GI Joe never made it to the UK. So unlikely any aged military top brass recognise it.

A bit like Americans naming chocolate bars, after UK names for women’s underwear.

Sounds like the eventual end. Will be learning how to take raw circler optical lenses. As the optical centres do. And build the tools for folks to shape them at home.

Such a project would be a huge advantage to many 3rd world environments. And would likely be about embedding quality glass cutting blades etc into 3d printed frames/mechanisms. Likely from PA. With the ability to embed metal rods and gears where stability, strength is needed.

It’s a guess ut I imagine the issue you have. Is most commercial opticians just see this as less option for them to sell overpriced frames. So agreeing to shape lenes for frames they dont sell. Is just a way to support the end of their profit line.

In the UK, when we started seeing the Chinese companies selling online glasses. We had lots of opticians refusing to give copies of the RX. Or limiting the positioning info they give. As all that part is NHS funded. Laws helped. But without legal force, companies ain’t going to help themselves lose business if it is obvious.

The way, it seems like Both Starmer and Biden are talking,

The current goal seem to be to convince Russia the war is too costly before Trump gets in.

If so. Honestly, I don’t think Moscow is considered untouchable by them any more.

I think they may have decided, allowing a nation to think its capital is safe while it is attacking another nation’s capital. It is just encouragement for that first nation to continue the war.

But like your comment. It’s just an opinion/guess based on the rhetoric I am seeing.

I’ll add if Russia is serious about MAD no longer applying. As they claim with their non nuke attack responding in a nuke response claims.

Then everything I have ever seen about the US and NATO’s attitude. Once MAD is off the table, so is the concept of a world peace. NATO has depended on the no first strike agreement from its birth. Without that, the US is less likely to be rational when it comes to nukes.

The USA is an Allie of Ukraine. And was helping it fund its defence against Russia before their attack.

It’s like your bullshit about the start of the first world war. The UK had a treaty that Germany thought we would ignore. They were warned if they attacked the nation, we would defend them.

That is how international support works. When nations like Russia ignore internarial agreements they make, they threaten the whole world’s peace by making it clear their word is not to be trusted.

The whole fucking idea that Russia can attack its neighbours and the rest of the world must mind its own business is a fucking crap attempt to bully the world. Its no more than an attempt by a bully to gaslight the world and unworthy of consideration.

And before you bring it up. Yes, I know the US can be no better when it comes to being an international bully. Does not give Russia an excuse to ignore its own internatioal treaties and threaten the world.

No Lynx. Aldi rip off, maybe.

Accept, Russia broke international law when it attacked Ukraine. As it broke its own treaties to respect 1996 borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.

So nope. Also, the only reason Ukraine is not a part of NATO. Is that same treaty where they agreed not to join.

So anyway, you try to argue this. If Russia is the first to launch nukes. They started WW3.

fair point

So you’re saying Russia has never struck inside Ukraine. Or somehow The US started the war in Ukraine.

Or is it just a freaking stupid idea that one nation can attack another. And expect them not to retaliate.

Agreed. It was a comparison of risk. Running trains maintained by professionals with these batteries is safer than allowing home repair.

It was not a suggestion that home repair should not happen. Just that the risks need to be understood. And trying to argue against Electric trains when we already have folks repairing their own cars is sorta dumb.

FUD exists. But there is also genuine danger in the batteries if charging protection is removed (or not fitted with homemade or some Chinese scooters etc). Or the batteries get punchered in an accident.

I think you’re severely misrepresenting how much value is in the crown jewels. 6 to 8 billion. Where the UK is current deficit is 120billon a year. And a huge % of the jewel’s value is entirely due to their history. Hence, the fact no one really has a clear idea what they would raise. But as I said, selling them is not going to effect the lives of the UK’s poor in any way that is measurable. A quick search, Our GDP is 2.274 Trillion 6 to 8 billion extra is not even notable.

The people making them were paid.

Were they paid a fair value for their labour? Looking at the exploitation of workers throughout history, probably not.

Yep, fair for the time. Your attitudes about labour rates over the last 800 years (age of the collection oldest) are correct. But there have always been skilled jobs that earned more respect and freedom than most. For most of the time included, jewellery making was more specialised than smith or artist. Both ion demand buy wealthy to the point they would have been the closest to middle class in the 1200 and well and truly a part of the middle class by the 1600s as tradesmen started to become the middle class official.

