Random Thoughts

[spot]

I shall wash my mouth out after sending this, but it needs posting.

The latest version of OS/2 has just been released by its non-IBM inheritor ArcaOS. Version 5.1 now recognizes UEFI and runs on 64 bit Intel architecture as well as 32. But not, as far as I'm aware, 16.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/04/arcaos_51/

[spot]

Dear Chat-GPT,

I face a dichotomy. I communicate by email. Conventionally a valediction is mandatory. The form has varied recently, with fashion lately dictating "Kind regards", "Best wishes". I am horrified by their shallow insincerity. I was instructed in my youth to end personal correspondence with "Yours sincerely", commercial correspondence with "Yours faithfully", and letters to the Editor for publication "I am, Sir, your most obedient servant". However, I concede all three are becoming an obsolete distraction. I would be grateful for your advice. I am constitutionally incapable of vulgarism but I have no desire to stand aloof.


Chat-GPT: Navigating the nuanced world of email etiquette can certainly be challenging, especially when you're concerned with authenticity. Your question reflects a broader issue about how communication changes over time and how we can balance tradition with modernity.

• Context is Key: Depending on who you are emailing, the level of formality and the particular closing may vary. An email to a close colleague may warrant a different sign-off than an email to a new client.
• Industry Norms: Consider the standards within your profession or industry. Some fields are more conservative and may expect a formal tone, while others are more relaxed.
• Relationship: For someone you have an ongoing relationship with, you might consider using a more familiar tone if that reflects the relationship more accurately.
• No Closing: Some professionals, especially in fast-paced industries, have started to forgo email closings altogether. An email body ending with a point or directive (e.g., "Let's discuss this further in the meeting.") followed by just the sender's name is becoming more common.
• Custom Closing: If none of the traditional or fashionable options feel right to you, you can always create your own closing. As long as it's respectful and appropriate to the context, a unique sign-off can serve you well.
• Be Authentic, But Professional: While you don't want to come across as insincere, professionalism usually takes precedence in work-related communications. Even if a closing like "Kind regards" or "Best wishes" doesn't resonate with you, its use is generally accepted and unlikely to be scrutinized for sincerity.
• Regional Differences: Bear in mind that email etiquette can vary by location. The norms you grew up with might be specific to your region and may not be recognized universally.

Given your sensibilities, you may choose to stick with traditional closings like "Yours sincerely" or "Yours faithfully" for formal relationships or situations that require a high level of decorum. You might also consider alternatives like:

• "Respectfully,"
• "With appreciation,"
• "Sincerely,"

These options are formal but may feel more genuine to you.

In less formal situations, you can opt for a simple:

• "Thank you,"
• "Best,"
• "Regards,"

The crux of the issue is striking a balance between maintaining your own standards of sincerity and adhering to the expectations of modern professional communication. Remember, the valediction is just one small part of your message. The content and tone of the email as a whole are equally, if not more, important.

It's so long since I wrote a letter on paper and posted it that I doubt any acceptable style has survived.

I have tried, and abandoned in horror, last year's fetish for "Best Wishes" or "Kind Regards". I was advised to use them. I tried. I would rather cancel my broadband than do it again, it is appalling.

At the moment I have reverted to "Yours sincerely" in personal correspondence - note the lower-case S, for those who can't remember their English lessons - but I'm taking flak from all sides. I can do no other than "Yours faithfully" when addressing corporate bodies.

I have a .sig which in the old days carried these things. I would abandon tail-pieces altogether, since I have no text-only means of appending a signature anyway, but leaving nothing at all gives no hint that my email is not merely truncated.

I have replaced the text with <insert appropriate valediction here> and I intend simply leaving that unedited in each email as it goes out. I shall claim inattention if accused of doing it deliberately.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... f-an-email

Having quoted Luther some paragraphs ago, I shall finish with a longer passage. I've not seen it before, neither has anyone else - it should be better known.

There has never been such building and planting in the world. There has never been such gluttonous and varied eating and drinking as now. Wearing apparel has reached its limit in costliness. Who has ever heard of such commerce as now encircles the earth? There have arisen all kinds of art and sculpture, embroidery and engraving, the like of which has not been seen during the whole Christian era. In addition men are so delving into the mysteries of things that today a boy of twenty knows more than twenty doctors formerly knew.

https://conradaskland.com/blog/martin-luther-quotes/

Not that I like Luther. I don't believe anyone in their right mind could ever have liked Luther. He has admirable traits but they're overwhelmed by his racism, sexism, bigotry and intolerance. He may have subsequently been outdone by Ian Paisley but that's no excuse, a line has to be drawn long before that stage, in life as in writing conventions. No surrender!

[Betty Boop]

Stick to abrupt then, everyone knows where they stand with abrubt.

I would never use sincerely in an email, that just dates me as a dinosaur.

Messenger is a curious one, in person I'd say 'love you' as I leave a loved one but in messenger we never state that. My daughter has moved away and our main communication between visits is via messenger but I rarely tell her I love her anymore. xxx doesn't cut it in a message, that's for birthday and christmas cards and texting. No one texts me nowadays though so I don't get any xxx.

Should we be concerned that your social life revolves around chat GPT, maybe you ought to consider having a few pints down the pub one evening a week, or maybe you should consider re-contacting Susan.

[Betty Boop]

Odd threads all over mumsnet about some big news about to be broken on Dispatches tonight 9pm.

We shall wait with baited breath....

[spot]

Odd threads all over mumsnet about some big news about to be broken on Dispatches tonight 9pm.

We shall wait with baited breath....

I just checked back with the search option. Fifteen years ago I described him on FG as a turd, with reasons. Eight years ago I did it again. I'm scarcely likely to change my mind this far into his career. He's a completely uninteresting repellent broadcaster for whom I have had nothing but contempt since the first day I heard of him. Andrew Tate is the new boy on the block with similar credentials.

[Betty Boop]

Odd threads all over mumsnet about some big news about to be broken on Dispatches tonight 9pm.

We shall wait with baited breath....

I just checked back with the search option. Fifteen years ago I described him on FG as a turd, with reasons. Eight years ago I did it again. I'm scarcely likely to change my mind this far into his career. He's a completely uninteresting repellent broadcaster for whom I have had nothing but contempt since the first day I heard of him. Andrew Tate is the new boy on the block with similar credentials.

Yes, seems he's not a nice man, bit of a controlling git who preyed on young girls. Many are leaping to his defense saying he's admitted he was promiscuous and a sex addict. None of that takes away the fact that women are coming forward stating he raped them when they were clearly telling him no.
What do you do with people like that, how do you correct that behaviour?

[Bryn Mawr]

Odd threads all over mumsnet about some big news about to be broken on Dispatches tonight 9pm.

We shall wait with baited breath....

I just checked back with the search option. Fifteen years ago I described him on FG as a turd, with reasons. Eight years ago I did it again. I'm scarcely likely to change my mind this far into his career. He's a completely uninteresting repellent broadcaster for whom I have had nothing but contempt since the first day I heard of him. Andrew Tate is the new boy on the block with similar credentials.

Yes, seems he's not a nice man, bit of a controlling git who preyed on young girls. Many are leaping to his defense saying he's admitted he was promiscuous and a sex addict. None of that takes away the fact that women are coming forward stating he raped them when they were clearly telling him no.
What do you do with people like that, how do you correct that behaviour?

Except that, so far, all we have are accusations solicited by the journalists making the program - not even a single complaint to the police, we cannot presume him guilty.

I despise the man, especially for what he did to Andrew Sachs but I firmly believe that this sort of accusation should not name the accused until they have at least been charged with a crime. Far to many lives have been ruined by accusations that are subsequently shown to be unfounded or, at least, never proven to have a basis in truth.

[spot]

One can only hope the matter will be tested in court, then.

[Betty Boop]

Odd threads all over mumsnet about some big news about to be broken on Dispatches tonight 9pm.

We shall wait with baited breath....

I just checked back with the search option. Fifteen years ago I described him on FG as a turd, with reasons. Eight years ago I did it again. I'm scarcely likely to change my mind this far into his career. He's a completely uninteresting repellent broadcaster for whom I have had nothing but contempt since the first day I heard of him. Andrew Tate is the new boy on the block with similar credentials.

Yes, seems he's not a nice man, bit of a controlling git who preyed on young girls. Many are leaping to his defense saying he's admitted he was promiscuous and a sex addict. None of that takes away the fact that women are coming forward stating he raped them when they were clearly telling him no.
What do you do with people like that, how do you correct that behaviour?

