Announcement

Major changes have been made site wide. If you experience problems, please send tazz. a PM.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

erm, who certifies and approves the qualifications of engineers?
People out in the real world?

https://www.engc.org.uk/

https://www.imeche.org/

So anyway, apparently Truss is doomed, but who in the actual fuck is there to replace her?

https://thedrum-media.imgix.net/thedrum-prod/s3/news/tmp/349138/uk.jpg?w=608&ar=default&fit=crop&crop=faces,edges&auto=format

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-10-04 01:59:14)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

the book was a laughing stock for years.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/R3V9ekLNDU8/maxresdefault.jpg
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+491|2941

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

erm, who certifies and approves the qualifications of engineers?
People out in the real world?
how does someone 'in the real world' validate an electrical engineer? what's the professional body for engineers? who staffs it and runs it?

https://www.engc.org.uk/

https://www.imeche.org/
oh, wow! boards and councils made up of ... qualified engineers and legal experts! colour me stunned! wait until you find out that lawyers administer the exams and marks of one another's work! and in a way that isn't totally scientifically verifiable! and the law is open to humanities-style interpretation! aargghh knowledge based on shifting sand! lawyers approving lawyers based on their own profession's made-up rules about judicial interpretation! it's a circle jerk!

the idea that any academic qualification or reputation that is conferred exclusively within the research community or network of scholars being 'bogus' is pretty funny ... you do realise ... that's how pure maths, physics, biology, chemistry, etc, work, right? nobody in the 'real world' is double-checking and validating the work of particle physicists or experts in quantum gravity, dilbert. it's other people with PhD's and with plum jobs at universities. shock, horror!

this whole 'engineering is the only valid form of knowledge because we make stuff' really should have been put to bed in your first-year of undergraduate. it is just silly. for a grown man to carry around this sort of ignorance is tantamount to a personal tragedy. show me where the ivy tower wallflower touched you.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-04 02:03:20)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX
But out in the real world incompetent engineers usually get found out quickly, if they even qualify in the first place - whereas incompetent humanities nerds get to bring down a nation and still no-one questions their competence or takes a hard look at the institution which qualified them.

How many free passes do parlimentarians give each other?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-10-04 02:14:36)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+491|2941
in the real world incompetent humanities scholars get found out quickly too.

no humanities scholars have formed or are running the government. where is the current fake academic in the truss cabinet? the only person trained with an academic postgraduate research degree is kwasi (cambridge PhD in economics, not a humanities subject and not your infamous effete toff oksferd).

there is no professional body accrediting 'competence' as a politician. what would that look like? technocrats à la enarques in france, i presume? even that is a postgraduate school with its own (supposed) standards and robust examinations, functioning somewhat like a law or business school. there is no equivalent in the UK. there is only the PPE undergraduate degree – a sandwich course of light academic merit and breezy synopsis put together as a fast-track for ambitious politicos. if you want to debate the value of PPE as a course with me, let's go ahead: i've told you umpteen times that no academics take it seriously, either. there aren't 'world experts' in PPE, or 'prestigious' journals of PPE. it's a course designed and put together for a very specific slice of society to skip on through to whitehall and westminster.

i said before that your broadsides are inaccurate and ill-advised. you don't have to state that 'all historians are partaking in a circle-jerk because they don't have an institute of accredited engineers for history' in order to make the point that PPE graduates are often disconnected, westminster-bubble isolates, bought and sold by thinktanks and big money donors. humanities scholars don't think highly of PPE ffs!

once again, a sandwich undergraduate course that picks a chef's selection of no fewer than 3/4 academic disciplines does not produce 'scholars'. you aren't even a 'scholar' in a single subject after getting an undergraduate degree. that's not how it works. why do you have to be reminded of this every fucking week? it is inane. nobody goes out into the world as a recognised and representative 'scholar' of an academic field after reading it for 3 years between the ages of 18–21. you do know what the term undergraduate denotes, right?

How many free passes do parlimentarians give each other?
what does it have to do with humanities scholars, dilbert? or the professional ethics and conduct of academics? how often do bankers or people in finance 'look the other way' and poorly self-regulate? how often do engineers not follow every process to the letter and end up contributing to a grenfell tower and hundreds of people dying? the real world, as i said, is determined a lot by ambition, greed, lust for power -- and money. what the fuck does how humanities degrees are conferred/ratified have to do with this? you mad pillock. do you really think an engineer or scientist elected to government is immune from having their palm greased or of toeing a party line? that godbrain STEM graduates can't possess toxic political ideologies or subscribe to silly libertarian fundamentalist ideas? (cough, look at yourself and your own host of ideological idée fixes). again: marvel movie universe stuff.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-04 02:59:31)

uziq
Member
+491|2941
there are so many ironies to your loose and scattershot thinking. the people who have 'brought down a nation' in this case are a fringe group of neo-thatcherites. thatcher wasn't part of any sort of 'humanities nerds' group. she was a chemistry graduate and a down-to-earth science gal. the chancellor who just tried to instate neo-thatcherism in a mini-budget is an economist, just as beholden to dodgy economics in the vein of hayek as thatcher was in her day.

