Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, June 23rd, 2026 - 89 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Sure, fire your PM for no good reason.
Replace with Blairite retread.
Winner.
Well, sometimes public opinion and insider opinion coincide, to optimal effect. We must go with the consequences. The tide of history can be inexorable.
Pundits will proceed to analyse why he lost the support of his colleagues: best guess so far seems to be style of governance: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-starmer-could-set-out-exit-timetable-monday-burnham-waits-wings-2026-06-22/
Probably not, eh? Yet he may turn out just another place-holder. It's as if there ought to be a training school for politicians, given their chronic inability to grasp the basics…
The chaos of UK political leadership won't stop from Cameron to Boris to Truss to Sunak, and now Starmer, mean that the people never get to see a record of delivery from anyone.
Unless this madless of killing off your leader stops, there will be no improvement to real belief by people that government leadership matters and delivers for people.
Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time on the left.
Starmer has been terrible for the Labour party, most of his policies have been a U-turn on promises he made to the electorate. His resignation is an attempt to stop the bleeding from Labour to every other party.
Well if Burnham does half as good a job for Britain as he did for Greater Manchester, they will go somewhat towards putting themselves out of the mire successive UK Governments have accumulated.
He also got the Hillsborough disaster enquiry started. Ninety seven people died.
Fast tracking a Mayor from (Large City) into Westminster to save the country like a Messiah was tried before…..and the result was disastrous.
When you can’t find a leader from within your parliamentary ranks of 400 it means you have a very very deep problem. There is little hope for England getting out of this downward spiral.
H was an MP from 2001 until 2017. He doesn't appear to have been terribly successful though. He did make the Cabinet under Gordon Brown but only in minor jobs.
Why he should suddenly become the Great Hope of Labour doesn't seem obvious to me.
To a drowning man, even a straw is worth clutching.
Burnham may or may not be up to the job.
The evident desperation in English politics to find a way out of its torpor is worrying.
Whether it’s Corbyn, Johnson, Truss, Starmer or Burnham they are floundering to find a direction.
A big part of the problem is FPtP. The absence of Proportional Representation gives safe seats and lopsided majorities. Westminster is not up to the task.
Plus English exceptionalism distorts their reality and their ability to identify what needs to be done.
The chaos will continue until long after they introduce PR. It took a few turns of the electoral cycle for coalition government to be bedded-in in Aotearoa.
I think you are optimistic that pivoting to PR will sort their woes. The problem the UK faces isn't the electoral system, it's end stage neo liberalism. Sure, moving away from FTP may feel better, be more representative but it will not stop the rot.
The promises made under Thatcherism (Reganism/Rogernomics) have not come to pass. Instead they/we get upward movement of wealth, the worker getting a smaller and shrinking piece of the pie and social tensions because of capital's need for cheap foreign labour.
Burnham is known as the "King of the North" and anyone who has spent any time in Manchester in the last decade will know why. He reversed the privatisation of the bus fleet and brought it into Council control along with the Light Rail system, with one Travelcard for the two. Before – you had competing companies on the same bus routes and there was a lot of confusion and duplication.
Yes in present politics (and perhaps in the choice of design) we ALL have a very deep problem – you've nailed it BillD.
In the same way we no longer need to memorise our times-tables or know how to calculate fractions in our minds because our phones/calculators can do everything in a matter of moments, are we now declining the offer books make us to read for the sake of having the knowledge that authors of the past present through their writing?
Who needs to read "Great Expectations" if AI can spit out the important quotes and concepts in a split-second?
Immersion is experiential in depth, whereas the butterfly approach to life is experiential in elevation, yet both are really in an ambient flow in their situation from moment to moment. Such is the context of ecosystemic relations playing out for an organism.
Culture informs on a spectrum of levels rather than the above dyad. You get severality, then multiplicity. Greens use the label biodiversity, leftists use multiculturalism, both useful durable concepts. What AI does is summarise essential elements of meaning.
Their method is driven by the ancient Greek simple integer schema, known to scientific philosophers as natural numbers. These routinely feature as formative in nature, and are discernable in patterns. As if operators. I spotted that they are natural archetypes in the early '80s due to mastering the theory of astrology and bridging it to physics.
So those lists AI gives users provide them with countable priority features of any topic. That's an extremely powerful informative tool. Makes the education system seem total crap in comparison! Sceptics must keep in mind the fallibility of any tool though…
"What AI does is summarise essential elements of meaning"
Context, the "padding" provided by story, is what matters most and what allows us to hold concepts long enough to let them meld with other held concepts and either strengthen/validate them, or spark synthesis and creation of new, valid concepts. Putting 2 AI answers into a box together will produce nothing of value.
It’s akin believing that lived experience can be obtained by looking at a photo or watching a movie (say, a documentary). It needs fertile soil and loads of nurturing for a seed to produce a beautiful flower and only those who’ve witnessed this, if not done the planting & nurturing, can fully appreciate the awe & wonder and then ponder what ifs, etc. That’s not to say that others cannot admire a photo of a flower without even knowing how it smells and moves in the wind to attract pollinators.
"… lived experience can be obtained by looking at a photo…"
Is looking at a printed card not a "lived experience"?
It is but is it one-step-back from direct experience?
A brilliant photographer would say, "It's better than that – it's a distilled, curated, lovingly-presented story, through my eyes, of the world." Well, they might, I'm only surmising…
Should we dismiss the works of Picasso because we only see them as digital (digital?) images on-screen? Does something valuable "seep through"?
I think so.
Staring at a flower – who does that for more than a second?
Vincent van Gough, that's who.
How many people in the modern world would know what a sunflower is, were it not for Vincent??
Yes and No. It’s the experience of looking at a printed card. What’s printed is a 2-dimensional projection and a proxy at best of reality – ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Yes, they would say that because they took the photo through their own eyes & lenses (and possibly even developed it themselves) and put all their life & professional experience into that moment.
I think so too – it’s a question of degrees though, e.g., how much seeps through, how deep, and for how long? Picasso probably intimately knew every inch and every brush stroke of his paintings and probably could reproduce it, stroke for stroke. Looking at one of his digitised images on a device screen is a far cry from that state and the user (consumer?) would only have a faint recollection of it 1 day later.
People who look up from their screens of daily rut and smell the roses.
As a kid a loved looking at sunflowers, even tried to grow them, and that was way before I knew of Vincent and his versions.
So much to unwrap here 🙂
"Yes and No. It’s the experience of looking at a printed card. What’s printed is a 2-dimensional projection and a proxy at best of reality – ceci n'est pas une pipe."
No no no no no! Not a "proxy" – a distillation, a rendering, a cultured interpretation!
You have to trust, or at least acknowledge the work/thought/heart put in by the artist – that's what they are there for!
Vincent looked, focussed, felt, responded in a way that the average Joe/Joelene does not. Picasso saw how our learned structures froze our view of reality and sought to right that wrong, using African masks as a lever to prise us away from our concreted views. That was then. We have to do that now, over and over, if we are to fulfil our promise as sentient beings.
It's not a pipe, but when did you last look at a pipe and what was your response? Direct visual experience is a multi-layered phenomenon across time (yours) and space. If you are looking through tinted spectacles, is anything you see real? If you are looking through clear lenses, is that real? A telescope? A microscope? If you are looking through a gel-lens (the window at the front of your eyeball) is that real?
🙂
"As a kid a loved looking at sunflowers, even tried to grow them, and that was way before I knew of Vincent and his versions."
Would there even have been sunflower seeds available for you to (try to) grow, whereat not for Vincent?
"Looking at one of his digitised images on a device screen is a far cry from that state and the user (consumer?) would only have a faint recollection of it 1 day later."
Would seeing his sunflower painting (s) be any different? Crowded and pressured in a gallery somewhere, taking your allotted 7 seconds to soak-up the paint, are you better off than someone who can revisit the image 100 times a day, if they so choose, copy and print the image as many times as they wish?
Are you suggesting that each of us should be the artist?
I'm with you on that!
The present obliteration of boundaries by electronic media is wiping the slate, imo and only those developing their own, personal "artistic" interpretation of the world will emerge whole, or at least, whole-enough, at the end of this process, a process which is, I believe, well advanced already.
Putting 2 AI answers into a box together will produce nothing of value.
Depends on user intent. For instance, if the gizmo tells you that electricity is caused by the influence of charge on current flow, and lists the dyad of +/- to answer a question about how charge drives flow, the value lies in user comprehension of electricity thus facilitated.
A neopythagorean metaphysician would point out that the explanation is incomplete as soon as anyone notices that gradient is a tertiary element causing the flow. If there was no charge gradient connecting positive and negative states, electricity could not flow. Scientists know this, but remain incapable of articulating the thought as a conceptual bridge to explain what happens in nature.
So the value of dyadic framing lies in the subliminal effect of sub-text: tertiary influence on cerebral process occurs regardless of conscious awareness of it. This value drives culture and the economy at a deep level. The gizmo operates medial between user and wisdom of the crowd, so the tool will always simplify stuff…
Yeah, Dennis – that's what I'm talkin'bout.
No one needs to read fiction for the concepts. A plot summary is available on GoodReads and other sources. People read fiction for the enjoyment of the story and the writing; not for "the sake of having the knowledge that authors of the past present through their writing". That would only apply to those 'having' to read for curriculum (whether at secondary or tertiary level).
Although, I'm sure that there are far fewer reading Dickens for enjoyment, than in the nineteenth or mid-twentieth centuries; I feel this is likely to relate to changing tastes in storytelling. I note that there are still many people reading Austen – an even earlier author.
The declining levels of literacy – are of principal concern in terms of functional literacy. Do you have the level of literacy required to participate in everyday life – everything from being able to pass a driving test, to understand and follow the safety directions in the workplace, to voting in elections?
I don't really have a particular issue with those who have functional literacy, but get their 'storytelling' enjoyment from other sources. We had the same moral panic over the impact of television. There seems to be no sign of a significant and sustained decline in the demand for 'print' stories. And, indeed, the variety and choice appears to be increasing with the increasing availability of ebooks and print on demand reducing the barriers to participation. Yes, of course, this means that rubbish is available (speaking in terms of poorly spelled, written and biased material – not in terms of 'stuff I don't read'), but it also means that new or niche authors have the ability to get their books in front of an audience, without needing the level of anticipated sales that are required by publishers. There have never been so many NZ authors 'in print' – in a vast range of literary genres. Most of them will probably never feature in the Ockhams [note, the two biggest selling NZ authors, Heather Morris and Nalini Singh, have never won, or even been shortlisted for, a NZ literary award] – but they have their niche, and their loyal followers.
"No one needs to read fiction for the concepts."
Writers of fiction, otoh, write fiction to share the concepts that they believe necessary for readers to have; I'd hate to think that Ursula le Guin's valuable concepts go unread because no one needs to read them.
Sure, we can e-check quotes, memes etc. to keep up with the clever folk on-line, but an explanation without context (the rest of the novel/story) is a vaporous thing and might serve for only a brief time and not "embed" in the "world-picture" we all need to stay afloat in an increasingly electro-ephemeral world. If we sub-let our internal library to AI & Co. we leave ourselves very vulnerable, imo.
Belladonna I wish I could be as certain about matters general as you are.
It really needs to be both/and rather than either/or.
On the one hand, one of our kids said to us "How do you even know all this stuff?" and the answer was "We read books mate, you should try it." On the other, I've often almost made some claim on social media that I read somewhere but then thought to just quickly fact-check it before posting, and found that it was some urban myth or no I'd just misremembered what I read in a book decades ago. So, big shout-out to instant fact-checking on your phone.
For the fortunate, it is both but the trend, as it was for mathematical computation (giving change, telling time etc.) is heading the same way; my concern is that understanding the world outside of mathematics is following the same pattern, because of the convenience of the Great Answering Machine on the phone.
It leaves us vulnerable to coercion/e-enchantment if we don't know/remember, but have to check our phones to find out.
It is a bit horrifying. I still find it useful that the answers to multiplications like 7×6 or 9×8 just immediately appear in my brain without me thinking about them, albeit at the cost of having to sit with close to 40 other kids in a primary school classroom chanting "six sixes are 36, seven sixes are 42" etc for what felt like hours. "I can just look it up" is fine until you're not in a position to look anything up.
It all becomes extra-interesting when you start to question whether base 10 is the natural state of mathematical affairs, or whether we've been sold a pup.
Base 6 is my go-to base 🙂
You ain't alone:
AI Overview: A base-6 (senary) system – where quantities are grouped by sixes – is extremely rare. Its use is primarily confined to small, specific linguistic groups and tribal cultures. Specific societies and languages that utilize a base-6 system include:
If I were you I would cite the Sumerians rather than the ethnic options, since western civilisation usually deems them the ultimate progenitors. Yet although a snowflake joins a honeycomb as typical evidence of 6 in nature, you can see a centre in most snowflakes, so it joins the 6 radial points to form a heptad in mental impact (cognition), opening a portal to a magical realm…
I've had a few experiences and exposures to base 9. Sanskirit maths. It just seems natural and easy.
Like lots of things though, when the expert is there to help and you gain confidence, you want the world to know.
A couple of sleeps and the odd social event, it evaporates and I revert to base 10.
I remember getting my mind blown in school by Arthur C. Clarke writing in one of his books that base 12 would make a lot more sense because it's divisible by 2,3,4 and 6, whereas base 10's rubbish, created by people who used their fingers to count things. He had a point.
Sure, let's base it on people with 12 fingers instead.
12 in nature comes from zodiac as model. Schema are arbitrary though. You can frame it as a 3×4 matrix (which is what the few intellectual astrologers tend to do). We are encultured into a quadratic view of time cycles due to lunar phase peak influences plus solstices/equinoxes plus the dawn/dusk/day/night tetrad, but the triadic element in time plays out as process (start/operate/end). You can see why educators default in fear.
Four.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duodecimal#Origin
Tom Lehrer* was a maths professor who also was a humourist so that seems rare but maybe maths brains are good at seeing the curly conundrums.
This is him with New Maths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6OaYPVueW4
and That's Mathematics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXspuZUT8TY
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer#Early_life
KiwiSaver issues
Another issue is developing employer practice to call workers contractors to avoid any super liability (aided and abetted by this government).
National is promoting this trend with its plans, they include contractors as part of a self-employed group required to pay the employee rate without any employer input.
Nationals scheme is not fair to many groups of workers.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/business/361029257/beginning-end-nz-super-eight-unanswered-questions-nationals-about-face-kiwisaver
Spc it's a waste of time fighting total remuneration laws, it will always be calculated as part of the the remuneration whether it's admitted or not.
A ban on this practice only requires legislation to ensure employer contributions are paid on top of an agreed base salary.
National has said it was prepared to look at this.
So no, it is not a waste of time
It is time to end Key’s sharp practice and extend employer contributions to contractors/self employed.
Now thats investigative reporting, well done:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360996325/nz-muscle-pulls-products-and-offers-refunds-after-internal-review
Based on this:
I read the Stuff report but haven't seen the video. Import for me lies here:
So this creatine stuff I'd never heard of could be a good choice for anyone who must think a lot to survive (brain uses 20% of our energy intake). As a kid, I sometimes gardened with superphosphate to grow veges. Interesting to see a similar effect on our brain, with obvious implications for effective cognition…
It is an addition or supplement.
Came to prominance at the Barcelona Olympics, I've used it on and off since the late 90s. Its actually one of the very few supplements that actually work. The creatine I bought off them has a use by in 2027 so I think I'm safe :-). Also red meat has the highest concentration of creatine naturally so another good reason to eat steak.
Interesting that it supplements a natural part of our nature, but I guess the principle is no different than that of Vit C. Everyone seems to know that using it as supplement has beneficial effects, including helping to defeat illness. Does it give you a general sense of more well-being or are there specific effects evident, or both?
Simply put (because Im simple) imagine doing bench press. Say the weight you're doing you can only manage 8 reps before you fail. If you're on creatine you might be able to get one or two more reps out.
This is because the energy source to lift the weight (ATP) gets depleted and if you have creatine on hand your body can use that to help restore ATP.
But a quick search for creatine monohydrate will give you all the information you need and then some.
Its one of the most studied supplements there is.
When you exercise muscles, available ATP is consumed within a few seconds and it must be regenerated continuously from various energy sources that last for varying lengths of time.
One of which is creatine, hence why its one of the few supplements that actually does what it says it does
The human body makes about 50% of daily required creatine. The human body cannot make vitamin C and 100% of daily requirement comes from diet.
Thanks for that, definitely a good reality check! Such a dramatic dependency upon ecosystem at a fundamental level is a profound fact of life.
Sounds fishy to me.
As I'm sure you're aware fish doesn't have much creatine.
Barbell plates and T-Bone steaks for strength, as the old saying went
Purine is the stuff I have to watch out for, it being a factor in stinging attacks of gout, which I have to control and prevent if poss.
https://www.arthritis.org.nz/news/gout-arthritis-and-purines-should-people-with-gout-avoid-foods-high-in-purines
So creatine monohydrate works out well for you then, no need to worry about diet
You Rogue you know I can't understand that stuff. And they will never get me to go on a diet that forbids chocolate.
Not a lot of creatine in chocolate as far as I'm aware
Shit for brains, as the saying goes.
https://www.menshealth.com/uk/nutrition/food-drink/a69996492/creatine-naturally-found-in-foods/
Mens Health UK I see…right, lets see
First off, steak is easier to use for a calorie surplus because it’s commonly eaten in large, consistent portions.
Have you tried eating a lot of herring? It’s quite an oily fish, and for most people it’s easier to eat 300g of steak than 300g of herring.
Steak contains more cholesterol than herring, and cholesterol is involved in testosterone production.
In the UK herring is cheap, but in NZ it’s not a common or particularly cheap food. Red meat is a more accessible and commonly eaten source of creatine.
Now if want to go the anecdotal route, most of the biggest strongest men, past or present, ate a diet high in red meat and used predominantly free weights.
Especially when starting out, when trying to get big and strong.
Hence the phrase barbell plates and t-bone steaks
White meat is a good source of creatine too.
Raw herring with raw onions is yummy!
Your ideas about meat, cholesterol, and testosterone production appear to be bollocks.
Since Men’s Health seems to be frowned upon by you:
https://theconversation.com/creatine-for-women-should-you-add-this-supplement-into-your-diet-272773
I use dinner plates for my meat.
Ok you want to keep playing.
'White meat is a good source of creatine too.'
Beef is better.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/foods-high-in-creatine-11798561
Creatine per serving
'Raw herring with raw onions is yummy!'
I'm glad you enjoy raw herring with onions. I'm also fairly confident you're not regularly eating 300g of it in a sitting, which was rather the point.
The point was that red meat is cheaper, more available, and easier for most people to eat in the quantities needed for a calorie surplus.
'Your ideas about meat, cholesterol, and testosterone production appear to be bollocks.'
Strength athletes generally eat high-calorie, high-protein diets, and red meat is commonly used because it’s an easy, nutrient-dense way to hit those targets.
I wasn’t claiming it’s magic for testosterone, cholesterol is just a normal precursor the body uses to make steroid hormones, including testosterone.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12970-017-0177-8
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279304/
Sigh
Where do you think most of your cholesterol comes from, you egg?
'Creatine is by no means a cure-all supplement, and clearly more research on women is needed. But the research so far shows that even just a small amount of creatine daily – when paired with a healthy lifestyle and resistance training – holds promise in supporting many aspects of women’s health'
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12970-017-0177-8
Key conclusion:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6680710/
Key findings:
Across elite-level evidence (ISSN + multiple meta-analyses):
Not:
Go easy on the creatine supplements and eating red meat – I think you’re suffering from brain fog and roid rage.
'Go easy on the creatine supplements and eating red meat – I think you’re suffering from brain fog and roid rage.'
Nothing I’ve said is related to steroid use, I was talking about general sports nutrition and strength athlete diets.
You’ve managed to turn basic physiology into a steroid accusation and a personality diagnosis in one go. That’s a bit of a stretch even for the standard.
Cholesterol and testosterone are steroids.
'Cholesterol and testosterone are steroids.'
Now you're just embarrassing yourself because that’s just basic biochemistry terminology, not a reference to anabolic steroid use.
I was talking about general sports nutrition and strength athlete diets, turning that into “roid rage” is a pretty big leap from what was actually said.
But then you don't have anything else do you
Testosterone is the main endogenous anabolic steroid.
Your roid rage is diagnosed as talking piles of crap out of your arse likely caused by being over-confident and over-competitive, which may be caused by high testosterone levels – get it tested.
Thank you but I don't actually need help making you look silly (but by all means continue)
'Testosterone is the main endogenous anabolic steroid.'
I mean it sounds good to people who dont know but…Testosterone is an endogenous steroid hormone, meaning it is naturally produced in the body. (Yeah I know, throw in a big science word and hope you'll impress people)
The term “steroid” here refers to its chemical structure class, not to anabolic steroid drug use.
Should I be charging you for this?
'Your roid rage is diagnosed as talking piles of crap out of your arse likely caused by being over-confident and over-competitive, which may be caused by high testosterone levels – get it tested.'
Thats the best you've got, up your game because at the moment you're just boring. Do better.
'Where do you think most of your cholesterol comes from, you egg?'
Most cholesterol in the body is produced internally by the liver, dietary intake has a relatively small effect in most healthy people, which is why medical sources don’t link eating cholesterol-rich foods to meaningful changes in testosterone levels.
That’s all consistent with what I said earlier: cholesterol is simply the precursor the body uses in the synthesis of testosterone and other steroid hormones. I wasn’t claiming dietary intake meaningfully boosts testosterone, just describing its role in the pathway.
Same point as before, you’re arguing against something I didn’t actually claim.
You've exhausted your google skills on this one.
Yeah, I’ve used up my monthly token quota – all that metabiology is tricky stuff!
'Yeah, I’ve used up my monthly token quota – all that metabiology is tricky stuff!'
Then why are your responses so weak and easily rebutted?
God help us! Pucky has discovered Chat GTP!
What a drag…
Chatgpt?
Please, that AI has the breaks on. Its like talking to a cross between social worker and a librarian.
Google and a little bit of knowledge is still more useful for this kind of thing.
However if theres something you disagree with lets hear it
Extra muscle is here to help – We're all gonna get
laidripped (off)!https://foodinstitute.com/focus/creatine-has-become-the-billion-dollar-darling-of-the-wellness-aisle/
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/creatine-supplements-market-report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine#Exercise_and_sport
The placebo effect (a euphemism, if ever) is strong with these sorts of things.
'The placebo effect (a euphemism, if ever) is strong with these sorts of things.'
Are you trolling in that you know creatine works or are you stupid because you think it doesn't?
Let me know so I can adjust my replies accordingly
Bit late, innit?
See I'm assuming you're trolling but you never can tell with people on the standard so better to be safe than sorry
A graph can really focus the mind on the relation of govt department spending to outcomes: https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/06/22/how-one-graph-could-revolutionise-environmental-funding/
A Green policy wonk could copy the thing into a file, take it to a copy center and get it printed out as a wall poster. Note the triad used to design it: depts on left, flows in center, outcomes on the right. 20 departments contribute to influence scaling.
Simon Upton was responsible as Minister for Science for setting up the CRIs from DSIR and MAF. While it's a CEO/director board model with the Crown as sole shareholder, it has functioned well enough over 40 years, until the most recent government cuts and meddling. Upton was respected by the science community because his changes to the actual research were evidence based and sensible, he took time to do it right, and he obviously respected the value of government-based science research to NZ.
Our current government, who loudly like Trump's administration, believes that factual evidence is unnecessary for legislation and government, who are shockingly ignorant of the use of data, show how simply their minds work. Look! Evidence! See, this person has had a graph made to show what we're doing!
Evidence of what, though, except that One Law does not rule them all.
Owen Jones thoroughly rips apart Starmer's history in the UK Labour Party. Denial after denial of statements and promises he made on the record.
All his sins are laid out in the sun.
State media different to private media? Maybe, depending on your angle. Gordon Campbell tries on a jaundiced view for size:
I suggest everyone frames it as a public/private partnership. The presenters must address the public as a whole whilst acknowledging everyone's private right to tune out the blather. Since I do listen to MR, I switch it off when it trends down-market in topic, so I both do & don't consume their product. I don't self-identify as an MR listener in consequence, but I respect the operational bind constraining its producers and presenters: many listeners may be sheeple, so program accordingly. In this mindset, focus on intelligence is elitist, so one must give drivel equal promotion.
I wouldn't pretend to know.
Self-promotion? "We'd love to hear from you."
A little light sardonic reflection: AI Overview: