The fact not many launches happen from continental Europe has nothing to do with capabilities of the space industry or lack of expertise, but rather location.
Europe is far from the equator and densely populated so rocket launches from there are more costly, and failures can have a higher risk to life.
Arianne space has had 350+ successful missions after 45 years of operations, with most of those launching from overseas territories.
I don't understand the one country vs all of Europe - given a fixed population, being united in a single country surely makes everything a bit more efficient than being split in many small countries? India is much bigger than "all of Europe".
Alphabet is operating and expanding the only fleet of fully autonomous vehicles in the world, to rave reviews.
The first contact with AI most people have is Gemini. And their net income went from $74B to $100B to $132B in 3 years and profit margin from 24% to 32%.
Mediocrity and irrelevant are hardly how I would describe them.
You could interpret the comment as a prediction based on the same pattern of overwhelming internal bureaucracy impacting engineering innovation. Control swinging entirely over to finance and legal. Focused entirely on rent seeking and protecting monopolies.
and it's going to be like that for decades unless november there's a broad sweep of offices and the other party actually exercises power for once and prosecutes politicians criminal behavior instead of that infuriating clemency nonsense they always do.
I'm betting they'll get elected and then sit on their hands as hard as possible calling it a "return to normalcy", fight their constituency, insist on doing absolutely nothing, and then get kicked right back out 2 years later and whine about people not voting for them.
The change has to be sweeping. The current people in power doing crypto pump and dumps: Internet trolls posting rage-baiting AI slop as official government communications as like the FDA and the CDC, then betting on polymarket about who they're going to bomb, teenaged 4chan trolls ctrl+f'ing for keywords to cancel things like cancer research because it has a "woke word" like "diversity" in published medical literature, these should be structurally impossible from getting near power again. Don't ever forget this happened. There's no undo. Decades down the drain.
I suspect the people of Greenland won't ever trust Americans again.
This isn't just going to go away. You can't just undo what Orange Mussolini is doing, and it'll take far longer than a decade before anything like a trusting relationship can be reestablished.
As someone in Blighty just add it to the pile of existing issues with the US and its current government.
Unless the US gives significant military aid (or outright joins them) the Argentinians can't take the Falklands, They are much more heavily defended than they were in the 80's (in fairness it would be hard for them to be less defended than that).
This is just the usual "Things are fucked at home, Distract them with the Malvinas Again" they pull periodically, it's to appeal to his domestic base - about all we (the UK) should do is state it's not a matter for debate and dust off the "If they do the stupid thing again" plans we already have and then carry on.
Bigger problems in the world for us than the Malvinas.
As a European, that would change nothing for me. The issue is systemic disinformation, fundamental lack of empathy and all those echo chambers. As long as this exists, the current situation will repeat or get worse.
Edit: look, see? About the barbarity of sniping (the counterargument to the at least two hitters at time of edit is not the post from lyu07282). My post is obvious and direct - friend of mine met only days ago a minor intellectual stating that voting the current administration in the usa was "right" given the opponents, and it is one of a long series of encounters. That the acquaintances of the friend were insulted or not in response is irrelevant. That a regime gave power to another out of evident faults is a fact, and if the reaction of some is ventral - "oooh! boo!" - the highway downwards remains paved.
There needs to be some set of adults who take this lawless criminal hijacking of the government seriously for what it is.
This is clear as day, not a matter of politics. It's just clear crime. The material evidence is irrefutable and indefensible and it happens multiple times a day.
I don't think it's going to be paper-thin. Paper-thin would be a move of five to ten seats. This doesn't feel like that. This feels more like 30.
All that's going to do, though, is mean that Trump can't get anything through the legislature. The legislature can't get anything passed, either, because Trump can veto it. So he's going to rule even more by executive order, because he won't be able to get cover from Congress.
Any real change will have to be after 2028. The Democrats are likely to hold both houses and the presidency, unless they absolutely blow it (which they could). That's the one chance. If they don't enact concrete change by 2030, then this will be normalized, and the next time it happens will destroy any remains of actual democracy in the US.
Why 2030 instead of 2032? Because there's likely to be a backlash in the election of 2030. There always is. The Democrats may not have the power to do what needs done after 2030.
Mitch McConnell holding the seat then railroading in a judge is bad faith cheating and we can't be constrained by procedure and let bad faith actors get away with cheating.
Revoke the appointments and change the rules. SCOTUS isn't some unquestionable papal position with divine right.
The wild corruption of accepting gifts from groups arguing on the court and then using Galaxy brain weasel language to claim it doesn't count. No. Every person in prison has a reason why the law shouldn't have applied to them.
Are we a nation of rules or aren't we?
You follow the rules and maintain integrity of your oath or you're kicked to the curb.
And calling this a both sides political thing is the most tired dodge I've seen. I'm tired of the bullshit excuses why someone with a Trump has can rob bank
it's not about legislation and veto, it's about exercising congress's prosecutorial power. I don't want to hear any weak kneed bullshit about "well they'll do it to us".
Don't ever take that bullshit. Nobody else is doing anywhere near the wild level of criminality. Seriously, all this procedure stuff around groups that are breaking the law is insane.
It'd be like if a policeman saw someone rob a place, put the things in the car, and then the thief says "oh but there's a no looking in car rule" and then just drives away.
This is all complete insanity. Charge these people with the dozens of crimes they are committing every day.
It's cute that you think power is going to change hands in November. It'll be his reischtags fire. He's already planning to send ice to police the elections and only in places he's bound to win will people be voting.
Sorry but no "unless" left IMO. China has been and is still gaining momentum in every strategic matter, and they are very probably going to lead from now on.
What I am curious about is how that global leadership is going to change them, from citizens to government.
> and it's going to be like that for decades unless in like november or so there's a broad sweep of offices and the other party actually exercises power for once and prosecutes politicians criminal behavior instead of that infuriating clemency nonsense they always do.
European here. I've written about that on Reddit but can't find it because the search there is dogshit so I'll have to write from memory...
We will not trust the US again any time soon, and so is our position regarding the UK. What both of you did, and especially how you got there, is an appalling history, a tale of a completely subverted democracy, and most importantly of a system that never got forced to be updated to centuries of learnings, unlike virtually all developed countries who underwent sometimes multiple wars, revolutions or the occasional peaceful democratisation.
Before we trust you again, you must undergo what we Germans had to post-1945. You have to update your constitutions, yeet out the fossil crap that in no small part led to the situation (FPTP voting, media regulations, in the case of the US making voting either a holiday or move it to Sunday like everyone else), prosecute not just the corrupt politicians but also the oligarchs that backed them, introduce an educational system that is actually worth the name to prevent the youth being corrupted, and demonstrate for many years that you can be trusted again.
Trust is easy to tear apart. All you need is a buffoon shitting in his own diapers [1] or a bus littered with propaganda [2] and a dumbass uneducated populace. But it takes decades and/or immense suffering to (re)build. And for both the US and the UK we gave you not just one chance to show you're better, but multiple. The US first had Bush wo tried to rope us into the Iraq war with his WMD lies, then after Obama came Trump 1, and after Biden came Trump 2, and the final straw regarding the UK and its ever more braindead PM choices was Lettuce Liz [3].
The AfD, which became Germany's top-polling political party for the first time last year, is now the clear leader in polls. It may soon win an absolute majority in a German state election.
The far-right is also widely projected to win the 2027 French presidential election:
And Switzerland seriously considered immigration restrictions much harsher than anything contemplated by the US.
It's interesting to see how leftism changes as you cross the Atlantic. In the US it's usually baseless moral self-flagellation; in Europe it's usually baseless moral preening. In neither case do the facts seem to be particularly important.
"we gave you not just one chance to show you're better" is such a fascinating thing for you to say. For years our leaders told you to be less dependent on us. Now you're speaking as though your dependency on us was some kind of favor you were doing for us. It's mind-blowing how out-of-touch you guys can be.
Please elaborate, whats so strict about Switzerlands restrictions? Why shouldnt a country be allowed to limit the people they want to have from immigration?
(Exercise for you: Try to get a passport from Liechtenstein, even if you work there permanently for a Liechtenstein company, its unlikely that you can even rent an appartment there!)
>Please elaborate, whats so strict about Switzerlands restrictions? Why shouldnt a country be allowed to limit the people they want to have from immigration?
Precisely. Why is it that people only clutch their pearls with horror when this principle is applied to the US?
I suspect because we don't regularly hear of masked armed thugs in Switzerland beating up, sometimes killing or throwing into concentration camps innocent people who were looking to immigrate.
Nothing wrong with making immigration laws strict, if that's what a country wants.
That is totall fine.
But there is no justification to beat people up, kill them or throw them into concentration camps. Just tell them no in a professional manner and politely send them back to their own country (also, not some random contry they haver never been in).
As an American, I don't necessarily want the US to be trusted. I want foreign governments to put pressure on us to stop developing omnicidal AI. The sooner the "rogue AI agents" conversation links up with the "USA is untrustworthy" conversation, the better.
I'm not as optimistic as you are, because a component of the rightward shift is the international collaboration of the respective movements' leaders. For example, US republicans closely worked together with Orbans party and Germanys AfD, exchanging strategies and such. This is also reflected across the media landscape in these countries - when new fabricated talking points pop up across US conservative spaces, it usually takes 2-4 weeks until the same talking points are repeated by many German right-wing media outlets.
Of course these alliances won't survive forever, as these movements have to continually expand their definitions of "out-groups" to keep their core "in-groups" satisfied, since they keep making their countries' issues worse by attempting fixes that are easy, simple, and wrong. But when a movement is built around the rejection of any uncomfortable history or research mixed with a huge dose of anti-intellectualism, it is fundamentally incapable of ever reflecting and learning beyond what the personal gain of their leaders.
Why do you think so? The US funding won't suddenly stop, especially given how much the GOP hates the EU. Plenty of other rich people too.
Unless there are objectively good reasons to expect this we must stay vigilant, since if we gamble on infighting and it goes poorly, the consequences could become horrifying.
yup, but the utter majority of foreign funding that was found in the AfD and the other far-right parties' scandals came from Russia. The propaganda they spout comes straight from Russia. The bot farms amplifying their propaganda are mostly Russian.
Sure, the US MAGA network, the super riches (Musk, Thiel, ...) aren't to be underestimated. But they are breaking apart already and without a cohesive force connecting them, they will be much less powerful.
Sure, so far the funds came from Russia, but the US government has openly talked about increasing their funding.
I don't think that their propaganda is fully dependent on Russia. IMO their strategy was really easy to observe during/after the 2020 election: they do contentious things with barely any justification, then watch conservative social media spaces for explanations/justifications that users naturally share & amplify. From these options, they select ones advantageous to them, and then turn them into talking points. This machine doesn't need to get talking points from Russia! They just need a halfway charismatic leader to keep it going, especially due to my next point.
The bot farms are no longer needed thanks to AI! I guarantee you, they are already running plenty of bots themselves. And since these days most social media & news media companies are aligned with/owned by them, they can easily optimize their approach well enough to become dangerously effective.
I just don't see a reason to feel so safe about them breaking apart before major damage is done. Just look at how genuinely friendly Trump acts towards most highly authoritarian leaders, compared to the way he acts towards most other leaders. I assume they'll definitely break apart after e.g. the EU is broken up, because then the US will squeeze everyone else. But under Trump they're going to keep it up, as far as I can see.
Feel like there’s an opportunity for a faulty towers reversal where we apologise for Brexit, Boris and Truss. If it helps any, 48% of us wanted to stay. This Brit has a profound sense of wehmut. Seems like the whole continent is struggling with nationalism though, no? Hearing AFD is on the rise
> Feel like there’s an opportunity for a faulty towers reversal where we apologise for Brexit, Boris and Truss.