You also fail to mention that many of these jewels were likely extracted using slave or poverty wage labour.

Here is where I have 0 disagreement. But until we invent reverse time travel (we already have forwarded, but the speed of light likely means going back will never happen) Fixing the arsehole past of the human race is not an option. And do not forget, these attitudes of abuse being acceptable were far from a unique action of the rich or royal.

If instead of building one huge fucking building on one huge estate for one family we spread the land between the people and built multiple homes for multiple people there would be far more money going to the rest of society and many more people’s lives would be improved.

Agreed, and if you manage to discover faster than light travel. Ill look forward to never having lived in that world.

But also remember looking back on people over the past. Who literally had to build in a way that allowed their property to protect against war. Remember, the King/Queen of England did not actually have an army until post revolution. But was required to win the support of lords under his/her reign to keep the kingdom safe.

The simple fact is, trying to judge people of the past on today’s expectations is silly.

The serfs (public) of the time genuinely believed God was responsible for promoting families to kingship. As did the Kings and Queens. All evidence (and gowd there is a lot) indicate the royals of the 1200 to 1700s Genuinely believed in the religiose bullshit the spouted.

(the time most of the happened and is actually documented to some extent. Before gets harder.)

The monarchy are a parasite and you’re an apologist for that. You seem to think you’re using facts and logic to explain their being but there’s glaring holes in your analysis.

Really, no there is not. That is the thibg about facts and history. Trying to apply 2024 emotions and logic to the actions of people of the past has to involve understanding the mindset of those people. Wishing they were different dose not change the facts or the analysis.

Assuming that because I have an interest and understanding of history and the mindset of the people of the time. I somehow agree with them existing now. Is your error, not mine. All I did was point out the actual economic logic of complaining about the crown jewels.

But at the end I will give you a run down of my politics.

We’re poor as a people and a nation because we allow and give excuses for the ultra rich to be rich. There’s always going to be people who value wealth and those who don’t but to allow those who value wealth to hoard so much that we as a society struggle to function is moronic and should be abolished. I’m just an Internet nerd who likes to read, not a politician, so I don’t know where the line should be drawn on personal wealth but allowing a handful of people to have more wealth than huge swathes of society is morally and functionally wrong.

Yep agree. You seem to assume I am right wing because I have a logical understanding of our past economics and the world it was created in. To be clear I consider our past to be horrible. I just do not think blaming the children of the perpetrators is an effective solution. That does not mean I object to the UK becoming a republic.

But I do strongly believe that if the UK was to destroy royal land and palaces. Then our ancestors would not have a past to learn from. It is the documentation and image of that history that raised you to be offended by it. To think you would be the same person you are now if the horrors of the past did not exist. Is naive.

Like it or not. You today have opinions your grand children will be disgusted by. I can’t tell you what they are. But that is the point society evolves. For that to happen your great-grandchildren will need to see evidence of the shit your generation does. And weigh it with the good.

I think the tech will change. Li-ion the runaway effect is built into the chemistry.

Lifepo4 Dose not have this issue. And while it still needs electronics to manage charge and discharge like lion. It is about not damaging the cells. They do not ignite independent of another source like lion. So generally much safer.

For all the recent use of these lithium technologies, they are not actually a new invention. The concepts were invented in the 1800s. We just did not have the tech to make them efficient. It is materials tech over the last 20 years that has really enhanced this. And while we know there are limits to how much we can store. Lifepo4 theoretically can improve a little. Also,

lithium salt tech is well understood theoretically. Those theories mean it is able to be Much more dense (4x lion from what I remember) would not have the runaway effect. We just lack the materials tech to make it efficiently. But are able to make it in a lab.

So there is other options down the line. It’s just that Lab to cost-effective factory manufacture is a big step. Takes people wanting to invest.

This is a miss understanding.

The estate is run by the government. All its profit goes to the government. From that they fund the royal family with (currently 20% but historically less)

So pay no taxes is a huge misunderstanding. It works more like a nationalised company. But is owned by the crown.

History of this is related to Giii fight against US independence. At that time armies etc belonged to the crown. (Still answer to them technically) but no longer funded by them.

Royal families personal property is different. And until 1990s did not pay tax. But the Queen set up a voluntary offer to do so. Rather then force the UK government to become a Republic. Something they did not have the votes or support to do.

As for why the UK put up with it. Long and complicated. But the fact that our last republic was the same people who left the UK to form the US. Having banned Xmas and anything fun due to religiose ideals.

