be weeded out of the gene pool... this is because we have memory, and learn to distrust those who always deceive. Reciprocal altruism is a cornerstone of our success as a species, and if you always behave in an untrustworthy way, then you lose its benefits.

I watched most of this match, and was quite surprised at how it played out. The first set, Swiatek was quite dominant on serve, but the second set was very finely-balanced, and the two players looked like equals. Swiatek took 3/4 break points in the match, Raducanu only 1/5... but Raducanu had her chances in that second set, and it could quite easily have gone to three. That's one of the hardest matches Swiatek has had for a while.

Yes, indeed. And as also happens in normal shareholder capitalism. CEOs and directors strip out whatever costs they can get away with, increasing the share price in the short-term, then take a big fat bonus for their "success" and move on to the next company before the shit hits the fan. Rinse* and repeat.

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on stakeholder capitalism, although I suspect as usual we'd be diametrically opposed.







* thoroughly, with a good detergent. Application of a dedicated stain-removal product may also prove beneficial (as would switching off the fan).

Enforced equality of outcome is certainly a terrible idea, as it disincentivises everything. But equality of opportunity is an ideal that we should strive for, and one which unfettered capitalism actively works against. Many people have effectively zero chance of becoming wealthy or even owning their own home, due to the inequalities of opportunity within the system.




I've never met anyone who thinks this way. Does anyone at all really believe that talented, driven, innovative entrepreneurs such as Musk should have the same outcome as someone who never even tries? I think you'd struggle to find a single person who believes that. But we also need to consider your homeless drug addict, why is he homeless? Is his situation entirely his fault? Is he more likely to have been born the son of a billionaire, or the son of someone struggling to survive at the lower end of society? Might this affect the opportunities he has in life?

Democratic capitalism is the best system we have, because it involves greater accountability for the people at the top. Unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism would lead to monopolies and cartels and unbridled exploitation of almost everyone, and be little better than the most autocratic communist regime. Democratic capitalism works better than anything else because the government acts to rein in the wildest excesses of corporations. The biggest issue is that governments nowadays have drifted too far to the right, and are becoming more like enablers of these excesses, and not working for the benefit of the people they represent. Equality of outcome is a bad idea, but also inequality of outcome is only fine up until the point that it impinges on people's equality of opportunity. Many of the ultra-rich realise this, and are actively campaigning to pay more taxes.

The issue with people saying "the rich deserve to be rich", is that really big numbers just don't make sense to the human brain. I'd agree that it's fine for the rich to be rich, but not as rich as they are. For some more context, have a look at this thread, but in particular the link below. It's a visualisation that I've shared many times over the last couple of years. I challenge anyone to scroll all the way through that visual, and then come back here and argue that Musk/Bezos etc really should be as rich as they are.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

He's clearly destined for the very top, and the comparisons with Nadal will no doubt continue for his whole career.
He may be young, but if he's planning on matching Nadal's ludicrous record of 13 French Open wins, then Alcaraz is running out of time already... he needs to win it this year, or he's in trouble!

Seriously though, fantastic player. We've had so many "next big thing" players coming through over the years, but no-one who ever really looked like they could be the next Nadal/Federer/Djokovic... but Alcaraz really does look like the real thing.

I'd agree that it won't stop here. The ATP agreement with Wimbledon is that player entry is based solely on ranking. I would imagine that this is stipulated explicitly in a formal, legal contract. Which would make Wimbledon in violation of contract... so I could certainly see this going to court (bad pun intended). And this is quite apart from the fact that discrimination based on nationality is illegal anyway.

I do think the eventual outcome is Wimbledon backing down and letting them play, whilst achieving their PR aim of doing everything they could to stop Russians playing.

No, I certainly wasn't referring to you, or to anyone else in this thread, merely to the sort of "argument" put forth in that "Black crimes" thread.
And I am also certainly aware that your brain is capable of complex and nuanced thinking. We have had some good discussions in the past (as well as the inevitable disagreements)!
I take your somewhat combative thread title to be more a question of the semantic distinction between "sex" and "gender" than anything else, and wouldn't regard you as someone who is against people feeling a certain way.




Women are discriminated against, sometimes, in certain situations, by certain people. I wasn't aware this was a contentious point; I thought it was an almost universally-accepted truth rather than a "leftist vision" (which implies a minority viewpoint and something theoretical rather than real and empirically verifiable).

I would agree with you that the word gender has been used as a synonym for biological sex, and indeed often is still used that way. In fact I've no doubt used it that way myself. And I would agree that this adds to the confusion. But if we are talking about the distinction between the way someone feels and their biological situation, then this is the distinction between gender and sex.

No, you could not get onto a women-only shortlist for a job by simply declaring that you feel like you are a woman. This is because if you are applying to strangers for a job, they will go by your apparent gender (your sex), because they don't know your intimate thoughts, nor those of everyone else at the company. Similarly with racial equality, you can't get onto an ethnic-minority-only shortlist if you're ethnically white but "feel" black.

Of course, if you are a biological man but believe you are being discriminated against by certain people because you've told them that you identify as female gender, then that's an entirely separate issue (equivalent to applying to people-you-know-and-in-whom-you've-confided for a job).

This is perfectly true, people are people, and there will be idiots in any group of sufficient size. But we need to be aware that the other side of this is true as well, there are people who dislike concepts such as gender fluidity or homosexuality, and will cite individual examples of LGBT people being assholes in an attempt to argue that this non-representative minority is actually the norm, and they are all like that. See also the farcical "Black crimes" P&S thread.

That Burnley win will have teams above them starting to be concerned... even up as far as Villa, who are sinking rapidly and are technically still catchable if Burnley keep gathering points. This is a good time of the season to start winning, plenty of points are still available, and down at the bottom of the table even a couple of wins here and there can make all the difference.

Yes, I will be skipping it. Swiatek is the overwhelming favourite, but I think the betting odds are not overwhelming enough in her favour... it is pretty pointless betting on Swiatek. I do think 6-0 6-0 is a genuine possibility, but whilst it could happen, I agree it's not the most likely result, so won't be betting on it.

Emma Raducanu has won back to back matches for the first time in a while, in her first proper tournament on clay, and has now reached the quarter final stage, where she will play... Swiatek!

I'm English so of course want Raducanu to win, but it seems hugely improbable, this one looks like it could easily end up with Swiatek winning 6-0 6-0.

It's not just adults, children also learn a vast amount from interacting with and observing their peers - other children. This is becoming quite a widely-accepted phenomenon, and indeed is leading to novel educational practices of 'peer learning'.

Whilst parents certainly have a huge influence on their children, not least through genetic inheritance, the influence of their peers is often overlooked.

TBH I'm not a huge fan of the sprints, and with the points being increased this season, it may be little different to just having no sprint and giving the race winner 33 points.

If they want to do something different, they should do it at Monaco, they could just have a series of cycling-style time-trial sessions, maybe some in daytime, some in evening etc, and award points for those and ditch the boring Sunday procession.