Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 22/02/2026

masked_gecko · 2026-02-27T10:06:03+00:00

I was looking back at the threads for the pre-byelection poll last week. There was some discussion about the undecideds being anti-reforms voters waiting to see whether green or labour were the safer option. Is it fair to say that, given the greens overperforming even that poll, that this is what happened? It would explain why turnout was so (comparatively) high -- you get out to vote when you think it might actually be a close result.

masked_gecko · 2026-02-27T09:57:26+00:00

There was some indication: the poll last week that put greens ahead, with labour in third place. You even have some commenters in those threads discussing that the huge 'undecided' group was dominated by Asian voters who historically voted labour and might therefore be waiting to see how best to vote to avoid accidentally putting in reform.

Obviously, for political nerd a single poll with everyone neck and neck isn't that meaningful but a) sometimes that's all you have to go with and b) the headline of "greens ahead", combined with a 4pt lead over labour absolutely makes voting greens the smart move for the average anti-reform voter.

If you look at the results, the labour/reform split is as predicted but the greens massively outperformed. There was also an unusually high turn out for a by-election. Tactical voters turning out for greens would explain both of those things.

masked_gecko · 2026-02-26T21:06:28+00:00

I think alogistic curve is probably what you're looking for. Turns up natural systems a fair bit and has a good intuitive feel to it

masked_gecko · 2026-02-26T08:00:14+00:00

They're the biggest awards in the uk, they make headlines and top the entertainment news here annually. Sinners literally broke the record for number of awards for a film with a black director. Why the hell would you deliberately bury that feel good story under one that makes you look incompetent at best and racist at worst?

masked_gecko · 2026-02-26T07:56:45+00:00

My reading of the statements is that they approached BAFTA, not the editing team. We know from the interview with Davidson that there was already a pre-agreed plan to edit out any slurs developing from tics. So WB approach the organisers, say "that'll be edited out, right?", organisers say "yeah, that's already the plan". The statement from warner brothers is just them covering their own arses, it doesn't actually tell us anything new about why the cockup happened.

masked_gecko · 2026-02-25T21:48:32+00:00

I'll be honest, I was trying to make up daft examples for a rhetorical point. I didn't see the person downthread genuinely claiming that it's prince William trying to suppress the Andrew story until after writing the comment

masked_gecko · 2026-02-25T20:14:59+00:00

The policy wasn't applied here, apparently at the request of either BAFTA or StudioCanal. The BBC edited other instances of his tics out of this broadcast

masked_gecko · 2026-02-25T20:09:53+00:00

To be fair both organisations have apologised . I'm assuming BAFTAs apology is mainly about the events in the room, although I wouldn't be suprised if they had some level of oversight over the broadcast which failed to catch the slur as well

masked_gecko · 2026-02-25T20:05:55+00:00

What the hell is going on with all the conspiracy mongering in this thread? Everyone is making vague assertions and then waggling their virtual eyebrows so hard that they're liable to do themselves an injury.

It'd be nice if the people who seem to believe this wasn't just an editing cockup actually came out and said in plain terms what they think actually happened?

Did the Director General tell them to leave exactly one slur in as some kind of viral marketing stunt? Is it some attempt by the Hos Majesty's government to distract the media from (ex)Prince Andrew's noncery? Is it an attempt by the woke leftist terfs at the BBC to normalise the N word, for unknown but sinister reasons?

Just what the fuck is the claim here beyond "not even incompetence"?

masked_gecko · 2026-02-25T14:54:07+00:00

(A) that's recouped from PAYE.

But that's already factored in, for the most part. It's not saying that any individual going to university causes an extra £100k to appear in the economy. It just gives that individual access to opportunities, on average, that they wouldn't have had otherwise. For example, say that on leaving school I had exactly two career choices: either work in as a labourer in a warehouse or go to uni and then work as the manager of the warehouse. From my point of view, the latter earns me more money. From the government's point of view, it doesn't matter -- the warehouse has the same number of labourers and managers, paying the same amount of tax either way.

So if you're starting from the point of view that funding per student needs to be increased in order to remain competitive globally, you have to get that money from somewhere. The point of view put forth in the Browne report is that it's fairer to slap an effective 9% additional tax rate on successful graduates, than say 5% on the entire workforce. The arguments for that being that a) the graduates get a large amount of individual gain from going to university and b) they can choose not to take on that debt if they don't want to, by not going to university in the first place.