Left a pretty long bad taste in the UK for republics.

While most don’t worry about that. The US lack of health care workers rights etc still leaves folks pretty uncomfortable with a change.

As I said. Most folks sorta liked the Queen. Her working as a nurse during WW2 (before being queen) won her a lot of respect. It has been expected from the 70s that Charles would be the start of a Republic.

just abolish clown laws enabling these parasites not paying taxes.

Grins constitutional monarchy. Honestly, yes, you need to overhaul the system to do that.

This is why the queen volunteered to pay taxes on her income in the 1990s. (As I said they do pay taxes)

Remember, while our current royals are technically powerless. Our parliament is still only using their power. This is the literal meaning of parliament is sovereign.

Think of our Parliament as a regent. Because that is sort of how the power structure works.

This means it’s hard for parliament as is to create laws that affect the king. As such laws would lack constitutional support.

Same with our justice system. Anyone in the UK taken to court. It is technically them vs the king. As such, it is actually impossible for the king to be prosecuted.

Cool, don’t entirely disagree.

But while the death of ER2 means the republican view is definatly on the rise.

There is no indication that it is something the majority of the UK wants.

So childish insults in answer to historical facts and economic data only harms the case. Republicans do no have the might to win this as a war. They did in 1690. And found their own religiose crap lost them support. So Cromwell built our current system.

So if you want to tear that system down. Unlike the puritans of the 1690s. You need to take the population of the nation with you. And convice them your ideas are better.

“lapring these bootlicker talking points?” is just like saying. I have no answers, here is an insult.

Honestly, I am likely a good few decades older than you. And have expected the republican movement to gain ground after ERs death since the late 80s. As she was all that held it together.

I am sort of disappointed at how long it is taking for a viable argument to be formed and pushed to the people.

Your aversion to data seem stupid. How the hell you expect to even have a point if all data is seen as “lapring these bootlicker talking points?” rather then something you need a valid answer to.

Yes, they should pay tax. And do. Although only on their personal income rather than crown estates since the 90s.

Crown estates technically pays 80% tax since 1690s

PS don’t get me wrong. I am in no way opposed to EVs. I just know a fair bit about li batts having had to build my own for my boat.

My comment was a comparison between trained train engineers maintaining batts on a train.

And home mechanics trying to fix cars at home. The risk levels involved. Not the advantages of ice vs ev.

It is just very important for folks to know EV bats and modern lion batts are very different to the tech we know. And need electronic protection to prevent charging fires. But can start runaway reactions when damaged in a crash.

Most fire extinguishing involves starving the fire of oxygen and or fuel.

Given the batteries have both able to self sustain.

Consider instead how you would actually put a fire out. How do you starve it.

Remember top gear. When Hammond crashed the ev supper car. Took 2 days to stop it burning.

If the batts catch most fire brigades clear rather then try to extinguish. They try to remove plastic and rubber that will turn into prisoners fumes rather then extinguish the self supporting fire.

So yeah 100x is a reasonable guess.

try 100 times.

The fires cannot be put out. They burn for days.

Agreed, but the issue is not qty. But the way they burn.

EVs use lithium-ion tech. These batteries haver the ability to self ignite and also self-support. IE, the chemistry of the battery provides fuel and oxygen independent of the environment. Making it pretty close to impossible to smother and put out the fires.

Lifepo4 is safer as it is not self-supporting and can be extinguished like any other fire. This is why modern boats use them. Where fire can be impossible to escape. But it is less compact in the amount of power per weight. So with smaller cars less desirable.

Given how old, the crown jewels are. IE when that Money was spent.

How much difference do you think selling them or even never having purchased them would make.

Selling them. Divided between 66m people. Pennies,

Never having purchased them. Remember money doesn’t disappear. The people making them were paid. Hired others and spread the money through society.

Land purchases are less of an asset to society. But spending on building palaces has always resulted in money going to the rest of society and improving the lives of the rest of the nation. Not somehow removing it from people I’d say the modern royal post George III spending deal. Where all crown land is managed by the government and its income goes towards the general tax fund, In exchange for (currently 20%) being used to maintain palaces and funding crown/royal family events etc.

Is under austerity governments. More harmful, in preventing that income, funding jobs for lower income people.

Corporate trickle-down economics argument to reduce taxation may be utter crap.

But the history of royal spending and more modern (1940s+) government spending def has a trickle down effect ignored by modern capitalism supporting governments.