Tom Adams
@tomadam.bsky.social
This bathroom is sponsored by Nike.
Just poo it.
Just poo it.
February 15, 2026 at 2:41 AM
This bathroom is sponsored by Nike.
Just poo it.
Just poo it.
Okay, I'll bite.
I appreciate the technicality (hated of anti-migrants is pro-migrant).
But if you showed this, in context, to 1000 people, how many do you think would read "anti-migrant hate" as "hated of anti-migrants" vs its intended meaning of "hated with anti-migrant characteristics"?
I appreciate the technicality (hated of anti-migrants is pro-migrant).
But if you showed this, in context, to 1000 people, how many do you think would read "anti-migrant hate" as "hated of anti-migrants" vs its intended meaning of "hated with anti-migrant characteristics"?
February 14, 2026 at 10:36 PM
Okay, I'll bite.
I appreciate the technicality (hated of anti-migrants is pro-migrant).
But if you showed this, in context, to 1000 people, how many do you think would read "anti-migrant hate" as "hated of anti-migrants" vs its intended meaning of "hated with anti-migrant characteristics"?
I appreciate the technicality (hated of anti-migrants is pro-migrant).
But if you showed this, in context, to 1000 people, how many do you think would read "anti-migrant hate" as "hated of anti-migrants" vs its intended meaning of "hated with anti-migrant characteristics"?
It's just because it's next to Birmingham airport.
Obviously this makes no sense: being next to an airport doesn't make it an international station any more then bring next to an IKEA would make it a homewear retailer.
And poor tourists trying to find Birmingham Airport station on the machine.
Obviously this makes no sense: being next to an airport doesn't make it an international station any more then bring next to an IKEA would make it a homewear retailer.
And poor tourists trying to find Birmingham Airport station on the machine.
February 14, 2026 at 2:57 PM
It's just because it's next to Birmingham airport.
Obviously this makes no sense: being next to an airport doesn't make it an international station any more then bring next to an IKEA would make it a homewear retailer.
And poor tourists trying to find Birmingham Airport station on the machine.
Obviously this makes no sense: being next to an airport doesn't make it an international station any more then bring next to an IKEA would make it a homewear retailer.
And poor tourists trying to find Birmingham Airport station on the machine.
I tried this in the supermarket car park when someone dropped their cigarette like 10m from the bin.
"But if I do it, I'll be taking a job away from someone who works here - is that what you want?"
At least there's a logic of some sort.
"But if I do it, I'll be taking a job away from someone who works here - is that what you want?"
At least there's a logic of some sort.
February 13, 2026 at 7:44 PM
I tried this in the supermarket car park when someone dropped their cigarette like 10m from the bin.
"But if I do it, I'll be taking a job away from someone who works here - is that what you want?"
At least there's a logic of some sort.
"But if I do it, I'll be taking a job away from someone who works here - is that what you want?"
At least there's a logic of some sort.
Why would she present her British passport at a Spanish airport?
We always travel with both, and present the UK one here and the EU one there.
We always travel with both, and present the UK one here and the EU one there.
February 13, 2026 at 3:00 PM
Why would she present her British passport at a Spanish airport?
We always travel with both, and present the UK one here and the EU one there.
We always travel with both, and present the UK one here and the EU one there.
Whereas Richard Tice, of course, speaks fluent Arabic.
February 12, 2026 at 5:36 PM
Whereas Richard Tice, of course, speaks fluent Arabic.
I would love to know why that £2000 threshold is in there?
Why not just "no gifts or hospitality from foreign (or any!) companies"?
These are the ethical standards we hold (eg) auditors to in relation to the companies they audit so why not MPs?
Self interest threat doesn't disappear at < £2,000!
Why not just "no gifts or hospitality from foreign (or any!) companies"?
These are the ethical standards we hold (eg) auditors to in relation to the companies they audit so why not MPs?
Self interest threat doesn't disappear at < £2,000!
February 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM
I would love to know why that £2000 threshold is in there?
Why not just "no gifts or hospitality from foreign (or any!) companies"?
These are the ethical standards we hold (eg) auditors to in relation to the companies they audit so why not MPs?
Self interest threat doesn't disappear at < £2,000!
Why not just "no gifts or hospitality from foreign (or any!) companies"?
These are the ethical standards we hold (eg) auditors to in relation to the companies they audit so why not MPs?
Self interest threat doesn't disappear at < £2,000!
I desperately want some brave producer to organise this, but in reverse with repeated cuts to Vance.
They cheered every time this young fan was on screen and booed every opposing fan 🤣
YouTube video by Bleacher Report
youtube.com
February 6, 2026 at 10:57 PM
I desperately want some brave producer to organise this, but in reverse with repeated cuts to Vance.
