Cartoon radishes pattern

Yep, my kids' duvet cover from a Scandi brand:

Well this is awful news. So sorry to all those who knew him. What a loss.

France is switching from Microsoft to Linux

"We must become less reliant on American tools and regain control of our digital destiny. We can no longer accept that our data, our infrastructure, our strategic decisions depend on solutions whose rules, pricing, evolution, and risks we do not control."

Indeed, EU law *literally* protected Magyar from prosecution by Orbán, who wanted to prosecute him - but Magyar is an MEP, and the European Parliament refused to waive his immunity balkaninsight.com/2025/10/10/m...

A lot of Orbán's American fans are saying that this election proved he was never an authoritarian in the first place.

This is completely wrong — and, in fact, betrays a complete misunderstanding of both Hungarian politics and modern authoritarianism.

Here's why.

Charity cleared after false claims online over migrant welcome project Watchdog finds allegations against City of Sanctuary UK were misleading after complaint from Tory MP

You'd think politicians perpetrating a misinformation campaign against a charity would have led to some kind of sanction from their party, from society. But no. Our political class continues to cover themselves in excrement and we shrug about what to do.

www.theguardian.com/society/2026...

Novelist Lionel Shriver defends her Ulster Freedom Fighters mug by asserting it forms part of a collection of paramilitary mugs "that is perfectly balanced in terms of sectarian preferences", which would somehow be much better (if true)

Ant Middleton - a Reform supporter + ally of Tommy Robinson who now plans to run as an Independent for London Mayor - says that "rules will be changed once we take control of parliament" to prevent somebody like Shabana Mahmood being a government minister or MP "

A tweet from UK home secretary Shabana Mahmood: "if we retreat to the comfort of fairytale, a nightmare will follow, as those who follow us will have none of our restraint"

This post would make more sense – by which I mean any sense – only if Labour wasn't hurtling towards electoral oblivion. But since it is, it doesn't remotely stand up even under its own 'logic'.

A screenshot of a post on X (formerly Twitter) by Mark Shearman MBE (@AthleticsImages). ​The text of the post reads: "After today's excellent decision by the IOC.,if the Rio 2016 women's 800m. was held today, the 3 medallists in my photo. Wambui, Niyonsaba & Semenya would be barred and the medals would go to Canada's Melissa Bishop, Poland's Joanna Jozwik & GB's Lynsey Sharp @AthleticsWeekly" ​Below the text is a photograph of several female track athletes running a race on a blue track. Prominently featured in the front pack are runners wearing race bibs that say Wambui (wearing a red Kenya uniform), Niyonsaba (wearing a green, white, and red Burundi uniform), and Semenya (wearing a green and yellow South Africa uniform). Several other runners, including one with the name Arzamasova, are visible trailing slightly behind them.

The push for sex verification tests is rooted in racism and they're explicit about it. Not a surprise they want to eliminate the 3 Black women in this photo.

Fine, stick with that take if that makes you feel better. Bye.

No that is entirely not what I saying. But good try. The point that Goodwin was making was that all researchers use AI, my point was that this is a preposterous position.

I don't get this "office based" term you use? It's weird. That people use a multiple of sources is not news. My point is AI is not used.

😂 Nice. This is really embarrassing for you. Yeah, primary sources are written in quill pen 👍. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. And this is the problem with AI it gives ignorant people the arrogance to believe that they know where knowledge is derived from and how much is offline.

You accuse me of being a crack head, I'd like to call my crack dealer as an expert witness to refute this claim.

It shows that my people have experience based on casework, based on academia, based on first hand research with those who experience human rights abuse, based on primary research, based on a massive amount of analysis from primary sources.

Hahaha. Oh really? Yeah, I'm very proud of being knowledge-based, thanks.

Yep, this is why I've got a massive problem with recruitment agencies now. I always did to be fair. But now, these agencies are not experts and can't tell the difference between AI and bullshit by definition.

😂

He tries to use AI to debunk his use of AI! It's like calling your crack dealer as an expert witness to prove you're not a crack head.

...fell IMMEDIATELY when confronted by human experts questioning them. Angry because they took a spot from someone else, but they couldn't get past a wall of knowledge. And that's an important wall to maintain.

Unis do this as standard but it's becoming more and more sophisticated it's hard to spot. I've had the first experience through recruitment of someone using AI to get an interview. The point that they fall down is when being interviewed by actual experts. So yes, got the interview but...

He tries to use AI to debunk his use of AI! It's like calling your crack dealer as an expert witness to prove you're not a crack head.

I lead a team who can hardly use Microsoft. The idea they use AI on the regular is genuinely laughable. Agree some experts in the world do but I try to let them know gently, how much everyone looks down on them for it.

Goodwin doesn't know the authority and misquotes them. Any expert knows this, because we know the authorities. We've based our entire knowledge framework on knowing, critiquing, supporting or demolishing the authorities. But we fucking know what we're talking about.

"Built on the shoulders of giants" is important here. You need to know the rules to break the rules. If you break the rules based on a half-remembered dream, it sounds like shite. If you're quoting from an authority you need to know the authority as well as every other expert.

The reason why we can distinguish between the two is this; something new and challenging is based on the things we already know. It reinterprets what we know and can quote. AI slop is based on a pile of dung we don't recognise, it misinterprets and misquotes things we know in our sleep.

We spot AI because it comes across like Lack of, not Artificial, Intelligence. Intelligence shines. It makes us think, it makes us recalibrate everything we know and causes us to think again. Artificial intelligence smells bad, it makes us think "This reeks, what shit pile is this from?".

... Using AI every day. We hate it. We hate it because it attempts to short circuit what actual research is based on; learning. We know our shit because we've spent YEARS reading this shit and that's where our knowledge comes from. AI replaces knowledge with collated bullshit.