There certainly is, and I for one would certainly appreciate it. The problem is, with Reform polling as high as it does... there is a pretty high chance that they torpedo any negotiations :(
Trust and trustworthiness. Trust is very hard to win back, once its gone. Trustworthiness makes you willing to rely on a partner. Trustworthiness only builds very slowly over prolonged periods of time, by consistently not betraying ones trust.
You write as if you have confabulated yourself into being Europe's official spokesperson. This is all a bit high-handed.
I'm not really sure how you are comparing Trump's US - responsible for pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, tearing up the Iranian nuclear deal and then starting a war to reimpose it that has created a global energy crisis, kidnapping Maduro and threatening to invade Greenland, beginning a global trade war, giving up on climate mitigation, nuclear treaties and AI safety - with the UK over the same period.
Liz Truss is not really Trump's equivalent. She achieved exactly nothing in the UK, let alone the world, in her few weeks in office. It's also worth pointing out she didn't win a general election: she became PM via the Conservative Party's internal selection process.
> I'm not really sure how you are comparing Trump's US - responsible for pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, tearing up the Iranian nuclear deal and then starting a war to reimpose it that has created a global energy crisis, kidnapping Maduro and threatening to invade Greenland, beginning a global trade war, giving up on climate mitigation, nuclear treaties and AI safety - with the UK over the same period.
The Brexit shitshow took years to resolve from the Brexit vote to the actual Brexit event and absolutely hogged attention all over the EU apparatus. We could have used the energy we had to expend on that crap (including trying to prevent a restart of the Ireland-related violence) to instead make the EU itself better, react to the multitude of crises happening during the time, or furthen the EU integration. But no, we had the constant noise of Brexit all the time.
> Liz Truss is not really Trump's equivalent. She achieved exactly nothing in the UK, let alone the world, in her few weeks in office. It's also worth pointing out she didn't win a general election: she became PM via the Conservative Party's internal selection process.
Which is even worse from EU perspective. PMs/Presidents changing every 4-ish years, okay, that's pretty standard. But it's hard to negotiate anything, knowing that your negotiation partner can get booted at any time.
Well, the only thing the Trump admin did that really hurt us was the tariff trade war and the Iran war. The rest sucked for those affected, but had little consequence for Europe, and so the prevailing attitude here is "we can't do anything anyway, why should it matter for us"...
When your nation voted poorly last time you picked a homicidal maniac who killed people in death factories. Americans helped you then, at extreme cost.
Trump pumps-and-dumps the world economy, but his approval rating is also below 1/3. Most Americans clearly don't approve, so why should we not trust them?
If all it takes for democratic nations to stop working together is that they elect a crook once, we're all doomed. Many european nations are very close to picking their own "Trumps" in the next elections.
In a democracy, any one crook's influence should be short-lived. That's the whole point of a democracy.
We need to help each other remain democracies, as the alternatives are so much worse.
That said, sometimes help comes in the form of removing the gold to say "you're out of line buddy".
Except they did. Votes for Grump in 2016 were completely understandable, sympathizable even. Responsibility for the train wreck of a first term didn't fall at the feet of the voters - it's explainable by one politician being an utter shitbag once in office. And for the most part our institutions did function to contain most of the (direct) damage.
But Grump 2024 was a known quantity. The votes in 2024 demonstrate that the average American is either proudly ignorant of the actual policies they're choosing (ie fully steeped in propaganda that hides/downplays the destruction), or actively malicious towards the rest of the world (while benefiting from a privileged international position). Neither one bodes well for future decisions, even if there is some political will to pull up from the current autocratic destruction.
And no, the "we didn't know how bad he was going to be" of a 33% approval rating doesn't make up for that. Grump was a known quantity for this election, and the only way someone could have "not known" is by actively rejecting listening to their fellow citizens. Which goes right back to willful ignorance.
>The votes in 2024 demonstrate that the average American is either proudly ignorant of the actual policies they're choosing
That's a simplistic take.
Trump had less than 50% of the popular vote even though his opponent was clearly showing signs of dementia. The last-minute replacement had spent too much time being the "defund the police/eat the rich" sidekick to Biden and was clearly not representative of the views of the average American. She still got almost as many votes as Trump, from Americans who wanted to vote "Not Trump".
Seems to me the average American had little choice. All the Democrats had to do was field a candidate that could finish a coherent sentence mirroring the average American sentiment and they'd have landslide victory. But they didn't.
> too much time being the "defund the police/eat the rich" sidekick to Biden
It seems like you're merely demonstrating one dynamic by which people are able to maintain that proud ignorance - buying into simplistic feel good narratives about the "other side" which swamp their reasoning capabilities, absolving them of responsibility for their decision. This is a large part of being "fully steeped in propaganda".
For the actual reality, Harris was a public prosecutor - essentially a police officer's best friend. Neither Biden nor Harris were looking to destroy the federal government. More than anything, they represented the status quo rather than this nonsense you're repeating about "defund the police/eat the rich".
I'm a libertarian who hadn't voted for a major party in a national election until 2020. I had to come to terms with getting older, more conservative, and having to holding my nose and voting for the corpo status quo. But it was the reasonable, responsible choice. I can most certainly understand people who stayed home or voted third party. But voting for the known quantity destructionist and rationalizing it with nonsense propaganda is exactly what I was talking about.
There might be an argument to be made that your argument could be used to placate the rest of the world if we manage to turn the ship around but without Constitutional reforms that would keep the destructionists from gaining power again - "we were tricked" may work yet again. But as far as the actual question, no, people who voted for Grump in 2024 should not be allowed to look away or disown the horrible mistake they chose to make. It is in fact a necessary part of any reconciliation process.
>For the actual reality, Harris was a public prosecutor - essentially a police officer's best friend.
That's not helpful though, as she also made multiple public expressions of support for the defund movement, the protests-turned-riots after the Floyd murder, and the BLM movement.
I can't help thinking that made her a weak choice for both sides of that divide. Is she the tough on crime option or the anti-police one? Where does she actually stand?
I think if she had gone all-in on the tough-on-crime track she'd still have gotten all the protestor votes, and perhaps also the "can we stop police brutality without burning cars" votes. Which I think is a sizable chunk, perhaps even the most common opinion on the matter.
Anyway, all this to say that the explanation for the current situation is not as simple as "half of all Americans are crazy and evil". Current approval ratings clearly say most Americans know they effed up.
My first response was to a German who clearly felt the US as a whole is a lost cause, without acknowledging that Germany is in the process of making the same mistake. I wonder if the Germans will realize they effed up as quickly as the Americans have?
Both sides of the atlantic are throwing stones from glass houses, when we should be cooperating. The dictators are rejoicing...
> Trump pumps-and-dumps the world economy, but his approval rating is also below 1/3. Most Americans clearly don't approve, so why should we not trust them?
because all it takes is for someone not as toddler-y as Trump to run for the job, the "moderates" in the GOP are mostly gone.
> In a democracy, any one crook's influence should be short-lived. That's the whole point of a democracy.
The problem is, Trump's influence will last for much much longer because y'all appoint your Supreme Court judges for lifetime.
> If all it takes for democratic nations to stop working together is that they elect a crook once, we're all doomed. Many european nations are very close to picking their own "Trumps" in the next elections.
The thing is, the US keeps electing warmongering crooks (Bush 1, Bush 2 and Trump all engaged in definitely illegal wars), and Trump was reelected by the populace despite literally attempting a putsch. In any decent democracy, this would have yielded him and the ringleaders a lifetime in prison, if not capital punishment.
To me it never made any sense. The buffalo hat guys clearly had no greater plan, and the BBC actually had to apologize for faking a clip to make it seem Trump ordered it.
The BBC spreads to all of the EU's other news outlets, so Europeans "know" there was a putsch attempt based on a fake clip. Literally fake news, which plays directly into Trumps narrative and adding to the teflon layer he seems covered in.
Exaggerations, bad faith reporting, assumptions of guilt based on hunches - that's counterproductive if you really want to hold power accountable.
It's very important that the accuser of a crook is not a known liar. Because then even the true accusations won't stick and the crook gets away.
Your post sounds like concern trolling to me. I'm not a European and I watched the whole speech in real time and it was clear to me that he was attempting a coup.
If you think the buffalo hat guy was a coup attempt, fine - I have no interest in defending Trump.
I just wanted to highlight a common bubble-truth that turned out to not be as true as many think. You may be convinced he tried a coup, but does the BBC story perhaps move the needle a little bit towards understanding how someone else might feel that maybe he didn't?
Accusations of trolling is depressing, but I appreciate you actually writing a comment instead of just smashing the downvote.
>nothing was "faked", the footage shown was of things Trump actually said
Of course he said the words, but not together as the sentence the BBC reported. The meaning was faked.
What the BBC did here was literally equivalent to filming someone saying "We should support Kamala and fight Trump at every opportunity" and cutting it to say "We should support Trump at every opportunity".
No honest person can accept that. No honest person can accept Trump either, for many reasons, but perhaps an actual coup-attempt is not one of those reasons.
We all live in bubbles these days, it's not easy. :-/
> We need to help each other remain democracies, as the alternatives are so much worse.
Trump and his cronies are openly attempting to break the EU apart via funding and amplifying right-wing movements across the EU. These movements are collaborating, sharing strategies and spreading the same talking points, while they're using their control over social media platforms etc. to suffocate our democracies.
I would love to be able to trust the US. But the guy currently pissing against everyone's legs was re-elected after an attempted Putsch. How could they ever remove all MAGA influence from all of society and government?
Even if the US proves me wrong and manages to turn the wheel around, I won't see the US as an ally again until 1-2 decades pass without republicans taking any control over the government.
> China handily beats the USA in the trust rankings in most of the world.
This can change quickly, as current management is less about comerce and more about "being the new Mao". If Russia can get Ukraine, USA can get Venezuela resources and threat Greenland, why wouldn't I get Taiwan?
At the rate Taiwan's superpower ally is declining, China just needs a little patience and a beneficent long term strategy & Taiwan will decide to switch ally's from self interest
Switch allies, to whom? The PRC? Do you realize PRC (Mainland China) and Taiwan are in a civil war? Taiwan switching allies to the PRC literally means admitting defeat.
Recall that Taiwan only exists because during the Chinese civil war, the United States provided the KMT with billions of dollars of military and financial aid. The KMT lost the mainland to the CCP (supported by the Soviets) and fled to Taiwan. The U.S. provided $4 billion dollars of aid, worth approximately $50 billion today.
The PRC would have retaken Taiwan decades ago if not for the U.S. guaranteeing Taiwan.
So continue in this line of reasoning - what happens as a currency strapped US turns inward and is more globally eschewed while making more common outright projections of regional power in the hemisphere of the Americas (while showing logistical failures in demonstrating cross globe power projection). Meanwhile China climbs the semi-fab ladder and Intel and even TSMC (re)builds its fabs in the US. KMT seems to maintain an intentionally ambiguous one-China policy. What are possible outcomes in the new state of geopolitics?
It's not changing the goalposts to recognize that the deterrents to China just stepping in to Taiwan are being undermined by US actions (some nothing to do with Taiwan). The value of Taiwan to the US as a counter to China's advancement seems in the latter stages of it's practical utility.
To answer your question perhaps one way could be for China to put forward a long term map to recognize the KMT as a party and unify as one China may years in the future. I would guess it would take a generation or even two to pass before that might happen and China would have to make the case that the people of Taiwan would be better off with the mainland rather than independent of it.
Specifically because China has now opportunity to gain international trust. Also, their own advancements in semiconductor manufacturing make Taiwan less attractive of an asset.
Why do people comment when they understand so little about the China/Taiwan issue? It has never been about semiconductors, that topic only exists as a post-rationalization of why the U.S. should continue to protect Taiwan against PRC takeover.
It has always been a legitimacy issue over who is the legitimate heir of the Chinese empire. China is still in a civil war. The communists (CCP) conquered the mainland and the former ruling party of China (KMT) fled to Taiwan. Taiwan is more successful than mainland China per capita on almost every standard economic and human development metric. It exists as a thorn in Beijing's side.
From the PRC perspective, reunification is a matter of national pride, and has nothing to do with semiconductors.
What's hyperbolic? The trust thing is borne out by repeated polling of which countries people trust. The current US administration is openly profiteering from governing.
I do think it'll take a few years before Americans wake up to how badly their reputation has tanked around the world across successive governments of either party in the recent decade.
Greenland, Iran, Falklands, Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, all these things probably feel like minor missteps in the US news cycle but they have had a major impact.
I was at a hepatology meeting focussed on fatty liver a couple of years ago, where a well regarded head of hepatology at a major national quarternary referral centre, joked that we should be putting this in the water supply...
Qantas is a troubled airline. Once a Qantas aircraft technician even told me that Singapore Airlines have a far superior maintenance schedule for their aircraft.
This person claims that he tells his family to avoid flying on Qantas ( but flies on it himself since he gets free flights)
These days Han airlines ( SIA, Cathay,China Eastern) and Middle Eastern airlines (Emirates,Qatar) are far better than Western Airlines ( American, British, Lufthansa, KLM,Qantas).
Please don’t post off-topic hearsay like this here. This article isn’t about maintenance, it’s about a manufacturing fault and the incredible work by the pilots to avert a colossal aviation disaster. Qantas continues to have an unblemished record of safety. Running airlines cost-effectively is a continually growing challenge. There is always a place for scrutiny of airlines’ maintenance and safety practices, but introducing it out of context and based entirely on an unverifiable comment from an unidentified individual is not a helpful contribution to this discussion.
The absolutely insane thing about it is not even the accident itself (most airlines have had accidents) but the way it is handled in their equivalent of FAA and the government. From how they delayed issuing the visas for Boeing and other representatives to how they STILL have not released a report.
great example of why I would avoid any PRC airline if I can help it.
(Presumably one reason they don't want to release the report is because it would lead many others to do the same and they want to protect their airline profits, but of course it ensures that the problem will not be fixed the longer they delay it)
Interesting thing to ponder: How much time, money, energy (et al) is being used in the (now) ever-escalating war between generating and detecting AI content?
This goes for HR, education, code review, on and on.
Nah, that is Hinduism as seen through the Western lens.
"Sanatana" in Sanatana Dharma means Eternal. The 4 cyclic yugas are well documented in every Sanskrit literature. We are currently in year 5127 of Kali Yug i.e. it started in 3102 BC with the departure of Bhagavan Krishna from earth after Kurukshetra war, which marked the end of previous yuga (Dwapara).
Kali Yug lasts 432,000 years. After which the next cycle begins.
Eventually after Brahma's lifetime is over, Pralaya occurs. Then the universe goes quiet for a long time, until Lord creates again. And this cycle of creation and destruction goes on forever.
There are lots of amazing Mac only apps, but I'm not sure simply running them on Linux would be worth it. Without the cohesiveness of the UI as a whole you'd be losing a lot.
For me it’s mostly media apps - Fireworks CS 6, Reason 10, maybe some version of Garage Band. There’s alternatives but these apps hit a sweet spot that I could camp out on for decades if the tech treadmill didn’t like to make software an exercise in seeing shifting shapes in the clouds.
> Is there some really amazing Mac only software that would justify the effort ?
As others said, the killer app is XCode. Even if you can technically get it to run, you'll still need the full support and test flows of a native solution, so you might as well follow the proper path and use a Mac.
I can get Visual Studio to run in Parallels today. I still test with a real Windows machine.
Both are generally most indulged in, by the intellectually and educationally less fortunate.
reply