Comment Good riddance (Score 1) 65
This was one of the few things I still used Chrome for. Just hope there are not stupid restrictions like not being able to access the serial API from local files.
This was one of the few things I still used Chrome for. Just hope there are not stupid restrictions like not being able to access the serial API from local files.
The pilot didn't know they were in the stall because the otherwise highly redundant system which should have warned him didn't work. Given what he could see, the aircraft was losing altitude, so he firewalled the throttles and pointed the nose up. If you don't know your wings aren't generating lift anymore, this isn't an unreasonable reaction.
This was one of the senseless crashes I've ever heard of. "But I've had the stick back the whole time!"
There was nothing reasonable about the crews reaction to it. This is right up there with Eastern Air 401.
The stock market is not gambling.
The stock market is a game of chance you win by gaining money and lose by losing money. Hence "playing the market". Many people consider the market a form of gambling.
You are provided with a wealth of information to make an informed investment decision which results in an undetermined reward
Ditto for horse racing and sports betting.
There's significantly less element of chance, and there's the ability to back out of your investment at any time.
Risk depends on what stocks you buy.
Compare that to actual gambling on prediction markets where you put a fixed sum in on some random thing you don't have consistent information about with the promise of fixed reward if by *chance* your guess was correct.
I don't think this kind of differentiation works. The prediction markets have mechanisms that resemble stock trading. You can for example buy and sell positions. This isn't a fixed decision you make once and that's it. You can change your mind as you get more information about whatever you are betting on.
By equating the two you make it clear you don't know much about one of them (or both of them).
I don't think relying on nebulous concepts like what is or isn't gambling works. It is a good approximation for humans to communicate in some instances but the details of legislation is what matters.
first let me highlight several issues with the central point of that argument just to get them out of the way: the claim "killing their own citizens" is not very well substantiated and much repeated with complete omission of the context: 1. a sizable portion of the deaths in those protests can be attributed to planted agitators, including shooting of protesters, one nurse burned alive inside a hospital set ablaze, and several policemen decapitated (just to illustrate the brutality). there is ample evidence of this and there is public admission by both israeli and us prominent figures that mossad (and one then would assume, also cia) were involved. 2. another sizable portion were those same agitators summarily executed. 3. this was done in reaction to a state of emergency after an all out attempt to destabilize the state: financial dirty games to suddenly debase the currency and agitators on the ground turning the ensuing protests into a bloodbath. 4. iran has death penalty (which i'm opposed to) but i'm sure due process wasn't strictly followed and it's likely that innocent people were put down too, which is abhorrent
Always the same rhetoric. Agitators, Mossad behind everything and of course all the numbers are bullshit even though up to 30k dead was a figure that came from officials in the regimes own health ministry.
"As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the countryâ(TM)s Ministry of Health told TIME"
https://time.com/7357635/more-...
Doctors and nurses attacked, murdered, dragged out and raped while treating patients. Patients shot in the heads in their hospital beds.
but has to be understood (not justified or condoned) in a context of a state of emergency an existential threat: toppling the regime was the declared and admitted intent. if you throw such a threat at a state it is going to react.
What state of emergency? Millions of unarmed people were out in the streets protesting enmasse for over a week since late December triggered by the economic crisis. The regime only decided to start massacring unarmed civilians enmasse on the 8th. If protesting is an existential threat then you are justifying massacre while saying you are not justifying massacre.
do you really believe this is a casus belli worth launching a massive bombing campaign, killing scores more civilians and causing huge devastation on a country thousands of miles away with far-reaching consequences not only on the region but the whole planet, with no clear objective other than claiming (dubious) "justice" (in your case), after having disregarded (if not endorsed (if not actively contributed to)) far worse violence against innocent civilians on multiple occasions on several places, furthermore implying huge risks for the entire world that were entirely known
Getting rid of the Iranian regime has only positive implications for the world especially when coupled with Russia losing its global influence as it continues to wreck itself in Ukraine. For decades the region and the world has been terrorized by Iran relentlessly "exporting the revolution". Assad is gone, Hezbollah on the way out of Lebanon, Houthis losing their support, Arab states normalizing relationships with Israel, Hamas death cult in Gaza cut off and bye bye assistance to the Russians to wage their failing bloody war of conquest in Ukraine.
regime change: this very obviously failed, even with such treacherous, dirty and brutal tactics: iranian regime is stronger than it ever was, and now has huge popular support.
This must be why they imported over 5k of their foreign proxies into Iran and are having trouble paying and feeding their own forces because "stronger than ever"? BTW where is Mojtaba? Do they even have a leader? Remnants of the regime seem to be quite busy fighting each other.
If the regime has huge popular support why not flaunt it? Why are they instead silencing their own people by keeping the Internet shut down? Wouldn't it be better for the world to hear from Iranians how much they now support the regime and hate Americans following massacres of tens of thousands of Iranians?
nukes: iran has for decades made clear that they will not pursue nukes, explicitly for 2 reasons: 1. weapons of mass destruction are immoral (i'm an atheist, but i can see that having some religious leadirship can have some advantages)
Since this all started regime people involved with JCPOA came out and publicly admitted of course they were going for a nuke. Other regime folks have subsequently publicly made their intentions clear following the Feb 28th attacks. I was a big supporter of JCPOA as it would have credibly kicked the can down the road many years into the future. That's gone now and we have to live with the world as it is. Nukes are a valid reason for regime change now even though it was a problem of the orange clowns making.
The violence in the Middle East dates back to the early Bronze Age.
Violence on earth predates history. All anyone has to do is draw whatever arbitrary box suits them regardless of actual merit or nexus to present day reality.
The violence did not start in the 1970s, it didn't even start with Islam. It predates all of that.
Blaming individual X or modern event Y is to ignore the violence and open warfare leading up to those.
Yea "the violence" started long before there was either a calendar or written history. It all started with the monolith or Cain or whoever.
Recall what you said "Equally, this is a war that has been going on for the past 4,000-5,000 years now without showing much sign of anyone coming to their senses. This might not be enough to push everyone else over the edge."
Thousands of years of history should be materially relevant to the present and it should be explainable.
One genocidal Syrian despot has been replaced with another genocidal Syrian despot. IS is back on the rise. Egypt is a military dictatorship. Libya went from military dictatorship to perpetual civil war. The Arab Spring was ultimately crushed not because of a hatred of freedom but because the entire region is riddled with corruption.
Are you saying corruption is the reason for the 4,000-5,000 year war?
" I don't know if you are really that ignorant or what your malfunction is." This is where the conversation ends because when you have to make your point by being personally insulting, im done and owe you nothing.
I have no other words to characterize idiocy like "A 5000 year old country doesnt forget its roots or what a brutal dictatorship they were ruled over by the Shah for 26 years" so yea if the shoe fits wear it. I provided objective reasons to support my characterizations of your remarks. You on the other hand have nothing substantive to say and can't support your positions. You are just wasting everyone's time.
The NY Times and youre calling me ignorant...quite hilarious but dont get your narrative in the way of a good story.
Your statements were factually incorrect. What is your issue with the NYT article? Are there any facts in it that you dispute? If so which ones? Do you dispute Mossadegh held a sham referendum that got 99.96% of the vote to give himself powers he was not constitutionally entitled?
There is no definition of coup that includes someone with the constitutional right to do something legally doing that thing. This would be like saying had Nixon not resigned and was impeached and the removal vote succeeded he was ousted in a "coup". That isn't a thing and makes no sense. The king always had the power to remove Mossadegh and he exercised it on Aug 15th 1953. This is an indisputable fact. A coup is when a member of the state exceeds their authority to gain power they are not legally entitled. Nothing like that happened.
As for the CIAs involvement it is way overblown. There was real popular support for the king and this at is how he won the legitimacy contest with Mossadegh who was convicted and jailed for three years for his illegal coup attempt. The CIA absolutely had plans and tried to help the king but their role was minimal. The real power came from a coalition of Iranian supporters who won the day.
Why yes he did. Iranians were perfectly peaceful to the rest of the world despite arguing a lot at home.
Your ignorance is beyond words. The Iranian regimes raison d'etre is literally "exporting the revolution". It has wreaked havoc thought the region for decades doing exactly that. The fact Iran is the worlds leading state sponsor of terror is not merely an empty slogan.
The regime has the blood of the entire region on its hands in addition to oppressing and massacring its own people while severely lacking any internal legitimacy. I hope they get wiped out.
Your gasoline is now more expensive because Iranians turned against you.
The Iranians are Trumps and BiBis biggest fans.
If you can't beat em might as well join em. Everyone should just create a network of spy cameras
The US has used a tiny fraction of its power in Iran. They could bomb the place into rubble if they wanted to, but that isn't the goal. The goals are: No nuclear weapons, stop funding terrorists all over the world, stop threatening their neighbors and international shipping. Iran has a well educated population and natural resources that would make them a very prosperous country but they are ruled by thugs.
The only goal that matters is regime change.
In 1953 was Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was ousted with the aid of the US government which is an act of war
You are spewing raw unadulterated nonsense.
The king ousted Mossadegh because he was perusing a coup against the state to install himself as a dictator. What the US did do was run a largely ineffective propaganda campaign the CIA itself considered a failure and pulled the plug on against Mossadegh. It consisted of acts like buying up radio ads, printing fliers, paying people to show up and protest/shit on Mossadegh whose popularity was already in decline.
The king didn't require the assistance of the US government to oust a prime minister. According to article 46 of their constitution the hiring and firing of ministers is by royal decree and firing is exactly what he did on Aug 15th 1953. Only the king can hire ministers. Parliamentary votes for new ministers required the kings consent.
For anyone confused about the history I recommend this article from Aug 4th 1953 on the NYT archive.
"A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadegh in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the country."
https://www.nytimes.com/1953/0...
the Shah was overthrown and the US embassy destroyed when the Iranian government took prisoners and were portrayed in the media as savages.
Savage is exactly what the dark age nonsense known as Khomeinism is.
A 5000 year old country doesnt forget its roots or what a brutal dictatorship they were ruled over by the Shah for 26 years
FFS during the massacres of Jan 8th and 9th millions of people were chanting long live the king and writing the kings name in actual blood. I don't know if you are really that ignorant or what your malfunction is. The Iranian regime does not have legitimacy and has done nothing but shit on Persian culture going so far as preventing newborns from having Persian or non-islamic names.
We could well see a genuine Middle East Union of nations that simple says enough is enough and clears the deck of all warring parties in the region
Over a dozen nations in the region were just attacked by Iran. It has lead to increased isolation of Iran.
Equally, this is a war that has been going on for the past 4,000-5,000 years now without showing much sign of anyone coming to their senses.
The war started with the imposition of Khomeinism in Iran which is just as incompatible with the world as the imposition of Nazism in Germany.
My hope is that the current wars being fought, all of which are mindboggingly expensive and stupid beyond all possible definitions of sanity, have a similar result as WW1 and WW2
This requires Nazis losing the war.
The people who incessantly repeat "there is no place for political violence in America" seem to forget that the country's fight for independence began with acts of political violence.
Even there diplomacy preceded revolution.
The current war and upcoming $1000/mo typical residential utility bills is what's driving me. And the math on a Carrington Event.
I know of three other people who are off-grid capable in my network of high hundreds of households.
Remember to buy only AGMs so EMPs won't fry the BMS.
You have failed already if you are relying on a single form of energy generation. Try again.
Solar is the only practical renewable accessible to mortals. Wind is amazing at utility scale yet sucks otherwise. Hydro and geo are inaccessible to most.
No, I have redirected from your denial of suggesting wood burning to the alternative of renewable energy. fossil fuel in general. If not one then it is the other.
I can't parse this. I don't know what you are trying to say. Again I've neither argued for or against wood burning. I simply pointed out the facts of limited utility of renewables WRT winter heating. Your statements are not connected to anything I actually said.
The nexus is simple: if you aren't using renewable energy then you are supporting polluting.
What is simple is the fact I have not offered any support or opposition to anything. Apparently this is too challenging a concept for you to grasp. Stop listening to the voices in your head and read what was actually stated.
Also your claim is flat wrong. For example nuclear isn't renewable and yet its use results in far less air pollution and GHG emissions than solar.
Polluting has additional costs to it that you have failed to incorporate into your concept of economic feasibility.
This is getting very old. Please stop putting words into my mouth. I pointed out the fact use of solar is economically infeasible for heating during winter. I have not advocated for solar or any alternatives and have no duty or interest in providing a comparative analysis or adding up all externalities to your or anyone else's satisfaction.
Truth is free, but information costs.