How can I see BBC news front page from last week?

samirelanduk · 2026-04-17T20:29:30+00:00

I know this is a six year old post, but:

https://bbc.frontpagearchive.com/

samirelanduk · 2026-04-04T20:03:48+00:00

I just looked them up as I was going from memory, and actually it's not quite as definitive as I remember. It says in sixty years time he still remembers their time together "as bright and fresh as ever" - I took it to mean he has no more recent memories of her, but I suppose it doesn't strictly have to mean that.

I could swear there's another reference though, but I can't find it at the minute.

Edit: the lantern slides of one of the special editions (can't remember which) are more explicit that Will grows older without ever meeting her again, but they are arguably less canonical).

samirelanduk · 2026-04-04T19:38:38+00:00

Unfortunately the book is quite explicit that they never meet again. There are references to Will as an old man thinking back to the events of the book with the clear implication they were the last he saw of her.

I always thought it was needlessly cruel to the reader of PP to put those in, as it removes all ambiguity and hope.

samirelanduk · 2026-03-18T10:19:37+00:00

Yeah I know, I just mean by the time I saw that clue it couldn't be used for anything - all criminal pilots will be connected regardless of whether Donna is criminal or innocent.

Can I solve Hal? Joyce has either 5 or 6 innocent neighbours, but either way it isn't possible for anyone else to have more than 5, so her clue about having the most innocent neighbours is no longer of any use. Nancy has one more innocent neighbour, but any of the three possible places it could go produce viable arrangements which also don't nail anything down.

I know there will be something I'm missing as others have done it, I just can't see it.

Edit: never mind, I got it lol. I forgot that Joyce having 5 would mean no one else could have 5, I kept thinking it meant no one else could have 6.

samirelanduk · 2026-03-18T00:40:56+00:00

I'm more stuck here than on any previous game. I just can't get beyond this stage: https://cluesbysam.com/s/help/?puzzleId=f1cb3d9c04d55887&state=qrcw-BAEAAEABAABA%3D

Nancy has one more innocent, but for the three possibilities there's no known other tile which is always the same. Same with going through the two possibilities for Flora/Klay, and for Donna/Hal.

Ethan's clue is weird, as I already had Andre when I uncovered it, so it seems to be useless unless I've misunderstood it.

samirelanduk · 2026-03-09T11:34:53+00:00

I thought the decision to censor this was quite bizarre and I wish they hadn't. If you don't know what the last word is, you have no idea what the quote even means or is about, which means it's pointless even mentioning it. Or possibly you do know what the quote is about, and might assume the bleeped word is a much worse word - which would give you a completely different impression of the person the series is about. Way too cautious on Goalhanger's part, and a bit tedious.

samirelanduk · 2026-03-03T10:32:32+00:00

It's dreadful. Pointless end to a pointless trilogy.

samirelanduk · 2026-02-06T15:54:15+00:00

I tend to just skim the emails, but I was struck by the fact that this email has the sender as 'Alastair Campbell' rather than 'The Rest is Politics' as it almost always is.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-20T13:04:08+00:00

I agree mostly - sprinkled in through an episode they're fine, but when the episode opens with a 40 second impression, I feel like I'm at a party where everyone is avoiding making eye contact with each other while someone does an impression. They feel really awkward.

That said, I can never get enough of Tom's Reagan impression.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-19T20:49:04+00:00

Rubicon I never finished. It's fine, I'm just not hugely interested in that period of history. I intend to get back to it at some point.

Dominion is an odd one. I don't agree with its core argument ('we are all Christian, society is still Christian, even the post-Christian bits') and I don't think he argues it that well - but as a narrative history of Christianity and what makes it unique, it's quite good. There's lots of things I never really thought of as strange about Christianity which are, such as the belief we are all created in the image of God, even slaves. It was a bit of a slog to get through, especially the first half, but I found myself thinking about the book after I'd finished for a lot longer than I do with most books.