https://www.popsci.com/uploads/2019/03/18/4A3RSNKJHPUUAQVLCQPZ6BX7LA.jpg?auto=webp

another irony: all this free-market, fundie, hayek society stuff isn't even directly associated with PPE/oxford. hayek, a trained economist, was associated throughout his career with the london school of economics and chicago (the latter being the institution associated most with free-market ideology under the thought of milton friedman). i linked you in a previous post one of the senior thinktank wazzocks and wurmtongues who has the ear of liz truss: an aussie at the IEA/adam smith institute who graduated from the university of melbourne and ... the LSE. there perhaps are culpable institutions still fermenting this trickle-down rubbish, but they aren't only oxford and it's certainly not humanities graduates: it's evidently being promulgated by LSE and cambridge economists.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e934240a62f9c5a8f0ab79b/t/5f53b90f9a612620ecbfe5b4/1636729337110/

yet another irony is that you keep alluding to the fact that only empirical knowledge is valid. this extremely limited definition excludes about half of all human activity and knowledge, let alone 'the real world out there'. politics, like law, is not only about empirical facts and cast-iron, immutable natural laws. if there was a possible 'science' to politics, we would have figured it out a long way ago. these areas of human activity are about interpretation, negotiation, compromise; continual analysis and evaluation. there is no absolute knowledge or totality of facts possible. even if you fed every single piece of relevant data in the world into a giant algorithm, it wouldn't give you perfect politics or perfect justice. that's just not how it works. and your evangelical zeal for empiricism sits uneasily with your hatred of oxford humanities toffs: the entire framework and idea of  empiricism was literally theorised and established at oxford by a philosopher.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDJPkFmVAAEduF_.jpg

lmao!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,279|6205
i wouldnt really call kwasi an 'economist' when his PhD was in economics history... well he did use what he learnt to crash the pound!
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
uziq
Member
+491|2941
he enrolled in the economics department, not the history department. you can do historical research into economics as part of academic history. that's basically what 70% of 'marxian' analysis is: economics and political economy. of course, it's pretty hard to disentangle politics/economics/history in any strict sense and, depending on your specific subject and possible tutor, you can be placed in a number of different departments.

kwasi's PhD group are under the economics department and use plenty of math and quantitative science.
https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research/res … roups/hist

he worked as a financial analyst in the city for years afterwards. PhD'd historians don't typically become financial analysts. not the sort that dilbert likes to caricature with their 'hot air' and 'circle-jerk' lack of verifiable knowledge, anyway.

oh look, right on cue:

Kwasi Kwarteng’s longest public appearance at the Conservative party conference will not be on the main stage, where he spoke for 20 minutes on Monday, but at a fringe event hosted by two thinktanks on Tuesday afternoon.

For an hour, the “person responsible for the UK’s economic future”, as the event bills it, will outline his vision in a conversation with the TaxPayers’ Alliance and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). It will be longer than his 25-minute “mini-budget” speech and his “quarter of an hour – or maybe a bit longer” with party donors after the mini-budget.

Mark Littlewood, the director general of the IEA, will be one of Kwarteng’s interviewers, speaking to the man responsible for implementing “Trussonomics”.

The IEA has faced criticism over a lack of transparency over its donors, and a 2019 Guardian investigation found it had historically issued publications arguing climate change is either not significantly driven by human activity or will be positive.
the IEA again. but the problem is the malign influence exercised on 50-year-old politicians by their undergraduate degrees!



A right-wing think tank has offered to set up meetings between US donors and British ministers, it emerged today. Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) director-general Mark Littlewood was filmed by an undercover reporter making a series of claims about his access, naming ministers including Michael Gove and Liam Fox. He said the think tank had helped two US visitors meet four peers and have lunch with five MPs while they were also speakers at a European Research Group event involving 50 Tory MPs.
great stuff, very happy that these unaccountable, unelected people with fringe libertarian ideas are so close to number 10/11 downing street. let's get angry at professional historians.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-04 04:14:26)

uziq
Member
+491|2941


george monbiot went to oxford. why is he criticising the government and talking so much sense?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX
If he'd managed to get on the gravy train I bet he wouldn't be.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-10-05 01:30:14)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+491|2941
his father's and mother's family are senior in UK politics. try again.

