Daniel Rooney
@danielrooney.bsky.social
Thai-English translator; keen on dogs; distressed by Bluesky's apparent feline bias.
Pleased to see that my adopted home is at least a pale green, even if my non-adopted home is a depressingly if unsurprisingly deep red.
November 1, 2025 at 4:51 AM
Pleased to see that my adopted home is at least a pale green, even if my non-adopted home is a depressingly if unsurprisingly deep red.
Here in northern Thailand, 3 degrees might well be sufficient to cook us all anyway.
October 30, 2025 at 4:28 AM
Here in northern Thailand, 3 degrees might well be sufficient to cook us all anyway.
He's such a great interviewee.
October 30, 2025 at 4:25 AM
He's such a great interviewee.
I don't understand the democracy argument. Surely if a democratic state behaves appallingly, the citizens are more culpable, not less. People in Myanmar can't be blamed for their government's behaviour but the Israeli electorate has voted for this, so they can deal with the consequences.
October 21, 2025 at 1:04 AM
I don't understand the democracy argument. Surely if a democratic state behaves appallingly, the citizens are more culpable, not less. People in Myanmar can't be blamed for their government's behaviour but the Israeli electorate has voted for this, so they can deal with the consequences.
All four episodes are excellent. Well done.
October 21, 2025 at 12:53 AM
All four episodes are excellent. Well done.
Its impacts are showing up in entry-level graduate jobs, so we may get the worst of all worlds: rising youth unemployment, a massive bubble that'll have huge consequences for all of us, and an acceleration in the already-awful degradation of the public space. Thanks tech guys!
October 20, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Its impacts are showing up in entry-level graduate jobs, so we may get the worst of all worlds: rising youth unemployment, a massive bubble that'll have huge consequences for all of us, and an acceleration in the already-awful degradation of the public space. Thanks tech guys!
Bjorn Lomborg is the stopped clock that somehow manages never to tell the right time.
October 20, 2025 at 4:33 AM
Bjorn Lomborg is the stopped clock that somehow manages never to tell the right time.
In theory, yes, that's entirely correct. In practice: (i) passing any legislation on this would gum up parliament for an eternity, and (ii) this would be biggest bone imaginable for the dogs of Reform. The idea of monarchy is absurd, but the prize really doesn't seem to be worth the cost.
October 20, 2025 at 12:40 AM
In theory, yes, that's entirely correct. In practice: (i) passing any legislation on this would gum up parliament for an eternity, and (ii) this would be biggest bone imaginable for the dogs of Reform. The idea of monarchy is absurd, but the prize really doesn't seem to be worth the cost.
Perhaps, though given how few people know what CEFR is or what the A1-C2 scale means, I'm not sure that saying "They'll have to have a B2 in English" is going to be any less confusing than the A-level nonsense.
October 16, 2025 at 1:13 AM
Perhaps, though given how few people know what CEFR is or what the A1-C2 scale means, I'm not sure that saying "They'll have to have a B2 in English" is going to be any less confusing than the A-level nonsense.
I disagree. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone sat down and decided 'Misdescribing this policy and letting Reform voters imagine that refugees will be struggling through Paradise Lost will definitely work to our advantage'. It seems massively more likely that the message just got a bit mangled.
October 15, 2025 at 1:03 PM
I disagree. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone sat down and decided 'Misdescribing this policy and letting Reform voters imagine that refugees will be struggling through Paradise Lost will definitely work to our advantage'. It seems massively more likely that the message just got a bit mangled.
It's confusing because its meaning isn't clear (as indeed this thread demonstrates). That doesn't mean that its not also signaling Labour's anti-migrant stance, which it very obviously is.
October 15, 2025 at 11:15 AM
It's confusing because its meaning isn't clear (as indeed this thread demonstrates). That doesn't mean that its not also signaling Labour's anti-migrant stance, which it very obviously is.
Amen to that. I've lived in Thailand for years, and Anglophone immigrants (I'd rather eat my own head than call them/me expats) are without doubt among the least assimilated migrant groups in the world.
October 15, 2025 at 8:11 AM
Amen to that. I've lived in Thailand for years, and Anglophone immigrants (I'd rather eat my own head than call them/me expats) are without doubt among the least assimilated migrant groups in the world.
A good A-level in a modern foreign language is around a B2, which is where the (very confusing) reference to A-levels came from.
October 15, 2025 at 8:05 AM
A good A-level in a modern foreign language is around a B2, which is where the (very confusing) reference to A-levels came from.
Any list like this that does not include not include not having children is complete rubbish. The impacts of this dwarf those of going carless, and in a great many situations, it's an awful lot easier too, so why exclude what is by far the most significant move that anyone can make?
October 15, 2025 at 8:01 AM
Any list like this that does not include not include not having children is complete rubbish. The impacts of this dwarf those of going carless, and in a great many situations, it's an awful lot easier too, so why exclude what is by far the most significant move that anyone can make?
100% agree. It's definitely a difficult area and there's no denying that it's a topic that's perennially attractive to racists, but an organization can't claim to approach policy from a scientifically informed standpoint and then ignore such an important driver of the ecological crisis.
October 11, 2025 at 10:37 AM
100% agree. It's definitely a difficult area and there's no denying that it's a topic that's perennially attractive to racists, but an organization can't claim to approach policy from a scientifically informed standpoint and then ignore such an important driver of the ecological crisis.
Why wait until they're done to start thinking about this? Given the massive consequences of this (especially for anyone who might be reading Bluesky), I can't see any reason why having *any* children should be exempt from a consideration of their environmental impacts.
October 11, 2025 at 2:39 AM
Why wait until they're done to start thinking about this? Given the massive consequences of this (especially for anyone who might be reading Bluesky), I can't see any reason why having *any* children should be exempt from a consideration of their environmental impacts.
True, pets are definitely not environmentally friendly (though the one in my picture was a stray so that's slightly different) but not having a cat/dog is probably a less significant change than the others. By contrast, rich people not having children dwarfs the impacts of these changes.
October 10, 2025 at 10:01 AM
True, pets are definitely not environmentally friendly (though the one in my picture was a stray so that's slightly different) but not having a cat/dog is probably a less significant change than the others. By contrast, rich people not having children dwarfs the impacts of these changes.
Not having (or at the very least, reducing the number of) children should be in there.
October 10, 2025 at 9:16 AM
Not having (or at the very least, reducing the number of) children should be in there.
Is this really only available on Spotify?
October 9, 2025 at 5:52 AM
Is this really only available on Spotify?
Any chance of an RSS feed? Congratulations on making a podcast but Spotify can fuck right off.
October 9, 2025 at 5:51 AM
Any chance of an RSS feed? Congratulations on making a podcast but Spotify can fuck right off.
For those who are still struggling with reading comprehension, let me repeat myself: that's a different question. As I've made abundantly fucking clear, the post to which I responded made a patently false claim about elections being lost increasingly often.
September 3, 2025 at 12:59 PM
For those who are still struggling with reading comprehension, let me repeat myself: that's a different question. As I've made abundantly fucking clear, the post to which I responded made a patently false claim about elections being lost increasingly often.
Oh, that may be true, but JHC that's harsh .
September 3, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Oh, that may be true, but JHC that's harsh .
I'm not asking myself anything. You made a claim that was clearly and undeniably false. I've corrected that. Goodbye.
September 3, 2025 at 9:54 AM
I'm not asking myself anything. You made a claim that was clearly and undeniably false. I've corrected that. Goodbye.
Why? That's a different issue. The Conservatives were in power for 14 years and however many times they changed leaders, none lost a general election until Sunak.
September 3, 2025 at 9:50 AM
Why? That's a different issue. The Conservatives were in power for 14 years and however many times they changed leaders, none lost a general election until Sunak.
No, they're not. Government's have been more stable since 1979. Between 1945 and 1979 there were 6 governments, but between 1979 and 2024 there were only 4, despite the period being almost 50% longer.
September 3, 2025 at 9:38 AM
No, they're not. Government's have been more stable since 1979. Between 1945 and 1979 there were 6 governments, but between 1979 and 2024 there were only 4, despite the period being almost 50% longer.