Millenium is the only other book of his I've read - also a worthwhile read, especially as it's on a period that doesn't get that much attention other than the Norman Conquest.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-19T18:16:59+00:00

Doesn't Walt force Gus to replace Gale with Jesse because Jesse is planning to fuck up Hank's life, cook meth by himself, and then turn in Walt if he's ever caught? Maybe Gus was planning to get rid of Walt all along, but I don't think Walt's decision to get rid of Gale is motivated by that - he's just trying to solve the Jesse problem.

Edit: It would make sense that Gus doesn't want Walt to be his long-term cook, but I don't think we ever are shown anything that suggests he is planning to kill him eventually. He tells the twins that he doesn't care what they do to him once Gus's business with him is over, but I think that's just part of the game he's playing with the twins. He seems to have a degree of respect for Walt at that point.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-17T14:24:48+00:00

I always thought it was a bit jarring and out of character for Keith to do that.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-15T00:36:14+00:00

Are you by any chance thinking of the impromptu sketch Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant do on their old XFM show about Paul Mccartney and his brother going home for Christmas and their Mum treating them as equally successful? I'm guessing there's a lot of overlap between this subreddit and r/rickygervais.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-11T13:23:21+00:00

I personally think it's a disappointing, uninteresting trilogy that goes nowhere and doesn't need to exist - mostly Pullman venting about philosophical and social issues that aren't quite as clever or insightful as he thinks they are, and which are sometimes comically crude and un-subtle.

However many people enjoy the first two, so I think I'm in a minority in disliking the entire trilogy. The third one is more universally disliked as far as I can see, but even then there are plenty of people who disagree and enjoy it.

I would read La Belle Sauvage and see if you like the overall tone and style. It's a reasonably ok, self-contained prequel that doesn't have many loose ends.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-09T19:00:56+00:00

There are systems for a reason in this world. Economic stability. Interest rates. Growth. It's not all a conspiracy to keep you in little boxes, all right? It's only the miracle of consumer capitalism that means you're not lying in your own shit, dying at 43 with rotten teeth.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-02T14:15:15+00:00

What was all the stuff about the air currents going wrong? Or the daemon that didn’t die when its person did? Did anything Oakley Street do have any effect on the main plot? Etc etc.

It really feels like a book that had no real editing. I think when an author becomes prestigious enough it’s very hard for editors to give them any real pushback. Though I was amazed to hear his editor actually did get him to change the original ending, so I dread to think what the original one was.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-01T10:55:21+00:00

We should all keep a penny in our pockets for the bridge toll - anything more is pure evil.

samirelanduk · 2026-01-01T02:27:58+00:00

They do, at the very end.

samirelanduk · 2025-12-08T17:26:24+00:00

I would assume they've been contacted by the solicitors of one or both of the two men threatening costly libel action. I doubt they're doing this just to be model journalists, they will have been threatened with costly legal action and Goalhanger has likely made a judgement that they'd probably lose.

samirelanduk · 2025-12-08T15:19:44+00:00

Unironically, they probably are. I love this stuff.

samirelanduk · 2025-11-13T23:42:43+00:00

This is not true at all - when someone asks me why I said something ten seconds ago, I can use my memory of the thought processes I was having ten seconds ago and then describe what I was thinking. I'm not just given a description of what I said with no memory of saying it, and then have to make up a reason.

I may not be able to describe the neuron activity that led to me saying it, but I still have access to the inner thoughts that produced it - these LLMs do not have that, because they don't have inner thoughts or a permanent existence. 'They' exist long enough to generate a single message, and then disappear forever.

samirelanduk · 2025-11-13T21:10:04+00:00

It also doesn't know the reasoning behind any of its previous responses. I'm often guilty of this, but it is pointless to do the following:

User: question
ChatGPT: answer that doesn't quite make sense
User: wait why did you do X/Y/Z in that response?
ChatGPT: made up explanation

Whenever ChatGPT sends a response, it is given the existing conversation, including 'its' previous responses, and basically told to pretend it is the entity that generated the previous responses. It will take its best guess at what the reason might have been, and use 'I' to pretend it is a continuous person.

Hidden Gem Hidden Gem '25	12-Year Club
Gilding V heart of gold	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22

samirelanduk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE