rhys

I used it for a while. The flipped mode of thinking with it was weird at first but I liked it once I got used to it.

I don't remember the specifics, but I vaguely recall encountering an issue with its LSP implementation that drove me toward thinking the whole LSP approach is insane and I went back to neovim.

Uh, just trying non-modal vim for the first time and... how do I quit it? I can't :q.

Zsh is a shell like bash that supports shell scripting like bash (though with some syntactical differences). It's a bit more like ksh than bash, but anyone familiar with bash will have no problems with zsh.

You can check out oh-my-zsh for an accessible preconfigured version of it (though I'd suggest installing via your package manager rather than the script on their website). I like the jreese theme.

Ehh, I've had a good life.

I have no doubt large parts of their nuclear arsenal have been stripped to fund their maintainers' Krokodil habits but it only takes one to start a nuclear war, and a smaller and simpler tactical warhead on a Khinzal or Kh-15 of the sort we'd likely see used against Ukraine is less likely to have been scavenged.

I think a case could have been made for it. Borrowing to invest is allowed by the fiscal rules, and it would've been popular with a large set of the electorate. Weighing it against the electoral impact to the presentation of the party as being fiscally responsible would've been a tough needle to thread though. Many folks point to Corbyn's WASPI payout policy and nationalisation of BT as being among the key things that killed his campaign back in the day for much the same reason.

The way the lady in the article speaks though, it sounds like there is maybe a case for pursuing private funding as a better option. I've read elsewhere that even a modest public investment over the long term can encourage tons of private investment due to the certainty it provides. If the planned ~£15bn public investment ends up attracting enough private money to get up to a similar amount to £28bn and comes with tons of consequent economic activity around the edges then this may end up having been the better approach.

On the other hand, if it attracts hardly any — perhaps due to the Tories pledging to scrap GB Energy and the NWF, thereby removing the long-term certainty around the whole thing — then it may turn out to be a massively consequential and disastrous route to have taken. I think we'll have an inkling long before 2029 if that's likely to be the case.

Saving this one for posterity.

The decision to cut the £28bn pledge was very unpopular among members, though seemingly immediately forgiven by an electorate that understood it was too costly given our financial situation.

In 2029 though I wonder how we'll look back at the decision. The National Wealth Fund certainly holds a lot of promise, but will it have had enough of an impact to alleviate the disappointment of those who'd have preferred much larger direct public funding instead?

It seems Rhian-Mari Thomas may be a name worth remembering whatever the outcome.

Nope, MPs vote down to the final two then it goes to the membership — hence Liz Truss. This didn't happen with Sunak's ascension because he faced no opposition.

As Tim Montgomerie often says, as rabidly right wing as some of the '22 is, the membership put them to shame. Leaves them in a really awkward position right now with the soul of their party being fought over, with most sane MPs backing more moderate candidates despite knowing the membership will favour the most rampantly right wing.

I expect Powell to just ignore this, but man it's going to be a political bloodbath this winter.

I think means testing the payment is sound in principle, but the bar to be eligible for it per that of Pension Credit seems way too high. The news stories and vox pops when the cold starts to bite are going to be devastating — to say nothing of PMQs where I imagine we'll have months of this in prominence.

Hmmm. I'm broadly supportive of reducing the influence of the membership vote as I think it's had a disastrous effect on both major parties, but I might need some convincing about removing it entirely.

The leader must be able to effectively lead their Parliamentary party. Thresholds for MP support is one effective gateway toward ensuring they do and it'll certainly work after such a massive landslide as in June, but longer term it may not be enough given the number of persistent rebels in the Parliamentary party. Perhaps something approaching a veto or easier ousting from the PLP (like the 1922 Committee's confidence system, perhaps) would do the trick?

Regardless, conference is going to be very fun this year.

First as tragedy, then as farce.

I like the human-centred language, strange as it feels on the tongue. I wonder if it might help frame development a bit better in place of 'user' or 'customer' — aside from the more real distinction between humans and AI we're all going to have to get used to in design.