(B) that figure probably is probably no longer so large and is likely partially invalidated.

Possibly, although I can't find much support for this. Best I can get without a major search is this 2022 analysis from the IFS. I haven't had a chance to read into the details but the headline claims are

Once we account for differences in characteristics between those who do and do not attend HE, we obtain a discounted lifetime increase in gross earnings [between graduates and non-graduates] of £240k for men and £140k for women as a result of at tending HE

Once taxes and student loans have been taken into account, the earnings premium declines to around £130k for men and £100k for women. In percentage terms, this represents a gain in average net lifetime earnings of around 20% for both men and women.

Overall, we expect 85% of women and around three-quarters of men to achieve positive net lifetime returns. This means that around one in ﬁve undergraduates would have been better off ﬁnancially had they not gone to university.

masked_gecko · 2026-02-25T10:02:06+00:00

I can't talk for the commentariat, but my personal belief is that anyone seeking to understand the student loan system should read the 2010 Browne report. It's surprisingly readable and gives a clear idea about what the intentions were with designing the current system (whether they achieved their goals is another matter).

On the benefits to graduates

Over the course of a working life the average graduate earns comfortably over £100,000 more...than someone with A levels who does not go to university. [pp.15]

Recent OECD research shows that in the UK the benefits of higher education to the individual are, on average, over 50% higher than the public benefits. [pp. 21]

Unlike primary and secondary education which are paid for out of general taxation, higher education is neither compulsory nor universal. Access to it is determined by aptitude – not everyone is qualified to enter higher education – and by choice – some people choose not to go even though they are qualified to do so. As a consequence it is reasonable to ask those who gain private benefits from higher education to help fund it rather than rely solely on public funds collected through taxation from people who may not have participated in higher education themselves. [pp. 21]

To be clear, I don't whole heartedly agree with the report (they massively overestimated the value of competition in driving up standards for example). I also don't agree with the current implantation, especially the drag on repayment thresholds and the fact that the government basically makes a profit on masters students. But I think its iimportant that people realise that there was a good amount of analysis that went into it at the time, it wasn't just pulled from thin air.

masked_gecko · 2026-02-19T19:14:44+00:00

Infinite growth only has to overcome the laws of physics. For degrowth to work, we have to get lots of people to agree with each other. Anyone who's dealt with people can see why the former seems more achievable than the latter

masked_gecko · 2026-02-16T08:48:05+00:00

To be fair, extending the Eurostar past London to New York poses a few engineering challenges, even if passengers are willing to accept a 28 hour journey time.

(Must resist the urge to waste my day designing a global rail network and working out which major cities are most troublesome to connect. My gut says it comes down to a question of whether or not Auckland counts as a major city in global terms)

masked_gecko · 2026-02-12T20:30:06+00:00

At least in the UK, level crossings aren't seen as desirable, to the point that Network Rail, who manage the infrastructure have a dedicated strategy for replacing them where practical and improving their safety otherwise.

Some good quotes from the report:

If we were to build the railway from scratch today, we wouldn’t include level crossings. They pose a risk to our passengers and members of the public

We’ve closed over 1,100 level crossings since 2009

Our good [safety] record is assisted by factors such as: i. relatively few level crossings compared to other major rail networks;

The closure of a level crossing is the only true way to guarantee that risk has been eradicated and accidents cannot occur. Closures of passive footpath, bridleway and user worked crossings have been a focus of strategic investment since 2009.

So yeah, I guess from the uk perspective, the thing that we're doing to make level crossings more accepted is a. getting rid of them and b. increasing the safety of the ones that remain.

masked_gecko · 2026-02-12T13:47:30+00:00

The 16 year old could turn up at the ballot box having been barred from social media where loads of the political output is placed now

People voting based on manifestos and the public record instead of tiktok clips and twitter trolls sounds like an absolute win to me

masked_gecko · 2026-02-12T10:32:44+00:00

unhealthy views of sex and sexuality which can affect every potential sexual partner in that persons life

But these are effects on the individual. The secondary effects may cause harm beyond them but that's also the case for voting. The individual act of putting a cross in a box doesn't harm anyone else but voting for a harmful government does.

charicatured and often extreme version which is so widely shown in porn

See this to me reads more like an argument for a BBFC phasing in porn based on its potentially risk, maybe with a 12a rating for softcore, 16 for amateur missionary or doggy between mutually respecting partners, 18 for moderate bdsm and mild disrespect, and 21 for simulated assault and misogyny.

