When I try something new, days whizz past even faster.
Yep, doing the same thing, day in, day out, over and over and over again seems to make the days drag on and on.
What was that thing about the definition of insanity?
Laughing at the Canadian family (they bizarrely have MAGA up there, do they think they're just a US state?) who moved to Russia to get more freedom, then weren't welcomed with open arms, have their freedoms severely restricted, and only have temporary visitors visas and will have to leave soon. Some people act before thinking, or even act before failing to think.
Sadly, then expected the Canadian government to bail them out from their own stupidity.
I noticed that you have to reverse everything the Russian government says to get the truth. In this case: Russia is an extremist organisation. It works suprisingly well.
"It isn't confirmed until the Kremlin denies it" has been a truism for some time.
Pithy quotes prove nothing and often hide deception.
Margaret Thatcher said that while more or less giving away a ton of publicly owned stuff to indirectly buy votes. We now have a massive housing and water quality crisis (among other things) thanks to the conservatives running out of other people's money.
Meanwhile we've run out of the "other people's money" she got by privatising everything and we've no assets to show for it.
China hasn't been fully socialist since Nixon went to China. You can actually look at their GDP over time and spot where on the graph they started to implement market results policies. They aren't a fully free market society, but if they were they'd easily be the world's largest economy today. The CCP being unwilling to give up control of the country is holding the Chinese citizens back more than anything outside of the country might be doing.
Same story with other former communist countries like Vietnam which also instituted market reforms. Meanwhile countries that remained centrally planned (such as North Korea) have remained poor. Others such as Venezuela that went further down the path of Marxism have destroyed much of the wealth they previously had.
China (and Vietnam) have never been fully socialist. They were always "socialist lite". Maoism and Minhism didn't have the same anti-free market bend that Marxism and Stalinism did, they knew that they'd never get the market economy out of their societies so instead worked with it to control the excesses and ensure that they remained in power. Basically just let people get on with their day as long as they remember who the boss is. Communism in Asia has always been about ensuring the right people remained in charge.
Stalin at one point tried to eliminate currency and market economies from the Soviet Union (in the 30's if memory serves), it was the 2nd worse economic action he was responsible for.
The most controversial risk will be that of minors accessing their websites at all. They will be required to prevent it. There is no particular mandate on how, and I expect it will be fought in court, but ultimately their sites will be blocked in the EU except to those willing to give up their anonymity (or use a VPN).
The EU isn't the US with funny accents. They know that if kids see a boob they're not going be turned into malformed monsters.
That kind of Puritanism is the domain of US (and occasionally British) conservatives. Honestly, they'll be more concerned with copyrights.
Have you ever driven in an area that isn't flat? Constantly checking speed is taking your eyes off the road frequently.
At this point you've just admitted you're not fit to drive.
Checking your instrument binnacle (or your mirrors for that matter) for a second ever 10 seconds isn't dangerous and if you cant maintain a steady speed for 10 seconds without checking you really shouldn't be on the road.
People with their eyes glued ahead (most often glued to the bumper of the car in front) are amongst the most dangerous drivers.
I drive in the UK... it's not known for being flat. I also know my vehicle and how much I need to compensate for a gradient to keep a steady speed.
I'm not even sure of that. Its just like this stupid weird habit that Apple has always had of undergunning entry level macs for ram that went well back into the era when upgrading was as easy as it was for a pc. Its like they just cant shake the idea that Ram isn't a big deal when in reality it IS a big deal and as a Unix based operating system is more sensitive to ram than it necessarily is to CPU speeds for most non crunchy tasks. Sure the ridiculous speed SSDs means swapping isnt QUITE the drag it used to be, that also comes with the caveat that swapping on SSDs is a stone cold cycle killer.
Apple needs to figure out how to let macs do modular ram.
Erm, for Apple to do modular RAM, all they need to do is NOT solder the chips in. We've had modular systems for years (DIMMs). Apple has deliberately chosen not to use them because if it's easy to upgrade a computer with a new SSD and some RAM, how can they justify charging $500 more for the same model with more RAM and a larger SSD.
Contrary to popular opinion, 8 GB is more than enough for most people on Windows, for someone on a Mac where they do even less it should be plenty.
it's only retaliation if google was doing something illegal, it's perfectly legitimate to sign a contract
I think the bigger issue that firing them over this was legal. In most developed countries this isn't or at the very least, would require a hearing with the industrial relations authority.
Then again, in the rest of the developed world, protesting against your employer is usually done in the form of resignation.
Basically, Israel wants the land that Gaza (and West bank) sit on, and wants the Palestinians that are there right now either gone, or dead.
If this is true, why did Israel give Gaza to the Palestinians, forcibly removing Israelis, in 2005? Wouldn't it have been easier to keep it than to give it away and go to war to take it back?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza
If Israel just wants everyone gone or dead, why didn't they just bomb Gaza flat? Why do they bother "roof-knocking", setting up evacuation corridors, and sending their own troops into harm's way?
Is it a coincidence that Israel was in a cease-fire on October 6, only going to war after Hamas committed an act of war (killing over 1100 people, wounding many more, and taking 253 hostages)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_hostage_crisis
Shhhh, stop that, you're interfering with the HAMAS propaganda they're parroting.
BVR was not a failure in Vietnam. It was a political mandate in Vietnam not to use it.
BVR was a failure in a 1960s Arab-Israeli war, in particular I think against the Egytians.
With sufficient radar intelligence, I think AWACs in Saudi watched aircraft take-off in Iraq and tracked them, or sufficient rarity of US aircraft in a region, ie parts of North Vietnam, BVR works just fine. The failure in the Sinai (?) was due to the confusing number of outbound and inbound aircraft from both sides. A returning Israeli sortie being mistaken for an inbound Egyptian (?) strike.
BVR is all good and well until the enemy is no longer BVR.
This can easily happen on the battlefield if enough forces are arrayed of if intelligence is not there (Is military intel never wrong on the planet where you live). It makes sense to plan for this eventuality.
The Gulf war was a time where the US had both total air superiority and vast technological superiority. I'd be a bit more concerned about a country that can send a few hundred J-20s up in a sortie. Ukraine is a situation where both sides have total AA coverage from the ground.
Eventually, we won't have to put pilot's lives at risk. Just send a machine.
Before WW1, some predicted that machine guns would minimize casualties.
If one soldier could shoot as many bullets as a hundred soldiers, then armies would be much smaller.
In the long term, they were kind of right, automatic weapons lead to tactics to counter automatic weapons which emphasised cover and avoiding fire. No longer do we arrange troops into neat little lines and march them towards the enemy as we did in the grand old days.
I recently made a complaint to my country's regulators about my bank. A few weeks, later, the bank started nagging me to "verify my identity" as part of their "KYC" procedure. The bank threatened to cut off access to my account if I didn't comply. I had a quick look through the questionnaire on their website and decided the bank was asking for way too much information, most of it not relevant for a personal bank account. I eventually went into a branch (one of the few branches they haven't closed down to save money) and showed them an ID.
Lessons learned:
1. These KYC programs is not just to target shady money launderers. Large corporations can and do use these tools to harass and intimidate innocent people.
2. If the bank wants you to log into their website (or use their app) to do anything above or beyond simply paying a bill, don't do it. Go the branch in person, even if it's a hassle.
3. Keep a few bucks in cash in case the bank maliciously cuts you off. They'll call it an "error" and it will probably get fixed eventually.... but you'll need to eat in the meantime.
4. Banks are not run by nice people. Banks don't deliver profits to their shareholders by being nice to the their customers.
This is one reason why you should never keep your money in one place, or even one format. This is why rich people don't even keep much of their cash in the same country.
I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.
It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.
The most straightforward approach to safeguarding homeowners and discouraging criminals involves asserting that while a burglar remains on your property, you bear no responsibility for any harm that befalls them. Eliminate the self-defense prerequisite if the intruder is injured or killed after unlawfully entering your premises. In such harrowing circumstances, where adrenaline surges and panic sets in, homeowners find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their homes and families. The law as stated seems to be designed to protect the criminal.
LoL, no.
the most straightforward approach to safeguarding homes and persons is to have a society where people aren't forced into crime due to systemic poverty. Amazing isn't it, prevention always works better than cure.
Castle doctrine only results in it being abused as murders aren't investigated so you can literally get away with murder by making sure it occurs on your own property. This is the kind of law that favours the criminal by giving them carte blanche
I think most people are just offended by the almost automatic arrest of someone who acts in self defence. But this is really a procedural matter - it might seem really obvious that the person was acting in self defence, but the police cannot just make that assumption at the outset, especially in serious cases involving a death.
It's also a side effect of the creeping ideological position that if you are arrested you're probably guilty, and hence there is no reason to fund decent remand prisons, legal aid, and a justice system that can resolve cases in a timely manner. That attitude's all fine until someone who is probably a victim gets sucked into the justice system and it becomes apparent how your punishment begins long before you ever make it to trial.
As a UK resident trained in self defence, being arrested as a matter of procedure is a good thing and were I ever in a situation where I had to defend myself I'd happily go along with it. Being "arrested" is a bit of a misnomer because it conjures up images of being dragged off in chains by a sneering bobby where as in reality it's more of a "Sir, we need you to come to the station with us to make an official statement". Being arrested does not mean you're automatically charged with anything, when you stop reading the Daily Mail you'll quickly find out that most people aren't even charged because the self defence, defence is so bleeding obvious it's just not worth anyone's time.
There are two main reasons and one minor one why I'd completely co-operate with the Rozzers if I ever had to violently defend myself.
1. I'll be pretty badly shaken up and you'd be completely retarded if you weren't. I'd likely have a minor injury as well. Cops in the UK will have someone at the station trained to help you or at the very least offer you a cup of tea.
2. It lets me get my story straight (as an act of self defence) from the very start and very much on the record. If it ever goes to court, this is a huge advantage for anyone claiming self defence. Conversely if I didn't co-operate with the police it would look quite bad in the eyes of a judge or possibly even a jury.
And the minor one.
3. Whoever I beat up or harm might come back with a few mates looking for payback, I'd rather not be there if they do.
The actual law on self defence in the United Kingdom is considerably less alarmist than the tabloids would have you believe. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime. The other big misconception is "reasonable force == no more force than absolutely necessary" where as in reality the law understands that under such a stressful situation people cannot be relied upon to know exactly how much force to apply, so there's a lot of leeway, the excessive force clause is only there for things that are very, very egregious (I.E. striking them a few times unnecessarily is not considered excessive, taking them outside for a curbstomp is). Generally the only "gotcha" is if the perp is trying to escape, let them. Don't chase after them. If you do then it's two counts of assault and you only get to claim self defence for one.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