[...] son of Sir Raymond Geoffrey Monbiot, CBE, a businessman who headed the Conservative Party's trade and industry forum [...] his mother, Rosalie – the elder daughter of Conservative MP Roger Gresham Cooke – was a Conservative councillor who led South Oxfordshire District Council for a decade [...] his uncle, Canon Hereward Cooke, was the Liberal Democrat deputy leader of Norwich City Council between 2002 and 2006.
i'm sure he 'missed the gravy train', though.

maybe ... just maybe ... these hayek society nutjobs are a fringe contingent. and maybe they are shaped by life experiences and influences after oxford, too?

liz truss was a radical liberal in her student campaigning days and early career. she is not a lifelong tory. she was a liberal and a republican. clearly her views have shifted over time. so how can it be that she was forever cast by her undergraduate reading? she went to work at Shell after oxford. do you think proximity to your beloved petro industries didn't influence her worldview?

the ERG are made up of people from the lower orders, half of whom are barely literate, and they have undoubtedly had as big a sway on the complexion of the conservative party as the eton–oxford toffs. steve baker, mark francois ... these are your effete humanities toffs dragging the country to the far-right of post-brexit idiocy?



honestly it's like you don't understand people or real life at all. a very curious fellow.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-05 01:48:39)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX
So Monbiot failed in life, sad.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+491|2941
so when people are expensively educated, go to oxford, and end up in politics ... you rant about the 'toff gravy train' who are ruining the country.

when a person from a privileged background goes through the same education and ends up being critical and reflective of the system you constantly rant against, quite eloquently speaking up on issues that are close to you, like the environment and the excesses of the conservatives ... he has 'failed in life'.



aren't you a clever boy! roll over and let mummy rub your belly.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-05 01:50:20)

uziq
Member
+491|2941


lmao sheer insanity. mention of getting the king to remove liz truss. what on earth is going on?! this is meant to be the conference of the party who are in power and with an 'overwhelming mandate'!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX
Yes, whats important is grabbing power.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+491|2941
'grabbing power'? they had a leadership election. in which 60,000-80,000 paid-in members to a large and not particularly prestigious golf club, aka the conservative party, decided who got to inflict insane economic measures on 70,000,000 people. but support has collapsed already for her programme. nobody wants far-right libertarian shock doctrines pumped into downing street by unaccountable loons at the IEA.

if the leader had been chosen by a group of 60,000 people under the title of 'the freemasons', there'd be a riot. but apparently a bunch of semi-retirees in the home counties, anglican bible bashers, and nonce army captains get to decide on the future of the country. that and the big donors and thinktanks, obviously.

but when even bankers in the City and true-blue conservatives are rejecting your 'radical' changes, you know something is up.

how bad do you have to be to earn disapproval from the City when you're in the process of cutting their taxes and unlimiting their bonuses?!?

where's the power grab? all i see is a sclerotic and not-fit-for-purpose party system delivering dud munitions.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar … nson-ever-
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2022-10-05/favourability%202%20Oct%202022%20liz%20worse%20than%20boris-01.png

when you're this unpopular, is it a 'power grab' to remove her? or is it, you know, a democracy attempting to function? i have literally never seen -60pt disapproval ratings for any leader in power.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politic … p-approval

donald trump was more popular in the UK than liz truss is.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-05 04:37:09)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX
No I mean Sunak and Mordaunt are plotting a power grab.

nobody wants far-right libertarian shock doctrines pumped into downing street by unaccountable loons at the IEA.
Well they shouldn't have voted for them then.

but apparently a bunch of semi-retirees in the home counties, anglican bible bashers, and nonce army captains get to decide on the future of the country. that and the big donors and thinktanks, obviously.
Thats how democracy works. Still, might be better than union grifters and the jewish lobby choosing the PM.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+607|3209
"Footage taken by Ukrainian Troops of a Russian BMP driving to a Designated Surrender point."
https://v.redd.it/95jwun09p0s91

Jesus Christ. A whole crew just gave up an APC.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,958|6121|949

I don't put a lot of trust into this kind of combat footage. Too ripe for propaganda.

But cool, I guess?
uziq
Member
+491|2941

SuperJail Warden wrote:

"Footage taken by Ukrainian Troops of a Russian BMP driving to a Designated Surrender point."
https://v.redd.it/95jwun09p0s91

Jesus Christ. A whole crew just gave up an APC.
erm the UA have already got dozens, if not hundreds, of tanks because of crews literally legging it and leaving them behind.

what's an APC in the grand scheme of things?
uziq
Member
+491|2941

Dilbert_X wrote:

No I mean Sunak and Mordaunt are plotting a power grab.

nobody wants far-right libertarian shock doctrines pumped into downing street by unaccountable loons at the IEA.
Well they shouldn't have voted for them then.

but apparently a bunch of semi-retirees in the home counties, anglican bible bashers, and nonce army captains get to decide on the future of the country. that and the big donors and thinktanks, obviously.
Thats how democracy works. Still, might be better than union grifters and the jewish lobby choosing the PM.
they weren't elected based on policy or concrete solutions, though. the leadership contest was essentially a soundbite contest.

and you're still not addressing my point about the central dysfunction in our democratic system right now.

