The plot is delightful - what if carbon credits extinction credits were the new capitalist plaything? What second, third, and forth order effects would that have on the world? The worldbuilding is sublime - with an prescient look at the evolution of DRM, Smart Contracts, AI assistants, and targetted assassinations.

The characters are perfectly fleshed out and gradually reveal their motivations and insecurities:

one big thing about the socially normal was that they loved their social norms. Whereas Resaint couldn’t stand the politics, the niceties, the meetings where she had to spangle her expression and tone of voice with false enthusiasm just so people didn’t think she was a bitch.

There is a slight tendency towards Socratic dialogue as a means of exposition. The satire itself isn't exactly subtle - but when it has this many twists and turns I can forgive it for laying it on a bit thick.

The ending(s) genuinely shocked me.

The problem with satire is that it relies on current events. If you watch old Spitting Image episodes on TV half the jokes fall flat because you don't remember that particular scandal, nor that has-been TV star. The stage show simply can't react to current events because all the voices are pre-recorded! There's absolutely no room for the show to grow. The performers can't even pause for laughter.

The stage show gets around this by setting the "plot" in the week before the coronation. It sort of works. The story is an incoherent jumble of sketches and songs. Some of the satire is breathtakingly good - literally had the whole theatre gasping at their audacity. Other bits fall flat. In that way, it's very similar to the original TV show - when it works, it soars. But it does feel flabby. Again, if the voices were live they could react to the audience and work out what needs trimming or beefing up.

Some of the satire is a bit lazy. It isn't exactly the height of sophistication to refer to Prince Andrew as "Nonce Andrew" or having Greta Thunberg going into a lustful frenzy over Stormzy. They're obviously playing to the crowd of geriatrics who remember the 1990s show - John Major being grey and boring isn't exactly cutting-edge comedy.

We saw the 2nd night performance and there were still a number of technical glitches - mostly with out of synch sound - which really ought to have been resolved. The sound mixing isn't great - I felt like subtitles wouldn't have gone amiss.

Overall, Spitting Image is daftly entertaining. Silly songs, a pull-no-punches glee at shitting over everyone, and technical brilliance. It's let down by a ramshackle script and inability to reflect this week's news.

I must also add that the theatre experience is dire. The auditorium doors didn't open until a few minutes before showtime - which meant a few hundred people cramped inside the bars, unable to move. Unlike, say, Cabaret, there has been no thought given to the pre-show experience. They could have had some of the original TV show puppets on display, or a TV showing clips, or concept artwork or people to view. Instead there is... nothing. A lacklustre programme, the standard overpriced drinks, and no understanding that a modern audience is there for an experience as well as a show.

Oh, and the toilets were filthy, cramped, and over-capacity.

Theatres have to realise that the cost of a single ticket pays for a year's subscription to Netflix. The West End is a luxury and has to reflect a premium experience. Shovelling as many people into a dilapidated theatre and asking them to pay a fiver for a tiny tub of ice-cream doesn't cut it any more.

The show runs until 26th August 2023.

The speed of light is a universal constant. This "speed limit" is fundamental to everything we understand about physics. Information - when propagated via the electromagnetic spectrum - cannot travel faster than 0.3 Gigametres per second. There is no argument here. Every experiment conducted by our top scientists has confirmed it. There are no "warp drives" and no "worm-holes" and "quantum entanglement" is a bust. Simply put, information cannot travel faster than light.

At least, that's what we all thought…

Our advanced research lab have devised a testable hypothesis which they think will demonstrate how this can be violated. What is needed is a set of objects which change state immediately. When something happens to Object A, there is an instantaneous change in Object B. No matter how far apart, A⇒B is reliably instant.

To that end, we're raising funds to put our experiment into practice. We are going to send a team of scientists to the planet Mars. At its furthest, light takes 22 minutes to travel to the red planet. We will enact an action on A, and receive notification from Mars that they have noticed the effect on B. If the notification arrives in less time than it takes for light to make a round-trip from Earth to Mars (44 minutes) we will know that we have conveyed information faster than light.

Le mort saisit le vif

Let "Object A" be the current ruling Monarch. And let "Object B" be the next in line to the throne.

As per the Divine Right of Kings (James VI, 1598), accession to the monarchy is instantaneous. Often quoted in the pithy phrase "The King Is Dead - Long Live The King!" The moment that the old King dies, their heir becomes the new King.

Our plan is to send the current heir to Mars - along with a team of top scientists and theologians. The heir will be constantly monitored to ascertain the very moment they become our new King. When their supremacy is detected, the scientists will radio back to planet Earth. Approximately 20 minutes later, they should receive notification from us that the heir is now the King.

We do not need to engage in regicide, thankfully; the abdication of the ruling monarch also immediately triggers succession.

Towards a general theory of monarchy-based communication

There are several practical limitations with this approach.

Firstly, communication is uni-directional.

This is relatively easy to solve. A⇒B⇒C where A is the Monarch (remaining on Earth), B is A's heir (sent to Mars), and C is B's heir (remaining on Earth).

With a long enough line of succession, we could transfer individual bits back and forth between planets.

If we manage to solve the above problem, this would only provide for a bi-directional communications link.

If it is possible to detect the change in status of heirⁿ⁺¹ - that is, the heir's heir's heir - we may be able to distribute the Royal family across the Interstellar Empire. With a sufficiently large family of heirs, and precise enough equipment to detect each heir's position in the chain of succession, we would be able to communicate simultaneously across multiple planets.

Error detection will be a problem. Unfortunately, Monarchs sometimes die. Sometimes they are forced to abdicate. This means that an unintended communication may be transmitted.

Finally, we are only able to communicate a single bit of information. In order to make this a useful communications link, some pre-arranged codes will need to devised.

For example, the triggering of the Monarch protocol could be a signal that the home-world is under attack.

A more complicated protocol could involve, for example, days of the week. If the bit is transmitted on Monday, it means X. Transmitted on a Tuesday means Y. Etc. This would require precise time-keeping at both ends - something not always possible with relativistic travel between worlds.

Assuming that a planet had multiple heirs - e.g. heir^{1, 3, 5, 7, 9, …} - they may be able to send a complex message by choosing which heirs renounce their position. Note that a lower number heir abdicating would automatically remove their descendents from eligibility to the throne.

We are confident that all these problems can be addressed - given enough time and funding

Back our Kickstarter!

Elon Musk has generously agreed to allow us the use of a SpaceX rocket at cost. We need your help to raise enough money to send our scientists, theologians, heirs, and equipment to the Martian base.

Every Kickstarter backer will earn their place in history by helping to create superluminal communications. We can only do this if we all work together.

And, if you're a member of a Royal family - please get in touch!

1. Reduced chance of having an affair while away on business
   • ⚤ Hetrosexuals only!
2. Won't accidentally mistake a CEO for a cocktail waitress
   • 💁🍸 embarrassing!
3. Excellent networking opportunities in the long queue for the men's toilets 🚽🚹
   • ⚣ Possible risk of inadvertent homosexuality!
4. Impossible to sexually harass people who aren't there
   • 📵 Still possible via social media though! 🤳
5. Getting blind drunk and pissing in a public fountain is unlikely to upset anyone of a delicate constitution
   • Watch out for lady-policemen! 👮‍♀️
6. No distracting breasts. Dudes never say "My eyes are up here!"
   • Pectoral muscles should be admired, obviously! 🏋️‍♂️
7. "Guys" is a perfectly acceptable term for a group of people.
   • Goes double if any of them are actually named "Guy"! 🤼‍♂️
8. The strippers you oggle at a supplier's exhibition booth don't have an intimidating amount of technical knowledge
   • Do double check they're not spies though! 👯‍♀️🕵️
9. All the t-shirt shwag will be properly sized for your manly body
   • Although you won't be able to bring one home for the missus! 👕
10. Chaps are just better!
    • ♂️♂️♂️

Look, do I need to spell out that this is satire? Well, it would be, if it weren't so terrifyingly real.

Morten Rand-Hendriksen is elsewhere

@mor10

Replying to @mor10"I always get drunk people hitting on me at after parties. It's incredibly uncomfortable. I'm there to network, not hook up."

---

Sarah

@fevered

Replying to @mor10@mor10 Yeah I can say this is a thing I expect now, which is sad! It sucks to go to tech conferences as a lady knowing someone, somewhere is going to hit on me. I'm just here for the technical information, dude.

---

Kay L. Kirkpatrick

@kay314159

This. I’ve been mistaken for a waitress at a conference. (In which I gave a plenary talk.) x.com/laura_boykin/s…

---

Faintdreams

@faintdreams

One of the few upsides of being a woman at a Tech conference is that during breaks there is never a queue for the toilets..

---

Phoenix Perry

@phoenixperry

Hey guy friends, I just want to say that if you came onto a woman at a conference and it was not welcome, you owe her an apology. I have so many bad memories of this happening to me again and again in my 30's that now I'm in my 40's I still hold a grudge. I hope you all grew up.

---

manwhohasitall

@manwhohasitall

"I'm not hung up on being called a 'firewoman' because I know it covers both women and men." Sam, male firewoman #FirefightingSexism

---

MotherOfAdults🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🦄🐴

@poorponyowner

Replying to @manwhohasitall@manwhohasitall @caitlinmoran My mum was once described as a "lady policeman". And my ex, a charge nurse was once described as a "make sister" 😂😂😂

---

To men who splain me on how „guys” is gender neutral while purchasing a ticket to my conference—I will gladly void your ticket. Bye. Fantastic Ms Fox

Charlotte Jee

@charlottejee

@i4_1 The number of times I've been to a tech conference and found I'm the only woman there who isn't a 'booth babe' is truly depressing

---

ashe dryden

@ashedryden

I've decided I'm not taking shirts from conferences anymore unless they're women's fit. This "unisex" crap is terrible if you have boobs.

---

One in particular caught my attention. On the surface it seems to solve an important economic problem - art forgery and provenance.

By putting your artwork on the "BitCoin Blockchain", Verisart will ✨hand wavy magic✨ increase the trust in art dealers and reduce fraud.

That's a pretty neat idea. A distributed public ledger of who I have sold my art to. And, if they sell it, they have a cryptographically signed certificate proving its provenance. The seller can sign the certificate with their private key to say they've sold it to the new owner of a specific public key. Nifty!

Except… and I hate to bring the art industry into disrepute… what if I sell a fake and keep the original in my Underground Vault?

There's no way to permanently attach a digital certificate to a physical work of art.

Incidentally, this is the problem with all the startups claiming the blockchain will revolutionise the integrity of global logistics markets. Sure, you can slap a QR code on a crate - but nothing stops an unscrupulous middle-man from replacing or adulterating the contents of the crate.

Let's get back to Verisart's other issue. Proving that I am the creator or owner of a piece of artwork.

Long story short, I convinced them that I painted the Mona Lisa. An excellent situationalist prank. Much avant-garde, so postmodernism.

For this "proof" I provided Verisart with...

• An email address
• A photo of the Mona Lisa from Wikipedia
• …
• Er…
• That's it!

That was all that was required. I didn't have to provide them with a public key, a certified copy of my passport, a high resolution copy of the artwork. Nothing.

Because the blockchain is immutable, that "proof" is there forever now. You mustn't make mistakes when irrevocably signing something.

So, what does this mean? Can I waltz into the Louvre and ask for "my" painting back?

No, obviously not. Not even a moron in a hurry would think that I was a time traveller or that I owned the most famous portrait in Europe.

But, if it is certified on the blockchain, it must be true!

I'm sure there are many sensible uses for this technology. I'm also sure there are many investors who will throw money at any pitch which contains the right buzzwords.

It's almost as if we can't just throw technology at the social problem of trust…

Terence Eden is on Mastodon

@edent

I don't understand the blockchain hype.
A startup has certified my artwork & placed their verification on the bitcoin blockchain.
Now art dealers & auctioneers can feel secure that I am the original artist.

One small problem… I am not Leonardo da Vinci!
verisart.com/works/23f2c64a…

---

• Discussion on HackerNews
• Discussion on Twitter
• Discussion on BitsOnLine
• Article in The Economist

Feel free to add others.