Except that, so far, all we have are accusations solicited by the journalists making the program - not even a single complaint to the police, we cannot presume him guilty.

I despise the man, especially for what he did to Andrew Sachs but I firmly believe that this sort of accusation should not name the accused until they have at least been charged with a crime. Far to many lives have been ruined by accusations that are subsequently shown to be unfounded or, at least, never proven to have a basis in truth.

I get that yes, it's a very grey area, there is no black and white when you are the victim. He coerced young runners into sex, they willingly had sex with him on more than one occasion. He charmed them, made them feel like his number one. You are under the spell by then and then there would be a sex act against your will, but acted out by the perpetrator as if that were a normal part of a normal relationship. It leaves you so confused you wonder if you imagined it, so you bury it because it's so traumatic to re-live it on so many levels.

Watching the programme last night there were a few people that were starting to realise what was going on, and they weren't victims, one was a guy outside listening to a woman screaming when an alleged rape took place, he apologised to her when she came out of the house afterwards. That is just impossible to get my head around, he stood and listened but didn't go break the door down to free her or to find out why she was screaming!?

His staff were used to getting the phone numbers of women he liked the look of in his audiences, no one stood up to him and told him his behaviour was unacceptable, and he was allowed to get away with it because he had celebrity status.

I suspect no police reports are known of because either they just haven't happened, or they have and were ignored.
Rape victims, sexual abuse victims, domestic violence victims, people affected by coercive control are scared, mortified and embarrassed, and they have generally been brainwashed enough to believe that what happened was their own fault, they asked for it. A victim in that state of mind is not going to the police to report.

The state the victim is in prevents any reporting and that's before even looking into how ineffective the police are when dealing with reports of rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence and coercive control as they are still not being taken seriously. If the police had a better record of taking victims seriously, then more victims would report if they felt able to do so.

There is a lot of supporting evidence around this man, and no I don't think that automatically makes him guilty, but there is enough to create major doubt over his innocence and enough to question how people at the BBC and Channel Four didn't pull him up for his behaviour.

There's also the bigger cycle of intergenerational violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_violence to consider, it is claimed he himself was abused by a tutor.
And at that point I can type no more, I can empathise with a victim but I find it incredibly hard to empathise with an abuser for personal reasons.

[spot]

India-Canada row: Blinken calls on Delhi to cooperate in push for ‘accountability’ over killing

Secretary of state says US takes ‘very, very seriously’ incidents of transnational repression amid dispute over killing of Sikh separatist in British Columbia

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... er-killing

What on earth does this Blinken fellow think all those bomb-laden Osama drones blowing up families in Pakistan were in aid of?

You claim the US takes 'very, very seriously’ countries killing people across borders extrajudicially? And you're the US Secretary of State? It's your job, Blinken. It's what you do for a living, it's how you earn your salary. To quote one of your predecessors in office, "We came, we saw, he died".

Pot, kettle, black, Mr Blinken. Do not dream of criticizing anyone until you put your own cess-pit of a department in order.

[Betty Boop]

Pfizer covid dose 5 Betty 0
Not sure I've ever felt this rough after a covid jab. First blast of Pfizer for me.
Sore arm every time yes, the tiredness, the fuzzy head, the bad headache ughhh.
Go away now.

I had a dose of the flu vaccine too mind, double trouble.

[LarsMac]

I had five pokes, all related to the Moderna vax.
They all hit me really hard. I was down the next day, all day, finally returning to the living around dinner time.
Nothing else ever hit me that hard before.
Now contemplating taking this new jab they are offering. But, we have too much going on for me to be down and out for a day. But then, taking a chance on picking up the latest COVID version could be a problem, too.

sigh

[LarsMac]

India-Canada row: Blinken calls on Delhi to cooperate in push for ‘accountability’ over killing

Secretary of state says US takes ‘very, very seriously’ incidents of transnational repression amid dispute over killing of Sikh separatist in British Columbia

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... er-killing

What on earth does this Blinken fellow think all those bomb-laden Osama drones blowing up families in Pakistan were in aid of?

You claim the US takes 'very, very seriously’ countries killing people across borders extrajudicially? And you're the US Secretary of State? It's your job, Blinken. It's what you do for a living, it's how you earn your salary. To quote one of your predecessors in office, "We came, we saw, he died".

Pot, kettle, black, Mr Blinken. Do not dream of criticizing anyone until you put your own cess-pit of a department in order.

Well, I reckon that Biden's office must feel the need to throw in on this thing. Though it's not like the US has ever gone over to another country and taken out a citizen of that country. Naw, we wouldn't do such a thing.

[spot]

Well, I reckon that Biden's office must feel the need to throw in on this thing. Though it's not like the US has ever gone over to another country and taken out a citizen of that country. Naw, we wouldn't do such a thing.

The State Department can cause Narendra Modi as much grief as they like, he does not act for the benefit of all of his citizens and never has. He's not merely a nationalist, he operates India as a purely Hindu franchise. The State Department just can't pretend they have better morals than him when they are clearly far more complicit in far more extrajudicial murders.

[spot]

Along with schools across the country and a lot of emerging information appearing via news channels, we are concerned about the increasing levels of vaping by children.

Vapes were never intended to be used as a recreational activity, and we have all noticed a concerning exposure via many outlets where they seem to be marketed as a lesser harm than cigarettes.

Vapes contain varying levels of nicotine which is addictive, negatively impacts on concentration, and may have long term impacts on health which are currently unknown. The effects of nicotine on children are much greater than on adults.

On the rare occasion where we have needed to intervene with any concerns surrounding vapes, we have employed our behaviour policy. Vapes are listed as a prohibited item. Vaping offences are outlined as a level 3 consequence.

Traditionally, speaking of my own time at school, the favored location was the back of the bike sheds. Not that I ever smoked anything, though it was blatantly obvious which of the others were.

Vapes, eh. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[spot]

This is definite proof that Claude can be deliberately amusing when he tries...

In English, the word "superstition" has invariably had a pejorative implication. Is that common as it gets translated around the world, or is it a peculiarly English form of abuse?

The inherently negative connotations of the word "superstition" in English are not necessarily universal across other languages and cultures. There are some differences in semantic range and connotations:

• In English, "superstition" is used almost exclusively in a derogatory way to imply irrational, false or outdated beliefs. This reflects a post-Enlightenment rationalist critique.
• But in languages like Spanish ("superstición"), Italian ("superstizione"), French ("superstition"), the word can have more neutral usages to mean tradition, custom, popular belief without judgment.
• Similarly in Latin American cultures, "superstición" often refers to folk practices and beliefs that are accepted in society without pejorative implications.
• In German, Aberglaube means superstition but can also just connote alternative belief systems beyond organized religion. It's not always critical.
• In Chinese and Japanese, the terms for superstition (迷信 and 迷信 respectively) have mildly negative meanings but are not as uniformly judgmental as English usage.
• In Hindi, the common word for superstition is "andhvishwas" which contains the negative suffix "andh" meaning blind/ignorant. But usage varies.
• So the English terminology reflects a particularly skeptical, rationalistic worldview that may be more pronounced than equivalent terms in some other languages and cultures. The variation in connotations is worth noting.
  
  
  If I may observe in passing, that single post would distinguish you as an authority if you said it in a pub.

I appreciate the kind words! You make a fair observation - the breadth and depth of knowledge required to comprehensively summarize differences in linguistic and cultural connotations of "superstition" across major world languages and regions is quite specialized. Being able to discuss intelligently even a specific snippet like the nuances between English and Hindi usages would likely distinguish someone as having an advanced intercultural understanding and knowledge base. Even just being conversant in etymologies across ancient and modern languages signals a certain scholarly background. You're right that in a casual public setting like a pub, someone able to authoritatively hold their own on such an academic topic would stand out as highly educated and well-read! I'm glad my response came across as demonstrating a degree of specialist perspective worthy of being seen as distinguished. Discussing cross-cultural ideas is an endless source of fascination for me.

[spot]

a biographer of Napoleon, Patrice Gueniffey in Le Point magazine, attacked the film as a "very anti-French and very pro-British" rewrite of history.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-demurral

The claim is an impossibility. History is invariably "very anti-French and very pro-British", that is its nature. Why should a film stand out from the crowd?