A fun piece I wrote yesterday!

Don't be shy to take on a little two-week side project. These five months will be the most precious three years of your academic journey.

What would Robbins have done if he had rejected the clearance then, if he wasn't allowed to share the outcome of the vetting? Would he say to ministers: I have rejected but can't tell you why? Likewise, presumably the same privacy would preclude sharing a positive outcome to vetting.

Genuinely, do you see nothing to criticise Starmer over here?

I understand that it was the historic approach. But with someone like Mandelson, surely Starmer could see the unique risks in pre-announcing the appointment before clearance was confirmed? Surely the PM would be smart enough to see that risk?

I think the problem is that the PM created an environment where it was impossible for Robbins to do anything different. He could either overrule the PM, put the PM in an invidious position by telling him, or use his prerogative power here. The danger all came PM pre-announcing the appointment.

I did. I don't see how "we were doing what was always done" is relevant here - the Labour party manifesto has the word "Change" on the front page.

Still, if the Labour position is "we will do what was always done" then fair play.

And? Didn't the front page of the Labour manifesto say "Change'?

And?

Of course Robbins approved Mandelson: the PM had already appointed Mandelson, de facto unconditionally.

By announcing the appointment publicly before vetting took place he sent a clear signal to the foreign office to approve Mandelson irrespective of the outcome. He - maybe accidentally - used the office of PM to push through Mandelson. But that he didn't spot he was doing that is a problem in itself.

We just had a kid and it genuinely makes a big difference once per week at the moment to not need to clean the pots and pans.

I'm aware this is a very privileged position.

it's similar to the question I ask about doing DIY / tasks at home: I cost my time at about £50/hour and if it's something I could do, then if I can hire someone for less than that (based on how long it would take me, not them) then I hire them.

For long haul I get to the airport four hours early. For short haul I get there 90 mins early.

For me the key question is "if I had to buy a new ticket would it hurt financially?"

A comprehensive analysis of the $B^0\to K^{*0}μ^+μ^-$ decay An analysis of the $B^{0}\rightarrow K^{*0}(\to K^+ π^-)μ^{+}μ^{-}$ decay is presented using proton-proton collision data collected by the LHCb experiment, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of...

You can read our piece here:
theconversation.com/our-large-ha...

You can also already find our paper on the arxiv here: arxiv.org/abs/2512.18053

There are a bunch of different potential explanations for what we are seeing and describe the data better than the Standard Model. Some invoke new particles, 'leptoquarks', that unite the description of the two different types of matter - quarks and leptons (such as the electron or muon).

The overall deviation from the Standard Model in this measurement alone has now reached the 4 sigma level. That means there's only a 1 in 16000 chance we would have seen this result - or one that is more extreme - if the Standard Model is the correct description of what's going on.

Comparison of different measurements (points) - the points all broadly agree.

In addition, another LHC experiment, CMS, have also measured the decay and find broadly consistent results.

We measured the angles of the particles produced when the B meson decays. The graph here shows a comparison of our measurement (points) to theoretical predictions (boxes), as a function of how much energy the muons in the decay have. The points and boxes do not overlap.

And we do see such a shift - it's an interesting and exciting moment. We've taken a look in various ways and it's hard to explain this shift from larger than expected Standard Model physics.

This means that even if their effects are small, new fundamental particles can provide a noticeable shift in what we see - away from the predictions of the Standard Model.

This is our latest measurement of the decay of one type of particle, a B meson, to four particles - a kaon, a pion, and two muons. This lets us probe how a 'beauty quark' transforms into a 'strange quark'. Our current best theory - the Standard Model - says this decay is very rare.

Our Large Hadron Collider results hint at undiscovered physics The behaviour of sub-atomic particles in the LHC seems to disagree with the Standard Model.

We have an exciting new result from LHCb about to be published in PRL - my colleague Mark Smith and I took a deep look at it in The Conversation. theconversation.com/our-large-ha...

The Pope is WEAK on crime is so gd funny; I am HOWLING

I get so frustrated at all the interviews with Reform on Today and similar about their national UK spending policy going into the election - people may use the election to kick the government (that's fine) but the media should be telling people what they are actually voting over.

bsky.app/profile/maxh...

I also think there's a case that actually understanding things is a wonderful moment of joy - and that can't compare to the equivalent of typing into google.

The strange thing is that we already know this. We have always known this. Every physics textbook ever written comes with exercises at the end of each chapter, and every physics professor who has ever stood in front of a lecture hall has said the same thing: you cannot learn physics by watching someone else do it. You have to pick up the pencil. You have to attempt the problem. You have to get it wrong, sit with the wrongness, and figure out where your reasoning broke. Reading the solution manual and nodding along feels like understanding. It is not understanding. Every student who has tried to coast through a problem set by reading the solutions and then bombed the exam knows this in their bones. We have centuries of accumulated pedagogical wisdom telling us that the attempt, including the failed attempt, is where the learning lives. And yet, somehow, when it comes to Al agents, we've collectively decided that maybe this time it's different. That maybe nodding at Claude's output is a substitute for doing the calculation yourself. It isn't. We knew that before LLMs existed. We seem to have forgotten it the moment they became convenient. Centuries of pedagogy, defeated by a chat window.

As a physics teacher, this is the part of student AI use that worries me. (Not all of us have decided that things are different this time.) 🎢 🍎 Ref: ergosphere.blog/posts/the-ma...

I also assumed this.

I always saw you as the Alec Guinness type...