iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 10h

Well if the BBC are anything to go by, they'll think think that getting complaints from both sides means they're centred, not that their partisan editorial policy and what aboutism just makes them look biased and pisses everyone off

140

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

Bridget Philipson was on the radio this morning saying that labour stood for all the same values of social justice and protecting the environment with absolutely no push back. She can't be that deluded, so she obviously views voters with contempt.

0151

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Even more confused now. If Palestine is defined in the motion as the wider historic region, then do they include Israelis and Jordanians currently living there in the group they call Palestinians?

000

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

I'd be interested in seeing the full text of the motion if you've seen it. From the extracts I've seen it looks like it talks about destruction of the Israeli state (Restoration of Palestine) which does not immediately strike me as anti genocide either, but those quoting it aren't exactly neutral.

000

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

I believe that the motion was brought forward by members who explicitly wanted to divide the party and turn it into a protest group. IMO those members have no ambition to be party of government or even opposition (or be Green or stand up on social justice for that matter)

180

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

George Monbiot @georgemonbiot.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Let me try this once more. It was a choice. EITHER the Greens adopted a slogan. OR they could have joined the next govt, where they could push for an end to arms sales, sanctions, support for the arrest warrants etc. It was never going to be both. Which one makes a material difference? #GazaGenocide

243965131

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I suspect an organised group came to conference with the aim of pushing through what they know is a decisive policy, that will divide the party and allow them to dominate future direction by making people leave.

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

They may genuinely believe that is the case, but that is the effect it will have, and it is an open goal for those seeking to criticise the party.

100

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

James Murray @james-bg.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

The pitch here seems to be, ‘we’ll build the houses and infrastructure we failed to build during the 14 years we were in government, but we’ll do it in the most damaging and lowest quality way possible’. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

theguardian.com

Tories to pledge to scrap Environment Agency and Natural England

Shadow chancellor will also promise to scrap affordable homes regulations as part of strategy to refocus on growth

771395442

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Bit late to this conversation, but you're 100% right. This doesn't help Palestinians or other groups in any practical way, all it will achieve is to split the party. I suspect that might be the intention more than anything else, and in my case it's worked (just cancelled membership).

151

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Any party member can put forward a motion, so the fact it's on the agenda doesn't mean as much as it does other parties. The fact that it passed is another matter completely. IMO it doesn't help Palestinians, and it's sole aim is to cause controversy and to intentionally divide membership..

120

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Thinking about this a bit more. If nothing else this diminishes our status as a maritime nation. People from these islands have been trading with Europe and Africa for over 2,000 years, many people from those places have come and stayed (some voluntarily, some not).

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

I feel like I've got more in common with my Scottish and Welsh friends than this pillock, so when asked I will usually say British, and then Geordie if pushed. I used to be proud of being English, but having lived in Scotland and Wales the narrow English view of British = English now annoys me.

1100

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

There is, it's called elections and electoral law. Unless you want an even more technocratic state where red tape put in place by one party stops future elected politicians doing what they were elected for (Looking at you OBR)

040

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Basically lots of small vested interests, noone thinking long term or getting expert advice

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

From my background I know they're clueless (or at least being stupid) on little things like climate, energy, defence and security, which doesn't bode well for long term stability and security. Less my area, but foreign policy, industrial strategy, social care, wealth equality, and edu also sm stpd

110

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

Quite right, or more specifically in this case, involving a random element. that was just a throwaway comment that I hadn't spent much time constructing. What I meant was that llm models are primarily based on (very good) pattern recognition, they don't understand the reason for the pattern.

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

That's exactly the point, stochastic = spotting patterns. They are just really good at seeing how those patterns are distributed, they don't reason why the pattern is there.

110

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

If it's not stochastic parroting, then why do the ai companies need ever growing training datasets? If they can actually reason and create, rather than copying , then as they get better, their training needs should decrease.

1225

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

Natacha @natacha.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Burnham has claimed he would stand by the Labour Manifesto. By doing this before the next election he is showing that he is a VERY VERY dishonest individual.

Burnham to pass law scrapping pension triple lock before next election

3256

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

Dimitri Drekonja, MD, MS @dimitridrekonja.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

For non-soccer fans: this scandal is basically a microcosm of what is going on everywhere re: the ultra-wealthy doing whatever they want because they can. Man City cheated like hell. But here is the prime minister implying they’re just too valuable to the UK to hold to account. It sucks

theguardian.com

Andy Burnham admits to ‘concern’ if Manchester City lose their owners after guilty verdicts

The primer minister said: ‘City have been a huge partner in building modern Manchester,’ while the Independent Football Regulator said it is monitoring the case

1231321396

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Same here. What I remember from the 80s is mass unemployment and the decline of British industry. It needed modernisation, that was intentional vandalism. Closing stuff down in a petty revenge act on the unions, and privatisation aimed at enriching the few at the cost of the many

1210

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Maybe the plot is to pretend there was a bomb...

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

True (looks at what I'm wearing, about same age)

011

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

What is it with labour cabinet members wearing black, what are their influences I wonder?

110

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Yes, but the landslide was based on the Tories imploding. Starmer in 2024 got half a million fewer votes than 'the indulgent left' did in 2019.