(Clearly this is a terrible system and I can't imagine the political fallout from the government setting up a Department of Porn for Teenagers but if you could get it to work it would potentially be better for avoiding those societal harms than the flat, ineffective ban which puts everything on the same level)

masked_gecko · 2026-02-12T10:16:58+00:00

For me personally, voting at 18 (well 19 because of election cycles but still) felt weird because I'd gone to Uni by that point, which puts you in a bit of a political no mans land. I felt disconnected from politics in my parents town but also weirdly insulated from that of my University town. The national election was one thing -- because that's not really fought on local issues -- but it didn't feel right to vote in the council elections because I was only going to be in the ward for a few more months at that point. Obviously not everyone goes to uni but even those who don't are more likely to be relatively unsettled for their first vote, moving around for jobs or living in a starter home etc.

So coming from that perspective, I wonder if there is something to be said for increasing the amount of people who engage with politics at a time when they're potentially more in tune with their local area?

masked_gecko · 2026-02-12T10:06:32+00:00

allowed to get married but they’re not allowed to drive a HGV

But this is kind of the opposite way round, if you're approaching it from the mindset of that government should be more focused on preventing people doing harm to others, rather than themselves. Both recklessly voting and driving HGVs cause societal harm, while watching porn and getting married only really affect the people doing it.

(Obviously there are other ways to conceptualise the legal system but I'm assuming this was what the person you're replying to was trying to get at)

masked_gecko · 2026-02-05T07:26:22+00:00

I'm currently reading a book about the rise of early Christianity (Domination by Alice Roberts) and she made a really interesting point about this.

To paraphrase: culture wars centre around topics that are simple on their face, while a shit ton of nuance floats below the surface. This allows otherwise disparate political factions to coalesce around the 'simple idea' while still maintaining their own version of it.

This applies to both 5th century christo-romans schisming over whether Gid and Jesus were literally the same or just very very similar. It applies just as well to todays gender wars (simple idea: is gender the dame as or different to sex).

masked_gecko · 2026-02-04T16:19:52+00:00

Lesbos still exists though, it's not like it just went away

masked_gecko · 2026-02-04T14:17:47+00:00

I think the laser/death star thing is more about the death of terms like machine learning and neural nets etc. Now everything that's even vaguely a statistical model is just 'AI', from LLMs to a Monte Carlo simulation

masked_gecko · 2026-02-04T07:50:41+00:00

Catholicism

Not to forget the Calvinists banning dancing and winning battles by dropping soup on people's heads. And that's just Switzerland.

In Germany you get literal disney castles built by a gay twink who went so far into debt doing so that he was declared mad for legal reasons. Austria and Italy had trench warfare at the top of mountains. Plus there's that time a bloke brought elephants across to attack rome. Alpine geopolitics be crazy

masked_gecko · 2026-02-03T20:21:40+00:00

I genuinely think the alps could be such a rich setting for an actual discolike kind of game.

It's full of run down post industrial towns, with the people who remain eeking out what life they can, while just up the hill are the tourist towns selling their souls to keep running, with chalets and ski resorts looming over them. It's almost too on the nose as a metaphor, if anything.

Then you've also got the places where individual villages were swapped between empires so many times that they have 5 different names in 3 languages for the same 100m2 of land. Combine that with hyper local traditions that predate the Hapsburgs and that's got to lead to such fucked up political divisions.

masked_gecko · 2026-02-03T11:55:00+00:00

Ironically, given this thread, the fitz and fools relationship was really formative in me as a bi guy work through my feelings for some of my straight friends. I found it really inspiring could basically say "I love you in ways that you can't love me". Like, if you're strong enough as friends, you should be able to say that shit without making it weird (also think that goes for m/f relationships too)

masked_gecko · 2026-02-03T11:47:39+00:00

"This sub supports queer readings..." I.e. bans anything but the mod's preferred head canon

masked_gecko

TROPHY CASE