My grandmother cries when describing the poverty they lived in when she was a child (1930s) in Newcastle (Northern England). Nobody had it easy in the past.
Well done for falling for the propaganda that racially divides people and is frequently sold by activists to people like yourself who seem to have bought it.
People of all colours and creeds will try to garner sympathy from the other group by claiming how disadvantaged they are. The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.
These people constantly bring up slavery that happened during the colonial period but they never mention what is currently happening in Qatar where foreign workers building the world cup stadium are effectively slaves. This is happening today not over a hundred years in the past, if they feel so strongly about slavery why aren't they shouting from the rooftops about this?
That is why I know this is done because these actors (quite rightly I believe) think it will give them political power because they will claim they have no representation while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in.
> Well done for falling for the propaganda that racially divides people and is frequently sold by activists to people like yourself who seem to have bought it.
This crosses into personal attack. That's not ok here, so please don't. Also, please don't get sucked into flamewars, regardless of how annoying another comment is; they're tedious and off topic here.
??? What does that have anything to do with the comment you replied to?
> The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.
And yet the people at the "top of society" disproportionately come from a just a few of those groups. :thinking-emoji:
> ... what is currently happening in Qatar ...
Classic whataboutism. We can care about multiple things at the same time.
> while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in.
Minorities have much better access and representation in media today than they did in the past but it's still far from equal, particularly on the business side which has major influence over our media because that's where decisions are made about which projects get funded and which don't.
> ??? What does that have anything to do with the comment you replied to?
Absolutely everything. This myth there hasn't been representation of minorities or women completely neglecting the fact that there has been plenty going back to mid 20th century.
> Classic whataboutism. We can care about multiple things at the same time.
Not at all. Slavery in Qatar is happening today, not in the past. The past can't be changed, but we can try to improve the future.
> Minorities have much better access and representation in media today than they did in the past but it's still far from equal, particularly on the business side which has major influence over our media because that's where decisions are made about which projects get funded and which don't.
Do white people have equal representation in Thai Cinema? What about rich white people always playing the bad guys there? This is a lie that is constantly sold to constantly sow racial division and people like you trot it out over and over again. All it does is divide people and allow both Black and White racist to whip up hatred.
> Not at all. Slavery in Qatar is happening today, not in the past. The past can't be changed, but we can try to improve the future.
The effects of American slavery linger to this day. People are allowed to care about things that impact them more than things that don't, and for most descendants of American slaves the slavery that happened 150+ years ago (and the subsequent 100 years of Jim Crow) has a more direct impact on their lives than foreign labor exploitation.
> All it does is divide people and allow both Black and White racist to whip up hatred.
Can you please provide an example of black racism and explain how it has prevented white people from achieving equality with black people.
> The effects of American slavery linger to this day.
Do they? How?
> has a more direct impact on their lives than foreign labor exploitation.
Apparently slavery that happened over 100 years ago in a first world country where there is relatively good education (a friend of mine is married to a Cambodian woman and she didn't learn how to read until she was 16) is more important than the slavery that is happening all over the world today.
Why are you trying to play the oppression olympics? We can care about multiple things at the same time.
Re: the legacy of slavery, this USA Today article is a good starting point[1].
Additionally, it's plainly obvious that black Americans today have much less wealth than white Americans. When whites settled in the US they were often given farm land or brought capital from abroad to start businesses. Black slaves had neither. When they were freed most became trapped in sharecropping arrangements (often for generations) that left them with little wealth. White Americans also benefited much more from the social programs of the early 20th century, such as New Deal work programs or subsidized home mortgages (look up "red lining"), that helped build wealth.
Also, you did not provide an example of black racism (which you have referenced in at least two posts as being equal to white racism).
> Why are you trying to play the oppression olympics? We can care about multiple things at the same time.
Right I am no longer interested in talking to you. Pretending something is whataboutism when I am trying to bring some perspective is a nonsense.
As for your stats. I've seen stats that if Black couples get married and have a household they do just as well as White couples from a similar background (not I am not going to trawl the internet to cherry pick some proof).
>A lso, you did not provide an example of black racism (which you have referenced in at least two posts as being equal to white racism).
I never claim it was equal, I never claimed to know the proportions. TBH I am getting quite fed up of someone constantly putting words into my mouth.
Your claim this isn't whataboutism is interesting based on a quick reading of your comment history. It sure doesn't appear that you actually care about these other issues or you're just trying to provide 'perspective'. Think about the ideals you associate yourself with before complaining that people are putting words in your mouth.
Whitewashing the proud boys:
> The proud boys are a strange white power group when they have prominent black members.
Claiming UKIP aren't racist because they are 'normal' people:
> Have you actually talked to many UKIP supporters? I've spoken to UKIP when they knocked on the door and they seemed like pretty normal people.
(I'm sure they're normal, but they're also racists)
Claiming apparent race-baiting:
> As for the the actual article you linked, the author herself has nice race-bait titles of work
Comparing criticisms of historic oppression in science to Nazi Germany:
> There is also ideas of "Colonial Science" or "White Science" which reminds me of movement of removing "Jewish" Science and Mathematics in preference to "Aryan Science" before World War II.'
I might not call you a racist, but you're sure carrying a lot of water for them.
Clearly everyone has had it equally difficult and there is no grouping of peoples that get systemic mistreatment, evidence and statistics be damned.
Yes, people can have it hard. And people can have it hard out of proportion with their peers. This doesn't alter provable facts about sweeping populations.
> The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.
And just like your grandmother disproves any systemic problem by difficulty, any success by any individual does the same, proving that they cannot be an exception to the rule.
> while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in
I think if you dig a bit you'll find a lot of things you aren't seeing. And surely just one case will prove the whole, right?
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Also, would you please not post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment is? It only leads further into hell.
> Clearly everyone has had it equally difficult and there is no grouping of peoples that get systemic mistreatment, evidence and statistics be damned.
Never claimed that.
> Yes, people can have it hard. And people can have it hard out of proportion with their peers. This doesn't alter provable facts about sweeping populations.
I didn't claim it disproved anything. I was pointing out that life wasn't fair and there was poverty that you and I can't possibly fathom and it affected everyone no matter what the colour of their skin.
> And just like your grandmother disproves any systemic problem by difficulty, any success by any individual does the same, proving that they cannot be an exception to the rule.
Never claimed that.
It is really astounding that someone can spend so much time logic chopping and fail to understand what I was actually saying.
This lie of people having to be represented by someone of their own skin in a nonsense that is sold by activists to students to make them feel bad because of the colour of their skin. The person I was replying to had bought this nonsense.
The fact is unfortunately that racists (both white and black ones) will use this to further racially divide people about what happened in the past.
> It is really astounding that someone can spend so much time logic chopping and fail to understand what I was actually saying.
Perhaps because I was interpreting it in the context of the comment you were replying to (mine).
Poverty is devastating. True...and not related at all to what I said. I didn't mention economics or finances AT ALL save to mention that my comments were true regardless of my financial background. So if your comment wasn't in relation to what I said...but it was. There's an implied connection that I gave a rebuttal to, and in the face of that rebuttal, you deny the connection. That implodes my rebuttal...but leaves your comment without contextual purpose.
> I was pointing out that life wasn't fair and there was poverty that you and I can't possibly fathom and it affected everyone no matter what the colour of their skin.
Another true statement. And also unrelated to what you were replying to, unless you were trying put in the implied connection.
> This lie of people having to be represented by someone of their own skin in a nonsense that is sold by activists to students to make them feel bad because of the colour of their skin
Citation needed - at this point you're denying misrepresentation of minorities in popular media, which is such a well-documented problem and so obviously observable that your unsupported assertions would be laughable if the issue wasn't related to tragedy. Also - I don't feel bad for the color of my skin. At all. (Except when I get a sunburn) I _do_ feel bad for supporting a system that is systemically unfair, but the solution to that is not to deny the problem, nor to assume a vast burden of guilt that you assume I (and others) have taken on. The solution is to improve the system. To modify my support.
> Citation needed - at this point you're denying misrepresentation of minorities in popular media, which is such a well-documented problem and so obviously observable that your unsupported assertions would be laughable if the issue wasn't related to tragedy.
Sorry I don't see it. All through my life (I am almost 40 years old) there has been plenty of black people on the television and in films and most of the time it has been everything from Gangstars to Action Heroes.
> I _do_ feel bad for supporting a system that is systemically unfair, but the solution to that is not to deny the problem, nor to assume a vast burden of guilt that you assume I (and others) have taken on. The solution is to improve the system. To modify my support.
It isn't systemically unfair. You keep on asserting it is.
We live in a society that only really cares about your ability to make money i.e. produce. That is capitalism.
In the UK we had a black rapper head up the largest outdoor festival in England.
It's not hard to find actual numbers on representation of minorities in the media. Our anecdotes have more to do with our own blind spots than actual real life and don't prove anything.
"In the UK we had a black rapper head up the largest outdoor festival in England."
> Public transit is publicly funded. For improvements in safety, cleanliness etc to happen, the systems need (public) money.
All you are admitting here is that the Government can't provide a compelling alternative to a more expensive form of transport.
> But you will never pay fares because you're scared to take transit, and you probably would never vote in favor of a ballot measure to allocate more tax money to transit because you happen have a car and don't believe improved transit would benefit you anyway.
Why vote to increase spending on something that doesn't benefit you? People won't and you won't convince anyone. This is an unrealistic standard you expect of other people, plus the high and mighty tone you are using won't win people over.
> The population using public transit generally reflects the fact that our culture encourages anyone with enough money/resources to purchase and use a car -- leaving behind everyone who can't (e.g. cash poor, disabled). This scares off the more sensitive potential transit users who'd rather pretend these folks don't exist.
This is such a biased representation of what the real problem is and you conveniently ignore things like violent thugs on public transport (I've experienced this several times in the UK), rowdy teenagers, drunks and the mentally ill.
I used to have a guy who stank and wore a soccer ball on his head catch the same bus, large groups of teenage boys vandalising the train coaches or playing loud music on a quiet carriage and they are far from the worst I've encountered.
No I don't want to have to deal with possibility of violence, nutcases and other general unpleasantness so I won't take the train (I am in the UK).
> The jarring reality is that most Americans (and their political leadership) are classist, sheltered, and have a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude.
I doubt they are. What they want to do is get on with their life with as little hassle as possible, like most people do.
> Source: US lifelong resident of various large cities, no driver's license at the age of 31.
So no real evidence what-so-ever other than your very biased opinion.
Based on your response I'd say my opinion's no more biased than yours!
> All you are admitting here is that the Government can't provide a compelling alternative to a more expensive form of transport.
> Why vote to increase spending on something that doesn't benefit you? People won't and you won't convince anyone. This is an unrealistic standard you expect of other people, plus the high and mighty tone you are using won't win people over.
I really don't get why so many folks insist on positioning Government as some sort of "other" entity, as if its functioning isn't directly affected by voters.
Anyways, why support transit? Because it _does_ benefit you as a car user but you and your leadership refuses to see it. It's well documented that improving alternate modes of transportation helps alleviate traffic congestion by shifting some drivers to other modes, thus producing less wear and tear on the roads(and your car) and helping drivers get to where they're going faster and safer. Sorry, that's how it works.
> No I don't want to have to deal with possibility of violence, nutcases and other general unpleasantness so I won't take the train
I mean, sure. That's your right. But you _have_ an alternative, whereas many folks have no other choice but to risk the trip, so how exactly is not supporting transit not a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude?
>This is such a biased representation of what the real problem is and you conveniently ignore things like violent thugs on public transport (I've experienced this several times in the UK), rowdy teenagers, drunks and the mentally ill.
Except these problems don't seem to exist at all on Japanese or German trains.
Maybe there's just something seriously wrong with your country.
If you have to quote a three year old article to demonstrate that people do get (occasionally) assaulted on a Japanese train, then yes, it does seem much better to me.
I didn't quote mine. I literally put in "Japanese Train Attack" and pulled some links off the first page to prove that it isn't quite as perfect as it was claimed. I don't like the fact that the UK is demonised constantly because despite a lot of the problems over here we still do a lot of things right.
Also it doesn't address the very valid point I was making is that until public transport is pleasant and reliable (neither is true in the UK, I dunno about anywhere else and don't claim to) people will not use it if they have an alternative.
No amount of guilting such as the comment I was originally replying to will change that.
Obviously you've never been outside your country if you've never seen pleasant and reliable public transit. Even as an American, I've seen plenty of pleasant and reliable public transit, though it's usually outside my country.
Stop claiming that other countries suck when it's only yours that has seems to have a big problem.
So you cherry-pick a few examples (one of which wasn't on public transit at all), and you think that's better than a place where 30,000 people per year are killed in auto crashes? Your likelihood of dying on a train in Japan are almost nil, whereas your likelihood of dying in your car on American roads are actually pretty significant, and it's one of the biggest causes of death of non-elderly people.
I did not cherry-pick, I took some examples off of duck duck go to prove a point that everywhere has their problems and you probably shouldn't be criticising my country (which is quite rude) while completely ignoring the point I was making about public transport being quite unpleasant experience in general and why people quite rightly want to avoid it.
The Government wherever that is will have to sort out those problems rather than just try guilty people into not using their cars.
> you probably shouldn't be criticising my country (which is quite rude)
You're the one criticizing your country, not me. You're the one who said public transit there sucks, not me. I've never been there, so I can't comment on the Underground, but I've been to Germany and Japan and the public transit there is absolutely fantastic. It's not even that bad here in DC, though the reliability isn't that great.
>ignoring the point I was making about public transport being quite unpleasant experience in general and why people quite rightly want to avoid it.
No, I'm not ignoring your point at all, I'm calling it out as ignorant, which it is, because there's plenty of other places in the world with excellent public transit.
Most people are coming from outside of London and what you find is that it is usually quicker to drive in and just sit in the traffic than mess about doing park and rides and then travelling in.
It was far quicker to walk a mile to Twyford station, get the train to Ealing, and the tube to White City (or fast train to Paddington and tube to Shepherds Bush now) than to drive.
It was a long time ago, and I don't work in Shepherds Bush any more, but the trip today would be
0835 - leave home
0856 - get slow train to London
0935 - arrive Ealing
0950 - arrive White City
0955 - arrive at office
Or
0840 - leave home
0900 - get fast train to London
0932 - arrive Paddington
0950 - arrive White City
0955 - arrive at office
Driving was
0800 - leave home
0900 - arrive Hammersmith flyover turnoff
0950 - arrive car park
0955 - arrive at office
It was the hammersmith roundabout that was the real killer.
The reason I drove in for 10AM (once a week) was because I was on 12-14 hour shifts, and driving home after 10pm was about 50 minutes. Very few people working office hours would drive into London, especially Central London, and parking at stations across the south east is often full by 9AM.
Interesting tbh if it was the same amount of time I would just drive in.
Outside of London the train is always slower. I used to live in Manchester and get the train into Stoke. Driving was always faster without exception. Generally it was cheaper as well (I have a crappy old diesel astra that is even cheaper to repair and I will drive it til the wheels fall off).
All things being equal I'd rather take the train - you can read, work, watch TV
The main benefit of driving is not having to wait for a specific train.
From where I live in south cheshire, it's quicker to get the train into Manchester than drive (although quicker to drive to Stoke than train). That's with a 0930 arrival in Picadilly Gardens.
Same to get to Cardiff, Birmingham and certainly London (2h15 to Euston, vs 2h40 to the M25 with no traffic)
If I had to be in Picadilly Gardens for 0900 though it would be faster to drive thanks to the train times.
Virgin trains wants basically another 10-15 a month on top of your journey for internet and you can't take a bike on their trains without phoning ahead first. Cross country aren't much better.
Phone internet doesn't work on the train typically. That combined with the travel sickness after each journey make the car much more appealing.
I will never go back to using the train as long as I can legally drive. They are just garbage in the UK and expensive.
I doubt I will buy a new car either. I own two cars. I have an old 1994 mercedes SL which is kept in a storage garage at the moment and the other car is a 2005 vauxhall astra that is getting up to 400,000 miles and doesn't show any signs of dying just yet. Every newer car I have driven is full of mostly electric crap which tends to break or they have some awful drive by wire nonsense that takes the feeling out of the vehicle.
I think much like the operating systems I use, I am going to resist using any newer tech as long as I am able to.
I use 4G tethering and works really well between Crewe and Manchester (well enough for uninterupted youtube streaming and ssh sessions). Virgin "pendilinos" have free wifi now too. Northern run on the Manchester-Stoke line and don't need bike reservations. YMMV.
The "bad guys" just went somewhere else. This doesn't fix the problem it just pushed the problem away from reddit.
> And it's up to us to pressure these private businesses to do that.
No it isn't. I am fed up of something I like being ruined by moral busy bodies such as yourself. My friend and I like the "edgy" jokes because we work in environments where you have to be political correct and I need to let off some steam.
8chan isn't the problem. The problem is that large portions of the population aren't engaged in society at large. The is a huge problem with loneliness, suicide and general lack of meaning to life.
Censorship and harassing companies that run image board won't fix the problem. All you will do it hide it.
I'm in favor of extra-legal filtering, according to a company's morals, as long as market alternatives exists.
If speech crosses the line, law enforcement should pursue and prosecute.
Short of that (e.g. the "we were just joking" crowd), the best possible aggregate outcome seems like it would be companies making independent moral judgements and acting on them.
If Cloudflare doesn't want to be associated with 8chan, they refuse them as a customer.
Other customers are then free to judge Cloudflare for that action and use / not use them as they decide.
This seems far preferable to more draconian, government-enforced options.
Companies are inherently political, and a diversity of options is the healthiest ecosystem.
Not, this requires that we have functioning alternatives. For something like 8chan, Cloudflare's services are probably avoidable, but there's a market penetration at with "must serve" should be considered.
I am fed up of everything be political. I know someone is going to make Doom Eternal political somehow when the game is about a man that is too angry to die taking on the legions of the hell dimension (that is literally the plot of the game).
Gilette have tried making how I remove hair from my face political.
I want companies to sell their product and as long are people are using it legally they should probably not take a political stance.
You may not. But others certainly do. Otherwise recycled toilet paper wouldn't be stocked.
Beyond that, to use the same analogy, one brand might be dump their bleaching agents in the ocean.
It's up to the companies if they want to trumpet their behavior loudly or say nothing about it. And it's up to consumers if they care about whatever type of behavior is involved.
Well that is up to other people. It doesn't make the company inherently political.
This logic as previously stated is a horrible mind worm that infests everything and ruins a great many things that are just useful (razor blades) or fun (video games).
Politics is a set of power games done by people we call politicians and promoted by their activists. It has nothing to do with right and wrong.
> The problem is that large portions of the population aren't engaged in society at large. The is a huge problem with loneliness, suicide and general lack of meaning to life.
Do you think that this is the root cause of violent islamic extremists as well?
With extremists that grew up in the west, possibly. I did work with some Somali guys (they weren't extremists) but a few of them said they didn't feel British and they didn't feel Somalian. So there is a schism there, I've felt the same schism as someone that is essentially a nomad these days I don't belong anywhere.
Extremists that grow up in the Middle-East. No idea I haven't spent a lot of time in the Middle-East (only Israel).
> The problem is that large portions of the population aren't engaged in society at large. The is a huge problem with loneliness, suicide and general lack of meaning to life.
Well said. The American melting pot makes this loneliness stronger still as there’s no sense of community left for these people. They live amongst us but they’re not connected to anyone around them.
I’m convinced there’s twisted weirdos all over the world, but traditionally communities did a better job of watching their own and making sure they were not endangering others. That simply does not exist any more, so the dark thoughts fester and grow until they’ve taken total control.
I don’t know how to fix any of this, but know it going to require either bringing those people into the light or occasionally joining them in their darkness.
>Liberals like to make off-color jokes too, they're just in denial about it.
Are they? Myself, a liberal, and all my liberal friends and family, make off color jokes all the time and are totally aware of it. Similarly, we don't castigate conservative friends for making off color jokes.
I think you're purposefully misstating the fact that people disagree on the (admittedly fuzzy) line between off color jokes and sincere expressions of hatred.
reCAPTCHA on a site forces me to use Google and quite a few sites now use it. There are other ways of detecting bots that aren't as intrusive nor require you to allow Google everywhere.
I think we are all well aware of what motivates these killers by now. Giving them more of a platform and audience won’t reduce their murders - it will bring them more followers.
We have a good idea what motivates them. Here's some quotes from professionals:
From Katherine Newman, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University: "In general their social experience is not one of easy incorporation, ...Rather than wanting to be alone, many mass shooters have a history of struggling to connect. They experience rejection by their peers or they draw back from potential friendships, assuming they'll be rejected if they try. They believe they're perceived as insigificant."
And from Dr James Knoll, forensic psychiatrist with expertise in mass murders:
"The mass murderer is an injustice collector who spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid worldview with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy, and grudge-holding. He is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are enjoying life’s all-you-can-eat buffet, while he must peer through the window, an outside loner always looking in.
"Aggrieved and entitled, he longs for power and revenge to obliterate what he cannot have. Since satisfaction is unobtainable lawfully and realistically, the mass murderer is reduced to violent fantasy and pseudo-power. He creates and enacts an odious screenplay of grandiose and public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when he does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others for apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs. Fury, deep despair, and callous selfishness eventually crystalize into fantasies of violent revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass murderer typically expects to die and frequently does in what amounts to a mass homicide-personal suicide. He may kill himself or script matters so that he will be killed by the police."
Are we? Because articles such as this seem to blame 8chan and 4chan (they never mention the rest of the site which has stuff from /g which is GNU stuff and the transexual and gay communities on there). Back in the 90s they blamed Doom, Heavy metal and Rap music. In the 1950s and 60s they blamed horror / slasher comics.
As for giving them a platform and an audience bringing more followers, firstly this is terminology used for justify soft censorship. Secondly in the UK back in 2010 Nick Griffin (a notorious anti-semite/racist and leader of the BNP) was allowed to speak on Question Time (a very popular show on the BBC). Afterwards we didn't hear from the BNP again because the ideas were exposed for what they were. The BNP party is effectively dead in the UK.
Almost every-time one of these racists are actually spoken to the vast majority of the population reject their message. Every-time it is repressed these ideas resurface because these people create their own echo-chambers and makes these ideas sexy as they are considered taboo.
Nick Griffin's electoral success was not killed by his appearance on Question Time. In fact, a bunch of minority political positions have had a good deal of political oxygen from BBC appearances: I'm thinking mostly of Farage in the dog days of UKIP's popularity and also the Spiked!/Institute of Ideas collective.
Griffin lost largely because there was factional instability in the BNP and then the rise of UKIP stole the non-fascist right-wing to far-right vote.
Even so, it's very difficult to kill a political movement by logical debate (or even by making them look silly). I had the misfortune to know Mark Collett (another one of the BNPers) at Leeds University. We managed to stop him making much headway in recruitment etc., but he lived for the publicity. Even when he got thrashed at Union AGMs and the like he'd be busy pitching to his potential support in the audience. Didn't work on most (he lost his votes by a landslide) but he wasn't actually trying to win. And I suspect getting his arguments attacked by a bunch of lefties and Jews didn't harm him much in his constituency, either. After all, it's all a conspiracy to stop him talking, isn't it?
Has anyone with an audience actually performed a mass shooting? I thought all of them were basically nobodies, not even their troll forum friends seems to care about them.
The french military parade with Macron had me laughing my head off when I saw the clip.
If anyone wanted to defend against this type of aerial soldier other than them sticking out like a sore thumb to shoot people would could put up some thin cabling between tall building.
True, but it's very unlikely that the flyboard has some sort of redundancy built in: if a single jet engine gets hit the whole thing goes down. Exposive/incendiary ammo would also defeat the self sealing tank, assuming he's using one. To me it's a wonderful piece of engineering and I'd drool to pilot one (a few meters above sea level, I'm not a hero:^) but I wouldn't bring one in battle.
It could make sense though to build a similar contraption under military jet pilots seats, so that if the pilot ejects, the seat brings him as far away as possible from enemy territory before deploying the parachute.
There are seven engines, and the firmware can adjust to the loss of one.
"The company also says it’s intuitive and safe to use, with the computer-controlled systems providing built-in redundancies and automatic compensation if one of the jet engines fails. “I thought it was a gust of wind,” Henry Berkowitz, one of the two former special operators who now work for Zapata, told CNBC in 2017."
Thanks for the link! That makes it even more interesting. That military pilot makes it seem even more similar to a flying segway. I only wonder the amount of energy used to drive the center of gravity to maintain balance. In other words, if the same fixture was mounted as a jet backpack how much efficiency would be gained, if any?
Interesting thought about ejector seats, though those currently use solid fueled rockets iirc, as much safer.
Though it does as you say, offer some form of assisted powered control decent option. Not sure on the altitude and I know that becomes a factor for jets. Big difference operating around sea level and a few thousand feet up.
For me, something like this that would give firefighters the ability to reach and rescue people trapped up high in a building, even if one at a time. That truely opens up progress.
Alas the fire services have never ever had the same RnD budgets of military services, which is a thought that opens up a whole raft of debate as an indictment upon how we view protecting lives and assets - given fire in the modern world kills more people. For example in the UK in you get around 300 deaths a year due to fire. Compared with an average of 50 lives a year military wise. Though it is a bit like comparing apples with pears, it does make you think how some priorities are more grounded in history than others.
Now what this might open up as a viable alternative to parachute would be helicopters that tend to operate at altitudes that preclude any parachute. Sure you would need to eject the rotor and seen that upon military helicopters, that eject the cockpit. But this might open up safety upon more commercial offering.
I install PHP on my server (yeah I know) to run some PHP based web based software. By default PHP is configured in a very insecure manner. You would think with all the security problems that they would ship it with a set of secure defaults.
Probably but you can still have the configuration secure as default and people would be aware of the security implications when enabling insecure features.
I am talking about whoever is packaging PHP for the OS, there is a default php.ini that comes with PHP on CentOS is insecure by default (I can't remember off the top of my head which settings were set to something insecure).
We are talking about an ini file. This isn't rocket science.
Right, but they need to be conscious of their end user. If they secure by default, and someone upgrades, their software stops working. Should PHP have had these defaults to begin with, yes absolutely. But now we're all stuck with a million miles of code that will break if register_globals is turned off. That's the point. Everything you've stated above there might as well be an alien language to the majority of people using this stuff.
No it should be secure by default and people will have to enable insecure features. It doesn't stop old software from working as the person will be able to simply re-enable whatever the insecure feature is.
However they will now be aware that said feature is insecure and should know the consequences of enabling it.
Yes each of those websites still use PHP under the hood. But by that argument each of those websites can be counted as using C as well. As well as machine code.
It has nothing to do with the code being spaghetti or not. It's about a level of abstraction where I no longer consider something made with wordpress as something created with PHP. The PHP was allready created and then someone just clicked a few menus to choose what existing PHP he or she wanted.
The more fitting category would be just calling such websites "Wordpress" websites and not PHP websites.
The categorisation you are trying to make us accept is ridiculous.
I can deploy a python web application I have written to a new web server within minutes by clicking deploy in bitbucket.
So using your definition:
* The code is already written.
* I clicked a few menus and I had the python code I wanted running.
It isn't a python application. However the web application when it receives a request will run python code. It is clearly a python based web application.
I wouldn't consider it python code if it is a cookie cutter website where the creator didn't have to write a single line of python. It's not about deployment it's about the process of creation. Why don't you consider each and every website running PHP also a C website?
> I wouldn't consider it python code if it is a cookie cutter website where the creator didn't have to write a single line of python.
So if I got someone else to press the deploy button in bitbucket, it suddenly isn't python code? That doesn't make sense does it?
> Why don't you consider each and every website running PHP also a C website?
The web site/app logic is written in PHP, not C. The runtime for the vast majority of PHP deployments happens to be written in C.
Additionally while I did say interpreted earlier that really isn't true anymore. PHP runtimes these days tend to break the PHP script down into byte-code. There are alternative runtimes for PHP just as there is Java or .NET.
There are at least 4 I can think of. Two of those aren't C (C++ and .NET). However there is nothing stopping you from writing a runtime that runs on the JVM / Lisp / Go / Brainfuck / Lol code / 68k assembler.
> So if I got someone else to press the deploy button in bitbucket, it suddenly isn't python code? That doesn't make sense does it?
You completely ignored the most important sentence in my comment which addresses this.
> The web site/app logic is written in PHP, not C. The runtime for the vast majority of PHP deployments happens to be written in C.
The logic is written in PHP just as much as it is written in C. The logic is actually written in the language the creator used. Which is the wordpress UI.
"Although President Macron had been insisting that the fuel tax increases would go through as planned, on 4 December 2018 the government announced that the tax rises would be put on hold, with Prime Minister Édouard Philippe saying that "no tax deserves to endanger the unity of the nation"."
(...) "On 10 December, Macron condemned the violence but acknowledged the protesters' anger as "deep, and in many ways legitimate". He subsequently promised a minimum wage increase of €100 per month from 2019, cancelled a planned tax increase for low-income pensioners, and made overtime payments as well as end-of-year bonuses tax free."
So much for nothing having changed.
Not to mention tons of France-wide and regional implications, the political impact on several levels, and the pause and hesitation it would bring to politicians considering to unilaterally pass unpopular laws in the future.
Well done for falling for the propaganda that racially divides people and is frequently sold by activists to people like yourself who seem to have bought it.
People of all colours and creeds will try to garner sympathy from the other group by claiming how disadvantaged they are. The reality is that there are plenty of people from all races that have made it to the top of society.
These people constantly bring up slavery that happened during the colonial period but they never mention what is currently happening in Qatar where foreign workers building the world cup stadium are effectively slaves. This is happening today not over a hundred years in the past, if they feel so strongly about slavery why aren't they shouting from the rooftops about this?
That is why I know this is done because these actors (quite rightly I believe) think it will give them political power because they will claim they have no representation while being broadcast on the very media they claim to have no representation in.