I desperately want some brave producer to organise this, but in reverse with repeated cuts to Vance.
They cheered every time this young fan was on screen and booed every opposing fan 🤣
YouTube video by Bleacher Report
youtube.com
February 6, 2026 at 10:22 PM
I desperately want some brave producer to organise this, but in reverse with repeated cuts to Vance.
They absolutely did consider those features. Unfortunately they considered them a positive feature rather than a problem.
But still, good work - more please.
But still, good work - more please.
February 6, 2026 at 2:43 PM
They absolutely did consider those features. Unfortunately they considered them a positive feature rather than a problem.
But still, good work - more please.
But still, good work - more please.
Would have been a couple of years ago when he was surgically taking apart big egos as the chair of the B&T select committee.
But I feel the shine has come off him a bit recently (since the pre-election period) - he's been forced to defend a painful government line a few too many times by now.
But I feel the shine has come off him a bit recently (since the pre-election period) - he's been forced to defend a painful government line a few too many times by now.
February 6, 2026 at 11:43 AM
Would have been a couple of years ago when he was surgically taking apart big egos as the chair of the B&T select committee.
But I feel the shine has come off him a bit recently (since the pre-election period) - he's been forced to defend a painful government line a few too many times by now.
But I feel the shine has come off him a bit recently (since the pre-election period) - he's been forced to defend a painful government line a few too many times by now.
This kind of thing makes me realise I'm very bad at graphs.
Doesn't the 24% "stay on as PM" likely overlap with the 18% "favourable view"? Leaving just 6% as "unfavourable but stay on".
I can't see where your c25%"unfavorable but stay on" is coming from. What am I missing?
Doesn't the 24% "stay on as PM" likely overlap with the 18% "favourable view"? Leaving just 6% as "unfavourable but stay on".
I can't see where your c25%"unfavorable but stay on" is coming from. What am I missing?
February 5, 2026 at 10:04 PM
This kind of thing makes me realise I'm very bad at graphs.
Doesn't the 24% "stay on as PM" likely overlap with the 18% "favourable view"? Leaving just 6% as "unfavourable but stay on".
I can't see where your c25%"unfavorable but stay on" is coming from. What am I missing?
Doesn't the 24% "stay on as PM" likely overlap with the 18% "favourable view"? Leaving just 6% as "unfavourable but stay on".
I can't see where your c25%"unfavorable but stay on" is coming from. What am I missing?
Where did you get the figures from for this? I'd be interested to see what I could do about visualising this - although I can imagine the sheer number of UC variables makes it challenging.
February 3, 2026 at 10:10 PM
Where did you get the figures from for this? I'd be interested to see what I could do about visualising this - although I can imagine the sheer number of UC variables makes it challenging.
I am being obtuse - that's a great point.
There's a nice set of graphs to be drawn here showing the notional increase in payments on 2CL abolition, and the actual increase once the cap is applied.
The way this has been portrayed as a victory against child poverty looks disingenuous in this light.
There's a nice set of graphs to be drawn here showing the notional increase in payments on 2CL abolition, and the actual increase once the cap is applied.
The way this has been portrayed as a victory against child poverty looks disingenuous in this light.
February 3, 2026 at 10:08 PM
I am being obtuse - that's a great point.
There's a nice set of graphs to be drawn here showing the notional increase in payments on 2CL abolition, and the actual increase once the cap is applied.
The way this has been portrayed as a victory against child poverty looks disingenuous in this light.
There's a nice set of graphs to be drawn here showing the notional increase in payments on 2CL abolition, and the actual increase once the cap is applied.
The way this has been portrayed as a victory against child poverty looks disingenuous in this light.
I'm probably being obtuse - but I'd be grateful for the explanation as this sounds interesting.
February 3, 2026 at 9:50 PM
I'm probably being obtuse - but I'd be grateful for the explanation as this sounds interesting.
Can you just explain that - currently they pay top ups to anyone with more than two children in NI who would have received the UC but who is capped.
When the cap is removed, why will the top ups increase? Why do they not fall to zero (as those previously receiving top up now get full UC)?
When the cap is removed, why will the top ups increase? Why do they not fall to zero (as those previously receiving top up now get full UC)?
February 3, 2026 at 9:49 PM
Can you just explain that - currently they pay top ups to anyone with more than two children in NI who would have received the UC but who is capped.
When the cap is removed, why will the top ups increase? Why do they not fall to zero (as those previously receiving top up now get full UC)?
When the cap is removed, why will the top ups increase? Why do they not fall to zero (as those previously receiving top up now get full UC)?
I got as close as I ever will to UBI this year by taking a year off thanks to a very generous paternity leave policy.
No work for 12 months, and I've never been happier.
You could argue that dealing with a baby + 3 year old was my work equivalent?
But what a great year of travel, food, and fun
No work for 12 months, and I've never been happier.
You could argue that dealing with a baby + 3 year old was my work equivalent?
But what a great year of travel, food, and fun
February 3, 2026 at 2:19 PM
I got as close as I ever will to UBI this year by taking a year off thanks to a very generous paternity leave policy.
No work for 12 months, and I've never been happier.
You could argue that dealing with a baby + 3 year old was my work equivalent?
But what a great year of travel, food, and fun
No work for 12 months, and I've never been happier.
You could argue that dealing with a baby + 3 year old was my work equivalent?
But what a great year of travel, food, and fun
This becomes more of a human nature question.
Being "minor Saudi royal" rich is good because it allows you to do things that other people can't - it gives you exclusivity and prestige (and hence a feeling of satisfaction, in theory).
If everyone is equally rich as you, does that dynamic hold?
Being "minor Saudi royal" rich is good because it allows you to do things that other people can't - it gives you exclusivity and prestige (and hence a feeling of satisfaction, in theory).
If everyone is equally rich as you, does that dynamic hold?
February 3, 2026 at 2:17 PM
This becomes more of a human nature question.
Being "minor Saudi royal" rich is good because it allows you to do things that other people can't - it gives you exclusivity and prestige (and hence a feeling of satisfaction, in theory).
If everyone is equally rich as you, does that dynamic hold?
Being "minor Saudi royal" rich is good because it allows you to do things that other people can't - it gives you exclusivity and prestige (and hence a feeling of satisfaction, in theory).
If everyone is equally rich as you, does that dynamic hold?
Thanks for this. If I think about it, I know all this (although I'm no expert), but I still got uneasy seeing the reporting.
Any chance you can do deeper into what mechanisms actually are at play (assuming 'the apocalypse' isn't it). Is it just code Vs code, or is it human Vs human by proxy?
Any chance you can do deeper into what mechanisms actually are at play (assuming 'the apocalypse' isn't it). Is it just code Vs code, or is it human Vs human by proxy?
February 2, 2026 at 8:56 PM
Thanks for this. If I think about it, I know all this (although I'm no expert), but I still got uneasy seeing the reporting.
Any chance you can do deeper into what mechanisms actually are at play (assuming 'the apocalypse' isn't it). Is it just code Vs code, or is it human Vs human by proxy?
Any chance you can do deeper into what mechanisms actually are at play (assuming 'the apocalypse' isn't it). Is it just code Vs code, or is it human Vs human by proxy?
So long as you don't mind if it's efficient, and just have "does it work?" as an objective, then AI has it's place in coding.
I use it for language learning all the time - it's currently keeping me sane faced with Dutch pronominal adverbs.
"AI is terrible at everything" is a silly opinion.
I use it for language learning all the time - it's currently keeping me sane faced with Dutch pronominal adverbs.
"AI is terrible at everything" is a silly opinion.
February 2, 2026 at 7:38 PM
So long as you don't mind if it's efficient, and just have "does it work?" as an objective, then AI has it's place in coding.
I use it for language learning all the time - it's currently keeping me sane faced with Dutch pronominal adverbs.
"AI is terrible at everything" is a silly opinion.
I use it for language learning all the time - it's currently keeping me sane faced with Dutch pronominal adverbs.
"AI is terrible at everything" is a silly opinion.
It is incomprehensible to me how people who have done such (to me) morally unacceptable things as accept funding from a convicted paedophile can bear to place themselves in the public eye and suggest that they are best placed to represent us as, say, ambassador to the US.
Utterly shameless.
Utterly shameless.
February 1, 2026 at 10:41 PM
It is incomprehensible to me how people who have done such (to me) morally unacceptable things as accept funding from a convicted paedophile can bear to place themselves in the public eye and suggest that they are best placed to represent us as, say, ambassador to the US.
Utterly shameless.
Utterly shameless.
What an actor. A great loss, but thank you for everything you brought us.
January 30, 2026 at 10:08 PM
What an actor. A great loss, but thank you for everything you brought us.
This has been awesomely visualised, and the limitations / caveats explained, by @schubert-da.bsky.social .
The first side project I've seen to completion in a while: Benford's Law talks about how numbers in the real world, from finance to electoral and public data, aren't quite as random as they seem.
LINK: benfords-law-explainer.netlify.app
LINK: benfords-law-explainer.netlify.app
January 30, 2026 at 12:02 PM
This has been awesomely visualised, and the limitations / caveats explained, by @schubert-da.bsky.social .
I just found this at random via Google looking for something to help me intuitively understand Benford, and it was great! Thanks
January 30, 2026 at 11:03 AM
I just found this at random via Google looking for something to help me intuitively understand Benford, and it was great! Thanks