090

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Not that I loved Caesar less, but I loved f'cking Rome more.

030

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Isn't that what kings and emperors have?

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Or put another way. If after privatisation, the company is not run effectively, and requires public money to keep going, why should the public keep subsiding rather than let it go bankrupt like would happen with any other private company? If you believe in privatisation, this should be acceptable

030

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

.. the water companies have almost no net worth, after years of underinvestment and extracting wealth to pay dividends to investors. They themselves keep saying they're not financially viable without more money. They accepted the risk when they invested, if they can't run company effectively 👋

050

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

How can we afford not to? They've already demonstrated they're not fit to deliver the service they committed to. Besides A) the UK government is a currency issuer, the real limiting factor on government spending is managing inflation. B) if you take into account their liabilities...

140

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

รℓσαɳε ℓყรɓεƭɦ @sloanelysbeth.northsky.social · 13/09/2026

there are no men competing in women’s sports. transgender women are a separate and distinct physiological category and your refusal to acknowledge that is science denialism. i will not humour science denial — there you go. that’s the correct answer politicians should be giving. not so hard, right?

18827

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

So increased house prices and setting us up for another credit crunch. Great.

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

It's so obvious now that "tough choices" really means, I'm going to feel a bit guilty about this cos i know it's wrong, but I'm not brave enough to do what I know is right and stand up to vested interests. You'd think they'd realise we know this by now and stop saying it

1164

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

Was looking for some actual data on this, Heathrows own website claims "32% of the UK population are within a 3 hour travel". 3 hours is a lot! What I really want to know is % where Heathrow is closest international airport. I don't want to travel into London when Birmingham right next door.

130

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Maybe do something about the none-state actors that platform all the misinformation first!

011

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

Add in a a small number of billionaires who scapegoat migrants and the vulnerable to draw attention away from the fact that they're hoarding all the wealth, and three generations of politicians who are happy to suck up to them at our expense because they think this is normal or good.

1100

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

Where do you start... Yes, we did have the internet in the 90s, yes, there was a large Chinese population... We also had these things called libraries, where if you weren't a lazy arsed writer and you cared about what you wrote you could actually go and look stuff up...

020

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

Someone doesn't know their right-wing movement from their righting moment

1410

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

Dreadnought Holiday @dreadships.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

You can see from the photo that boat's tipped too far right

702221337

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 19/09/2026

No one said it was consequence free. Creating new money and spending it on scarce resources has an inflationary effect. That is the real limitation on government spending. How else do you explain how historic events like pre war Germany, post war Europe and COVID era America, 2008 UK ?

002

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 19/09/2026

Wow, he's observant, it's over a hundred years since the peak of the British empire. His knowledge of climate science is only surpassed by his knowledge of history.

010

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

Julia Serano @juliaserano.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

...Assumption #4 has been driving me batshit, yet no one seems to realize it: if you're worried trans ppl might potentially harm your Dem candidate's chances, then YOUR CANDIDATE MADE A BAD DECISION! so why not join us in trying to get them to reverse position? juliaserano.medium.com/on-democrats...

screenshot from linked-to essay that reads:
Assumption #4: The elephant in the room that no one is talking about
There is a striking disconnect between Talarico, Turek, et al. — who have clearly made a political calculation that abandoning trans rights will help them more than it will hurt them in this election — and the many cisgender liberals I’ve encountered online who are absolutely freaking out over the possibility that trans people’s critiques and protests will ultimately tank said candidates.
Both of these things cannot simultaneously be true!
If you think your favorite candidate enacted the correct political strategy, then there is no reason to berate trans people for protesting it, as those protests should already be baked into your candidate’s calculations. So why are you berating trans people then? (Unless, of course, you enjoy berating trans people just for the sake of it.)
Alternatively, if you think trans people *are* capable of tanking your favorite candidate via our criticisms and protests, doesn’t that imply that your candidate (and their consultants and strategists) totally fucked up in their political calculations here? And if they did fuck up, shouldn’t you be reaching out and complaining to *them* (rather than berating trans people), in the hope that they might reverse their bad decision?

8879292

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

Elly "Enormity" Bangs @ellybangs.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

PIPE THIS INTO A MEGAPHONE

04514

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Between COVID and 2008 the government found over £900billion to support businesses, but somehow £10s billion to support social welfare, national infrastructure and defence is beyond us.

010

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Or you're only allowed to support cutting spend on welfare if you also opposed past measures such as banking bailout in 2008 and the furlough and business loan schemes under COVID. There is a magic money tree. Quantitative easing and we've used it before...

110

kestrus.bsky.social @kestrus.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Somehow nationalisation of banking risks is more important than roofs and drinking water. It's bizarre in this country that we privatise profit, but keep risk nationalised. Worst of both worlds for everyone except the elite.

010

Reposted by kestrus.bsky.social

The Original Cry-Wanker™ @andyking.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Now imagine if our Gov decided to create £895 billion today and embarked on a massive house building scheme. Bought up power companies & nationalised them. Introduced UBI. Controlled food prices and gave everyone & allotment & trained people to grow veg. Rounded up a few billionaires & executed them

193