Richard (NOT Murphy)
Judges Overrule Parliament (Again)
Well, well, well. The judiciary has stepped in yet again to tell Parliament what the law “really” means—this time on single-sex spaces and trans inclusion. But unlike the Brexit years, when every judicial decision was painted as an affront to democracy, there’s no outrage from the usual suspects. Why? Because this time, the ruling goes the “right” way.
In a move that’s sent ripples through Westminster and rage through certain corners of Twitter, the High Court has ruled that it’s lawful to exclude trans women from women-only spaces if it’s proportionate and justified. That’s right—under the Equality Act, “sex” means biological sex. Not vibes. Not pronouns. Not how someone feels. Biology.
Women’s refuges, rape crisis centres, changing rooms—they now have the legal backing to say no. And while gender ideologues are fuming, campaigners who’ve been dismissed as “TERFs” are quietly cracking open the prosecco.
Of course, this is a direct result of Parliament’s spinelessness. MPs have been terrified to touch the issue, petrified of a Twitter pile-on, happy to leave policy in the hands of Stonewall and HR departments. The result? A legal grey zone, now cleared up by the courts. Again.
Funny how the rules change depending on who’s getting bruised. When judges blocked Boris from proroguing Parliament, we were told it was an unprecedented assault on democracy. But now? Not a peep. The Guardian isn’t weeping about judicial overreach. The Lib Dems aren’t lighting candles for parliamentary sovereignty. Turns out judicial activism is fine—if it suits your politics.
Let’s be clear: the ruling has big implications. Trans people—especially trans women—now face more legal obstacles in spaces they previously accessed. But that’s not because of judicial cruelty. It’s because Parliament wrote a vague law and then ran away from the fallout.
So here we are. The judges have stepped in. Parliament’s been shown up—again. And the same crowd who screamed about “unelected judges” are now defending them as heroes. Hypocrisy, anyone?
You don’t get to have it both ways. Either you trust the courts to hold the line when politicians bottle it—or you don’t. But spare us the selective outrage.
This time, at least, the judges got it right.
What is a Woman (ANSWERED)
In a significant legal development, the UK has ruled that, within the scope of the Equality Act 2010, the term “woman” refers to biological sex. For many trans people, this has profound implications—not just for their access to certain rights and protections, but for how those rights are now framed in retrospect. What was once considered inclusion is now, legally speaking, revealed to have never truly existed.
To understand the full weight of this moment, consider the concept of an annulment in marriage law. An annulment is not a divorce. It doesn’t dissolve a union that once existed—it states that the union was never valid to begin with. It redefines the past. It asserts that what seemed to be real was, in the eyes of the law, a fiction.
This is what has happened with the redefinition of “woman” under the Equality Act. Rights that many trans people believed they had—such as protections under the category of “sex” or access to single-sex spaces—are now legally framed as having never applied to them in the first place. Not removed. Not repealed. But retroactively deemed never to have existed. It is not a divorce from those rights. It is an annulment.
This kind of legal reconfiguration carries a unique sting. Divorce acknowledges a relationship’s legitimacy, even if it ultimately ends. Annulment does not. In the same way, legal clarity on “sex” may give certain institutions certainty going forward, but it sends a powerful and painful message to trans people: the recognition they believed they had was an illusion.
The practical consequences are immediate—changes in policy around healthcare, prisons, sports, and single-sex services. But the philosophical implications are just as serious. What does it mean for a state to retroactively declare that certain citizens never had the protections they believed they did? What does it mean to be told your inclusion in civil rights law was a misunderstanding, not a mistake corrected, but a misconception exposed?
This is not just a policy clarification; it is a rewriting of the social contract. It invites a broader reckoning with how the law interacts with identity—how it confers recognition, and just as easily, withdraws it. And it leaves many asking: If legal recognition can be annulled, was it ever truly recognition at all?
A New Twist To Murphy’s Law
Murphy’s Law (sometimes called Sod’s Law) tells us that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.
It can be summarized as “The universe opposes what you try to do.” Toast will always land buttered side down, and so on.
There is a corollary with the big potato, one that says that the universe opposes what you suggest, and even what you think. Whatever you propose will always be opposed by the real world.
It would be a great idea to popularize the word twatterati for the blob and the woke brigade. We managed to have chatterati, meaning the chattering classes, put into the OED. Surely twatterati can’t be far behind?
The Perception of Value: Diamonds, Avocados, and Business Class Flights
Value ain’t something things have on their own—it’s about how we see it. It comes from the meaning we give stuff, not just the thing itself.
Think about business class flights. The plane’s going to the same place whether you’re in the fancy seats or squeezed in the back. Both get there at the same time, but one ticket costs way more just because it feels exclusive. Sure, you get a bit more space and better food, but what you’re really buying is that feeling—like you’re important, special, maybe even a bit fancy. Business class sells a story of privilege, and people are happy to pay for it.
Diamonds are just rocks made of carbon, but thanks to clever ads (DeBeers im looking at you…), they now stand for love and forever. No marketing, no sparkle, right?
Same with avocados. They used to be just a weird fruit. Then came some rebranding and now they’re trendy, showing up on every brunch table. Before that? Not so popular.
Here’s the thing: value is all in what we believe. Economy or business class, tap water or bottled, plain carbon or diamonds—it’s the story we buy into. And in business, that story is everything.
If you’re still having issues with the site: some steps.
Flushing DNS Cache on Common Operating Systems
Windows
- Open Command Prompt:
- Press
Win + R, typecmd, and hit Enter. - Or search for “Command Prompt” in the Start menu, then right-click and choose “Run as Administrator.”
- Press
- Run the DNS Flush Command:
- Type:
ipconfig /flushdnsand press Enter. - You should see a confirmation message:
Successfully flushed the DNS Resolver Cache.
- Type:
- Optional: Clear ARP Cache:
- Type:
arp -d *and press Enter.
- Type:
macOS
- Open Terminal:
- Press
Command + Space, typeTerminal, and press Enter.
- Press
- Run the Flush DNS Command:
- For macOS Monterey and later:
- For macOS Catalina, Mojave, and earlier versions:
- Enter your admin password if prompted (it won’t be displayed).
You can also try using ‘incognito’ or private browsing mode on most browsers, this should fix the problem. Also a hard restart of your PC / Mac and a reset of your modem / router at the point it comes into your house would work too. If you want to reach out to me direct you can get me at richard [at] continentaltelegraph.com
Assisted Dying – Thoughts
The UK’s decision to legalize the righto die has reignited debate over autonomy, ethics, and the state’s role in life-and-death decisions. For libertarians, this policy is both a victory for personal liberty and a cautionary tale about the risks of state overreach. The issue highlights core principles of individual freedom and raises important questions about safeguarding vulnerable populations.
Libertarians often champion the right to die as an extension of personal autonomy. Decisions about life and death, particularly for those suffering from terminal illnesses or unrelievable pain, are deeply personal and should not be dictated by the state. For advocates, this legislation affirms human dignity, allowing individuals to reclaim control over their lives when suffering undermines their quality of life.
The policy also challenges state authority. Libertarians argue that governments should not impose moral or religious values on private decisions. If individuals are free to refuse medical treatment or make other life-altering choices, they should similarly have the right to choose the timing and manner of their death. From this perspective, the UK’s legislation is a significant rollback of state control, signaling respect for individual sovereignty.
However, the policy raises concerns about implementation and unintended consequences. Libertarians are wary of how the state regulates access to assisted dying. While safeguards like independent medical reviews and eligibility criteria aim to prevent coercion, they also grant the government power to determine who qualifies. Critics fear this could lead to bureaucratic overreach, where the right to die expands beyond its original intent or becomes normalized as an expectation rather than a choice.
Another concern is the potential for societal pressure. Vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or disabled, might feel coerced into choosing assisted dying due to systemic issues like healthcare costs or insufficient palliative care. Some libertarians worry this policy could create a “slippery slope” where economic incentives, rather than true autonomy, drive decisions. Additionally, there’s a risk that normalizing assisted dying could devalue life itself. Opponents argue that legalizing this practice might reduce societal investment in improving the quality of life for those in distress. Margaret Thatcher once stated, “Watch your thoughts, for they will become actions. Watch your actions, for they will… shape your character. And your character will determine your destiny.” While not directly addressing the issue of assisted dying, her focus on individual responsibility and moral reflection offers a framework for considering the broader societal implications of such policies.
Libertarians who support this policy stress the need for safeguards to ensure that offering the right to die does not erode efforts to support and care for vulnerable populations. The UK’s decision represents a significant cultural shift, emphasizing individual choice in one of life’s most intimate decisions.
For libertarians, it is both a triumph and a challenge—proof that personal liberty can triumph over state control, but also a reminder of the vigilance required to prevent misuse. As this policy unfolds, its success will depend on balancing autonomy with protections for the vulnerable, ensuring that the right to die remains a deeply personal choice rooted in dignity and freedom.
Loading ...Having fun with Rachel
Setting up a new twitter account to play satirical economics with Rachel Reeves
@RachelReeves
Followers and retweets appreciated to help build it up.
https://x.com/RachelTheeves?t=lM9f-kWG8zed84dBLvJ8NQ&s=09
Why GDP is Not a Good Metric
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has long been used as the primary indicator of a nation’s economic health, but it falls short in capturing the nuances of societal well-being and true prosperity. While it measures the value of transactions in an economy, GDP is ultimately an approximation, not a reflection of quality of life or happiness.
GDP grows when transactions increase, but not all transactions represent genuine progress. For instance, if a man divorces his wife and then pays her to cook and clean, GDP records this as an economic gain. Yet, the activities themselves—cooking and cleaning—haven’t changed, only their categorization as paid labor. This illustrates how GDP can misrepresent societal changes as economic improvements.
Furthermore, GDP fails to account for utility—what actually makes people happy or fulfilled. Imagine someone choosing to work half-time to spend their afternoons fishing, prioritizing leisure over income. While this decision might lower GDP, it could significantly increase their personal satisfaction and well-being. Such scenarios highlight the disconnection between economic output and individual happiness.
By focusing solely on financial transactions, GDP neglects other vital aspects of life, such as environmental health, social cohesion, and personal fulfillment. Such a wide measurement of individual desires is, of course, difficult. Difficult to the point that instead of having targets for what should happen, rather better is to wait, watch, and see what does happen. This spontaneity acknowledges the diversity of human preferences and the unpredictable ways people find fulfillment.
For a more holistic view of progress, we need metrics that emphasize well-being, sustainability, and equitable distribution of resources, rather than merely tracking the flow of money.
National Popular Vote
Thank you to everyone who came to our live blog for the US election. We had record traffic.
We also forgot this blogs birthday in October – 17 years!
Anyhow here is a small take… thoughts?
=======
The Electoral College, the system for electing U.S. presidents, has sparked considerable controversy in recent years due to the possibility that a candidate can be elected president while receiving fewer votes than their opponent. This has happened twice in my lifetime: first in 2000 with George W. Bush and again in 2016 with Donald J. Trump.
Many Americans see this as undemocratic, which led to the launch of the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign in 2006. The NPV advocate for electors to cast their votes for the candidate who received the most votes nationally, rather than the winner of their individual state.
Seventeen states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted this approach into law. This group includes states like California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, collectively representing 209 Electoral College votes. The full list of states is available on the NPV campaign’s website.
Many observers will note that among the states participating in the NPV, only two have voted Republican in the last 20 years, while the others have not done so since the 1980s.
Those of us who supported Donald Trump in this election expected he might lose the popular vote and narrowly win via the Electoral College. To our surprise and delight, he won both decisively—the first time a Republican has done so since before the NPV campaign began.
The Electoral College will vote on December 17th to officially ratify the election results. Will California, a solidly blue state, cast its 54 electoral votes for Donald J. Trump, or will it reconsider the merits of the NPV approach?
US Election: Live Blog.
“The Guardian is offering counselling and therapy to staff as it vowed to support its workforce after Donald Trump’s “upsetting” US election victory this week. In the US, some colleges have given students time off, an extension on deadlines, art therapy classes and access to a therapy duck in response to Trump’s win. Students at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy were reportedly told this week that they could play with Lego, colouring books, and have milk and cookies in “self-care suites” following the result”
##########
Kentucky called for TRUMP (8 EC)
Vermont called for HARRIS (3 EC)
Indiana called for TRUMP (11 EC)
West Virginia called for TRUMP (4 EC)
South Carolina called for TRUMP (9 EC)
Florida called for TRUMP (30 EC)
New Jersey called for HARRIS (14 EC)
Massachusetts called for HARRIS (11 EC)
Rhode Island called for HARRIS (4 EC)
Connecticut called for HARRIS (7 EC)
Maryland called for HARRIS (10 EC)
Illinois called for HARRIS (19 EC)
Alabama called for TRUMP (9 EC)
Mississippi called for TRUMP (6 EC)
Tennessee called for TRUMP (11 EC)
Missouri called for TRUMP (10 EC)
Oklahoma called for TRUMP (7 EC)
Arkansas called for TRUMP (7 EC)
New York called for HARRIS (28 EC)
Colorado called for HARRIS (9 EC)
Texas called for TRUMP (40 EC)
Kansas called for TRUMP (6 EC)
North Dakota called for TRUMP (3 EC)
South Dakota called for TRUMP (3 EC)
Wyoming called for TRUMP (3 EC)
Nebraska (statewide) called for TRUMP (2 EC)
Louisiana called for TRUMP (8 EC)
District of Columbia called for HARRIS (3 EC)
Ohio called for TRUMP (17 EC)
Delaware called for HARRIS (3 EC)
New Hampshire called for HARRIS (4 EC)
Utah called for TRUMP (6 EC)
Montana called for TRUMP (4 EC)
Iowa called for TRUMP (6 EC)
California called for HARRIS (54 EC)
Oregon called for HARRIS (8 EC)
Washington called for HARRIS (12 EC)
Maine split votes HARRIS (3 EC) TRUMP (1 EC)
Idaho called for TRUMP (4 EC)
North Carolina called for TRUMP (16 EC)
New Mexico called for HARRIS (5 EC)
Georgia called for TRUMP (16 EC)
Hawaii called for HARRIS (4 EC)
Pennsylvania called for TRUMP (19 EC)
Minnesota called for HARRIS (10 EC)
Wisconsin called for TRUMP (10 EC)
That’s it! There is now no path to victory for Kamala Harris. Donald J Trump will be the 47th President of the United States after winning the state of Wisconsin.
######## 0650 GMT
Trump is now on 267. Assuming Alaska comes in for Trump he’s on 270. However Alaska hasn’t counted yet. The state that will put him over the top is most likely to be either Wisconsin or Nevada on the current trend.
### 0624 GMT
Arizona was home to two former Republican presidential candidates, Barry Goldwater and John McCain. It used to be a fairly reliable Republican state until 2020 when Biden won it by 0.3%.
This is another must win for Trump even though Republicans are fighting a demographic rear guard action here. In many ways the 48th state in the US is steadily moving from being a wild frontier state to an extension of Southern California.
########0227 GMT
Minnesota is the home state of Harris’ running mate Tim Walz. It was also home to Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, both Democratic Vice Presidents and unsuccessful presidential candidates. Minnesota was the one state that voted for Mondale during Ronald Reagan’s 49 state landslide in 1984. When asked a few weeks later what he would like for Christmas, President Reagan replied “Minnesota would’ve been nice.”
Minnesota is a potential wild card for Republicans. If this state is even close Harris and Walz should be worried.
######## 0158 GMT
In half an hour many states in the Mid-West will close their polls. Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska (statewide), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming jointly hold the record as the longest continuously Republican states along with Alaska. The last time they voted for a Democrat was for Lyndon B Johnson in 1964. If any of these states are even close Trump should be worried.
######## 0134 GMT
West Virginia used to be a solid Democrat state but it was the second strongest state for Trump, Virginia is the other way around. It is curious that these states have crossed over each other, only on rare occasions voting for the same party.
######## 0126 GMT
Possibly the most anticipated of all the battleground states, Pennsylvania will close its polls in ten minutes.
Biden won Pennsylvania by 1.2%. He is originally from Scranton.
Trump won the state in 2016, being the first Republican to do so since the 1980s.
This state is a must win for both candidates. It is difficult for both campaigns to win without those 19 EC votes.
######## 0050 GMT
Florida will close its polls in a few minutes. It was won by Trump in 2020 by 3.4%. This is a bigger margin than in 2020 even though the national swing was against him.
Ron DeSantis was re-elected as Governor by 20% in 2022.
No Republican has won the presidency without Florida since Calvin Coolidge in 1924.
The 2000 debacle in Florida is still controversial, with many Democrats still believing Al Gore was robbed.
If Harris has a chance here she needs to be miles ahead in the early returns as the Pan Handle is very Republican and counts later.
The Latino vote is vital to the Democrats in the South West however most Latinos in Florida are Cuban rather than Mexican and exhibit different voting behaviour.
####### 0046 GMT
Polls will close in a few minutes in North Carolina.North Carolina hasn’t voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 except in 2008 when they voted for Barack Obama.
Trump won here by 1.4% in 2020.
North Carolina is the home state of Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara who has been campaigning heavily here. It has been rumoured for some time that she will run for office herself in due course.
## 0024 GMT
Ohio had a very long streak as the bellwether state in Presidential elections until 2020 when it voted for Trump. The previous occasion on which Ohio voted for the losing candidate was in 1960 when they voted for Richard Nixon.
Ohio is the home state of Donald Trump’s running mate Senator JD Vance.
No Republican president has ever been elected without carrying Ohio. Trump won here by 8% in 2020.
If Trump is heading back to the Whitehouse he should win here by at least 9% to overperform from his narrow loss in 2020.
The Democrats may be close here even though they will likely lose. This is because urban areas count more quickly. Like many other places in the US, the UK and other countries there’s a very stark urban/rural divide.
####### 0022 GMT
In about ten minutes the polls will close in Virginia. The Commonwealth was a reliable state for the GOP from 1968 until 2008 when Obama won here. The state has remained in the Democratic column ever since. Joe Biden won it by 10% in 2020 however the following year they elected a Republican governor Glenn Youngkin.
Donald Trump held a rally in Salem, VA on Saturday. Is he just shoring up North Carolina or does he know something we don’t?
It is unlikely that Harris will lose here but if she does she’s probably toast.
#######23:48GMT
13 Tabulation machines in Wilwaukee are not collecting ballots correctly, some 38,000 votes have been cancelled and have to be recast.
#######23:40GMT
In 45 minutes the polls will close in Georgia. Joe Biden was the first Democrat to win Georgia since Bill Clinton in 1992. He carried the state by less than a quarter of a percent.
Georgia is a supreme example of the lingering racial divide in the politics of the Deep South. The state has a large population of African Americans as well as many White conservatives. John F Kennedy won this state in 1960 overwhelmingly by carrying both of these demographic groups. Since then no president has been elected with the support of both groups. Whether this is possible anymore remains to be seen.
If Trump loses here again he will almost certainly lose the election.
######## 2315 GMT
48 or the 50 states have a simple FPTP “winner takes all” system for electoral college votes. However Maine and Nebraska have split electoral votes. This means that whoever wins the state overall will take two votes but then one vote each for the individual congressional districts. There are two districts in Maine and three in Nebraska.######## 2252 GMT
@blokeingermany That is an excellent question. It will be difficult to determine based on the first state calls which will likely by states such as Vermont for Harris and Kentucky for Trump. However the first clues will be when we compare individual county results in those states. Trump needs to over-perform his 2020 showing by roughly 2% to be home and dry. I hope this answers your question. Let us know in the comments.########## 2240 GMT
The first states will close their polls at 7pm Eastern Standard Time which is midnight in the UK. These states include the key battleground state of Georgia. Half an hour later the polls will close in Ohio and North Carolina. If you’re a British observer maybe get some sleep now because it might be a long night.######## 1535 GMT
The United States elect their presidents not by direct popular vote but by the Electoral College. The largest state by population is California with 54 votes. Wyoming is the least populous state and has three. Votes are allocated by the total number of congressional seats a state has. California has 52 representatives and Wyoming only one, however both states have two Senators. There is a total of 538 EC votes so the winning number is 270.########## 0856 GMT
While this election is being fought in all fifty US states, in reality it is six battleground states who will decide who is the next president. Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Donald Trump needs to flip at least three of these to win however if Kamala Harris can hold five of them she will be home and dry.
########## 0741 GMT
I’m pinching myself slightly this morning, it’s been four years and today is the day. Now we just have 17 hours until the first polls close.
########## 0702 GMT
We are ready, gin is chilled, we have three screens going, markets, this blog and fox.
We’ve 10 pages of notes, maga hats and a flag.
Plus the Russians are next door 🤷🤫
########## 04-11-2024
Howdy! Richard here (webmaster of this parish). My friend Henry—who I’ve known for far too long—and I will be live blogging the US election tomorrow from 10 p.m. We’ll be covering the battlegrounds, offering live analysis, and tracking state-by-state swing numbers.
We’re out in Cyprus, so it’ll be a late one. Expect typos, a bit of drunken rambling, and our personal takes (which you may or may not agree with).
And a big thank you to Timmy for letting us witter on!
Thank you and goodnight!
We’ll update the state by state analysis later (or when the legal wrangling finishes in a weeks time!).
Thank you for the comments and thanks to Timmy for letting us ramble for 24 hours!
By goodnight what we actually mean is “pub”.
====
Trump is 47th – Kamala still hasn’t conceded.
Who chooses Tory candidates?
Late last year the Sunday Telegraph revealed concerns among senior Tories that Conservative headquarters (CCHQ) was attempting to ‘stitch up’ safe seats in favour of “blue prince” candidates aligned with Mr Sunak, ahead of an election expected this year.
More than 40 MPs, including Liz Truss, Suella Braverman, Sir John Hayes, and Jonathan Gullis, wrote to the Prime Minister urging Mr Sunak to stop an attempt to impose a “shortened” selection process for prospective MPs.
They are right to be concerned. In addition to his ‘duties’ as Number Ten’s resident psychopath on a 6-figure salary from Conservative Campaign Headquarters, Dougie Smith is listed as being on the candidate selection panel. In reality it is reported that he vetoes those he deems over sympathetic to Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, or to Conservative principles. He wants yes-men with unwavering loyalty to Rishi Sunak’s technocratic style of government to be selected as Tory candidates.
The Sunak team is concerned that Smith’s high-handed and centralized control of the selection process will alienate the Prime Minister from constituency Conservative committees who think they should have more say in their choice of candidates.
In disputes between the centre in CCHQ and the periphery in the constituencies, it is usually the centre that wins because that is where the power is and where the money is. Given a likely general election on November 14th, expect an 11-month drawn out tussle between constituency committees who want local and colourful candidates to represent them and Dougie Smith who wants candidates loyal to him.
For a full account of this, read the exposés that Nadine Dorries made public in her book, ‘The Plot,’ and in her subsequent articles and speeches.
Aunt Agatha Books: Now Available / Shipping
Its been some time since we announced that we were publishing Aunt Agatha as a booklet. We’ve had COVID, (more) Labour Party and Conservative Party incompetence and Putin.
The books have finally been delivered and will be contacting those who donated to send out their copies as soon as possible.
Those who donated to the project should login to their donation profile (linked above) and should find a request for postal details. We still have 60+ copies available. A simple donation gets you a book.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/continental-telegraph-network
Thanks
Rich, Tim and Team
23 Things…
I went out with a friend on Saturday who was reading a copy of Ha-joon Chang’s “23 things they aren’t telling you about capitalism”. He didn’t know that the ASI/Tim Worstall published a refutation of Ha-joon called “23 things we ARE telling you about capitalism.” Anyway, for anyone who hasn’t read it. Heres a free copy – LINK
Updated Digital Package
We had a great response to the first digital package we put out at the start of the lockdown so today we launched our second box. You can grab some of Tim’s books for free as well as other well known authors. Check it out HERE.
Digital Care Package
Over £100 of Free Goodies For Isolation.
Across the globe, we’re adjusting to a new reality. Socially distancing ourselves from loved ones and adapting to new routines, even if temporary, can be incredibly challenging. We wanted to take this opportunity to send you a digital care package. Below you’ll find over £100 of materials. A mixture of things we’ve curated, created, or just found helpful. We hope that, in some small way, it may help improve your mental wellbeing. Just click the gift below! Free goodies include books from the ASI, IEA and others plus some vouchers and free trials. Madsen has also included a copy of his PHD that was republished a few years ago called “Trial and Error and The Idea of Progress”.
– Tim & The Team (please help by sharing this on Twitter)
(We’d like to say a BIG thanks to The ASI, IEA and others who helped put this together)
Click ^ Here