'they' are a small and self-selecting group of paid-up members. a very thin demographic slice of british society.

'they' chose a leader who isn't even palatable or preferred by the parliamentary conservative party - by the rank and file of MPs.

it's perverse that an entire party, and by extension an entire parliament and an entire country, are lumbering along and trying to deal with a toxic ideologue of a leader and her halfwit cabinet, as selected by 60,000 mongs.

Thats how democracy works.
except the labour leadership selection process isn't like the conservatives', at all. it's how the sclerotic tory party works.

and a radical change in programme or manifesto, part-way through a term, should really trigger a general election or at least some wider consultation. the 'overwhelming' mandate delivered to boris, to 'get brexit done' and to 'level up' the country, the north in particular, is not really relevant now we are post-brexit and looking at a radical shift in economic strategy and a new cabinet who haven't even mentioned 'levelling up' once in months.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-06 00:43:14)

uziq
Member
+491|2941
https://news.sky.com/story/cost-of-livi … sf-twitter

The CEO of Shell has called on the government to tax oil and gas companies in order to protect the poorest people in society from soaring energy costs.
this is really where we’re at. lmao. the bankers are sucking their teeth at their tax cuts and the world’s richest corporations are asking to be taxed more.

and yet you’ll still find dilbert saying how windfall taxes or increased corporation taxes are ‘unfair’ and ‘difficult to devise’.

meanwhile:

Millions of households are facing a “stealth” tax raid under Liz Truss’s government despite her promise to support workers through the cost-of-living crisis by lowering their tax bills, Britain’s leading economic thinktank said on Wednesday.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has calculated that for every £1 given to workers by cutting headline tax rates, £2 was being taken away through a freeze on the level at which people begin paying tax on their earnings.

When taken with plans for benefits, the IFS said the poorest in Britain would see their incomes hit hardest over the next three years. While the richest 10% of households will benefit by £2,290 a year on average from cuts to national insurance and income tax, the poorest will benefit by just £13.
being hostage to a zombie ideology that should have died a death in the 1990s is really something. 45 years after thatcher/reagan's sweeping changes, we're still waiting any day now for that sweet trickledown! let's just let the ambitious, genius individuals get on with it! prometheus unbound!

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-06 00:44:01)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

except the labour leadership selection process isn't like the conservatives', at all.
Seems exactly the same TBH, plus they have to be anointed by a union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Labo … _election_(UK)

'they' are a small and self-selecting group of paid-up members. a very thin demographic slice of british society.
Are you talking about Truss or Corbyn?

'they' chose a leader who isn't even palatable or preferred by the parliamentary conservative party - by the rank and file of MPs.
If the leader had been selected by MPs and not the party you'd be ranting about how undemocratic that was.

There seems to be no pleasing you.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2022-10-06 02:05:24)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+491|2941
no i wouldn't be ranting about how undemocratic is it? but thanks for inventing strawmen and falsely attributing views to me based on nothing.

MPs are democratically elected representatives. we delegate the task of running the government to them. it is by definition democratic to let MPs choose the leader, based on the principle that they (at least notionally) represent the interests and views of their constituents. you can write to your MP and engage them in your local town hall or drop-in clinic. the people who voted for truss were wholly unaccountable private citizens, monied and propertied ones at that, not even particularly representative of the demographic that voted Tory in the last election.

i don't think the vital 'red wall' swing voters who delivered johnson his majority were consulted on the choice to choose a libertarian tax-cutting nut who only ever makes reference to the North to talk about how hard her childhood was there in the deprived post-industrial hellscape (oddly under the leadership of her idol, thatcher, but i digress).

we need major electoral reform. 4 leaders in almost as many years, going on 5, and still they've got 2 years left to continue burning the house down. the system is antiquated and badly out of date.

There seems to be no pleasing you.
lmao the fucking irony of this. you who is daily full of piss and vinegar and will argue about anything. i link a video talking sense by an oxford toff turning his privileges to good use and you don't even watch it or acknowledge his points, only call him a 'failure in life'. you're childish, man.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-06 03:09:26)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,790|5595|eXtreme to the maX
Well the MPs narrowed the choice down to two, then let the party decide - isn't that close enough?

I thought the old system was MPs chose the dear leader, but people like you ranted about it being undemocratic so it was changed.

From what I can see the Labour and Tory systems are near identical, no idea what your point is really, and its not as if they're a electing a President, just the PM who doesn't actually wield a whole lot of power - that rests with the cabinet and the parliament.

The CEO of Shell has called on the government to tax oil and gas companies in order to protect the poorest people in society from soaring energy costs.
Still not sure why people can't just buy more efficient kettles.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard