Skip to content

Snigger

So. Doing that morning self-Google to see if anyone’s written anything fun about me.

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at LumenDatabase.org.

??

In the Regulation the legislator intends to set out a very broad and comprehensive prohibition.
Social media are operators and they offer a service to their users. The Regulation prohibits both
the broadcasting (which is a very broad concept in this Regulation) and the fact that operators
“enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast”. The Regulation refers to “including
through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service
providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications.” Furthermore, the circumvention
clause is worded in very broad terms. A broad construction of those terms is also consistent with
the objective of the Regulation, which aims to tackle the fact that RT and Sputnik have to date
gravely distorted and manipulated facts and have repeatedly and consistently targeted European
political parties, especially during election periods, as well as civil society, asylum seekers,
Russian ethnic minorities, gender minorities, and the functioning of democratic institutions in the
Union and its Member States (recital 6); the Russian Federation has engaged in continuous and
concerted propaganda actions targeted at civil society in the Union and neighbouring countries,
gravely distorting and manipulating facts (recital 7).

A reporter at Sputnik emailed me looking for a quote a few days back. So, what the EU doesn’t want you to see:

Just a few basic questions I had:

(1) I saw Bank of American predict the lithium market will be in surplus this year. Do you agree? What are the factors driving this and the likely impact on prices? How far might they fall?

Yes, looks like lithium will be in surplus this year. Although that’s always a slightly odd statement – there’s always demand “at a price”. What is really being said is that the supply of lithium has risen so much that the price will decline. As it has been doing of course.
(2) Do you still envision a major shortfall in lithium in the long run amid the transition to EVs?

There’s no shortage of lithium out there in the lithosphere (the crust of the planet). The only shortages can be of plants or mines that can extract it in any particular year. Yes, undoubtedly there will be times when there is a shortfall. As there will also be of surplus. That’s just the way things go. But is there – or even can there be – any substantial shortfall for any longer than it takes to open new mines or extraction plants? No.

(3) How do you think Iran finding a huge deposit of lithium will impact the competitive landscape and the price of lithium long term?

The Iranian find is an irrelevance to anything that matters today. 8 million tonnes or so of resources? That will take at least a decade to bring to market? Even if those resources can be converted to reserves and then mined? Seriously, who cares about this? No one should. It’s an irrelevance to anything happening in the marketplace either today or in any useful timespan.

Yes, yes, I know, everyone thinks this is a big find and so on. But it really isn’t. Not at this stage of proof it isn’t.

Just to hammer this point home. In 2021 world resources were 89 million tonnes. https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2022/mcs2022-lithium.pdf Imn 2022 they were 98 million tonnes https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023-lithium.pdf This “big” Iranian find is less than the amount we find each year now that we’re all seriously looking for more resources of lithium.

Sure, it’s interesting for Iran and someone might well make good money out of it. But it’s just not germane to global supplies of lithium nor global availability. There really is lots and lots of lithium out there to find.

Glad you all feel so protected from that nasty Russian propaganda.

9 thoughts on “Snigger”

  1. “that morning self-Google”: I’ve never tried that. So “dearieme”.

    I found a couple of blogs that had in their time given me great pleasure but that I’d completely forgotten about. 🙁

  2. we have removed 1 result(s)

    gawd, are their programmers really so crap they can’t manage to put in
    “we have removed “;count;” result”;select$(“s”,count<>1)

  3. @jgh user spec will have “result(s)” in it because users didn’t know it would be trivial to do correctly or more likely never thought about it. Programmers program to spec without informing users that change is trivial or again more likely never thought about it. SOP I’m afraid. Pretty much everybody is that crap.

  4. @jgh & BiSc: It’s trivial in English, but less so in other languages. Google supports 149 languages so getting it right in all of them would cost time and effort which Google undoubtedly thinks could be better spent on pushing adsimproving search results. We all know what it means so it’s only pendants who care.

  5. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    Shurely this is being suppressed for the capitalist propaganda it is, not Russian propaganda?

  6. Ok Bravefart.. That +1 Internet is yours..

    Now get yer arse over here and clean up the mess my spittake made of my desk… 😛

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *