This is exactly the argument propaganda in Russia and Belarus brings forward again and again — that it’s bystanders and outsiders that attempt to shame people into violence and grave risk to their lives.
Historically, majority of popular armed revolts were followed by bloodbaths, and years of economic dismay. Falling of Eastern bloc was a major exception, because USSR, the primary sponsor, crumbled itself. And even then there was Yugoslavia.
Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person. Moving and freeing yourself is a more pragmatic move. Its not that hard to uphold your ethnic identity outside of arbitrarily defined borders, anyway.
Foreign invasion, on the other hand, has a much higher potential to galvanise all sorts of radicalists, as it has done every single time, everywhere.
So, please, be mindful of your call to arms to people in the faraway lands.
Navigating canals and major harbours requires a pilot.
Pilot was on board, but there seems to have been some kind of conflict between Master and Pilot that resulted in high tension environment on the bridge.
I don't see how the report in the linked article is related to Ever Given. It certainly isn't of the fateful trip because it's about a southbound journey.
It contains a report of the behavior of the local Pilots that are supposed guide the ship through the canal.
Last line before the report
>Read this Statement and ask yourself – can such incident lead to accident like grounding or collision?
If the professionals are not doing their job and even causing issues on the bridge;
i.e.
>As soon as the master picked up the VHF and called Ismalia Port Control on Ch8, the pilot raised his volume high, started shouting, snatched the VHF from the master’s hand (which also resulted in advertently pushing the Master) and threatened that if same was reported “It will not be good for the vessel”.
>At that very moment, in his raised volume he called for fwd and aft stations and for both anchors to be lowered to water level, as he insisted on stopping the vessel and arresting vessel for faulty steering. He said vessel will be held at Bitter lake until sea trials were carried out.
Fwd station was immediately manned however anchors were not lowered as ship was doing 9 knots speed.
I find that the difficult conditions at the time are sufficient to explain the accident. Maybe we'll learn that there was unprofessional behaviour by a pilot. But until such time, that is unwarranted speculation.
The linked article is a hodgepodge of random factoids and hearsay. It even confused the poster into thinking the report was from the Ever Given. Doesn't look like a good source to me.
There are multiple creationist theories. The one you described is close to sanctioned Roman Catholic view, for example.
Since _Humani Generis_ by Pope Pius XII, the accepted view is that evolution, indeed, goes as it does, under divine supervision, and then when bodies reached a form fitting the pinnacle of creation (human), another act of creation occurred - that of human soul. And that miracle of creation keeps happening daily for every human born (or conceived?).
So, definitely not a Darwinian materialist view, but certainly evolution-friendly.
Generally, largest blocker to marrying salvation religions and materialist worldview is with a human. Salvation only concerns humans, and that implies that humans are very special in the Universe. Paganism wasn’t that arrogant, so might be more compatible with scientific method, funnily enough.
I’m an atheist, so this, naturally, this is my interpretation of other interpretations I’ve read and heard here and there.
They still ate all the megafauna within a couple thousand years of their arrival, and, arguably, significantly contributed to deforestation of the continent.
So, not that different from the Homo Sapiens anywhere else.
Regarding deforestation, prebrov, that didn't happen in the way that, for example, the Amazon was deforested in 20th century South America by clear felling old growth forests to produce coffee and soy mono-cultures.
Australian aborigines used fire to cultivate the land in mosaic patterns of cleared grasslands forested conserves. The result was an altered landscape which retained natural ecosystems whilst supporting human and animal populations sustainably.
I don’t argue that it happened the same way. Impact sure took longer than what we can achieve with modern technology, but the fact remains. Humans arrived into the last jungles of Pangea, and by the time of European colonisation, Australia was a Red Continent, with Eucalyptus being the dominant large plant.
There seems to be a strong indication that human activity contributed significantly to the climate change in Australia.
Not belittling the choices humans make to opt-out of the modern civilisation, but romanticising and mythologising “closeness to nature” just isn’t productive. Profound effect on the environment is a feature of all life forms, and sustainability isn’t really on any life form’s agenda.
Who’s to say that Cyanobacteria aren’t “close to nature”? Yet buggers were so successful, and polluted atmosphere with oxygen so badly, nearly all life went extinct. Even that worked quite well in the end.
One big difference, I imagine, is the population that forest is being extracted for. The Amazon isn't only being extracted while sustaining 100s of millions of South Americans (prior to colonization AUS had fewer than a million inhabitants), but also serving the world's demands. So I think it's different although in balance both unsustainably.
Yes, it's a vastly bigger population now, mc32, and that's what is unsustainable. The vastly bigger population is still increasing at a rapid clip, but the forests and the oceans are not.
Missing the Mobile boat is a major blow to blogging, the way I see it.
Self-hosted blogging had passed on the format of ad-hoc notes while on the move, and basically ignored the entire category of mobile content creation.
It’s odd and sad to see that the desktop-first authoring trend is actually getting re-enforced these days in indie blogging community, as the tools are getting less and less mobile-friendly (another git-driven file-based Markdown static site generator, anyone?)
Genre-binding naming conventions are exactly the problem.
"Blog" originally stood for "web log", and as such didn't put any constraints or expectations on the media format, length, or quality. At some point format-specific platforms came in, artificially fragmented self-publishing into "microblogging", "photoblogging", "videoblogging", and took it over.
Not everything has to be a well written article, but blogging relinquished "just thinking out loud" type of publishing to mobile-first social networking walled gardens, and it's a real shame and a loss.
Shift to mobile is a massive contributor. Many newcomers to the internet are mobile first, and either don't have permanent access to desktop computers at all, or just couldn't be bothered.
And I don't see many blogging platforms that take this audience seriously. Wordpress seems to be the only one that has a mobile app at all.
Right — and the WordPress app has taken years to get semi-decent. There was a third-party WP app that WordPress acquired/acqhired many years ago that was excellent (it was the only app that allowed me to access a very customized WP backend with custom fields and other configurations so I could edit work posts back in the day), but the best features were never brought over to the main WP app and WP has evolved now so those features wouldn’t even be useful.
Tumblr has a great mobile app — as I said in my initial post, it was actually on top of the mobile trend — but none of the other blogging platforms do. They assume a response web page will work and it won’t — or that you’ll be creating a new file and kicking of a CI/CD build pipeline for a static site — which still doesn’t help if you just want to write an update or post a photo from your phone.
Even easy web builders like Squarespace and Wix and the like have, frankly, subpar mobile options.
You can’t blame people for just deciding to use Facebook or Instagram.
VPN, or any other network segmentation does, indeed, just shift the attack surface, and often creates a false sense of security behind a network perimeter.
Google, for example, proposes a different school of thought – zero trust network, and strong contextual authentication of each individual request.
Precisely because you need to expose more services to more users, you need to be extremely conscious about treating singular network ingress point as a primary security gateway.
There is no purpose in death-less war. War is about killing humans beings till the other side accepts your conditions.
The current us space force has the sole purpose of supporting ground wars. And when they start battling in space in a hundred year, they will nuke planets or throw rocks on them.
Why not? Markets are interested in capital gains and profit sharing, not necessarily steering the wheel directly.
How is it wrong for a founder to take a smaller cut of the profit in exchange for more power?
Founders (individuals) want a voice in their companies, and how much money does one need anyway? Investors (usually institutions) want to make money, and they need lots of it.
If a dual-class share structure allows the CEO to divert 100% of dividends into his personal bonus, and prevents investors from having him removed even if he does, why wouldn't he?
Does an investment with those properties sound like a good investment to you?
> If a dual-class share structure allows the CEO to divert 100% of dividends into his personal bonus
> Does an investment with those properties sound like a good investment to you?
It's plainly obvious you don't hold an investment in a public company that does that. Your setup has a self-correcting action: the investors sell if they can't derive the expected benefit from owning the stock because the CEO is sending all the profit into their own bank account.
Why doesn't Zuckerberg do it for example? Because the stock would implode by 90%+ overnight and the best employees would immediately flee as they see their stock become worthless and future stock compensation goes to zero. Then the rest of the corporation would collapse in time without the employees required to keep it operating at a high level. Even monopolies can easily lose their position. Just downgrading your average employee by one grade, eg from a B to a C, will collapse elite tech companies over time. History is littered with examples (from HP to IBM) of what happens to companies when they can no longer attract the best.
The concrete point in the above is that that employees vested with stock would rebel. But of the employees weren't so vested yes Zuvk could go do that. I would rather he did to teach people this multi class stock business is silly.
Fortune Magazine is owned by the same family that owns CP Group, Thailand’s largest conglomerate. Their economic interests in China are clear.
Hear them boast on Wikipedia:
“When China opened up its economy in 1978, the CP Group was the very first foreign investor in the country and became the first foreign company registered in the special economic zone of Shenzhen, Guangdong. The company is the single largest investor in Mainland China today commanding over fifth of China's entire feed meal market.[5] The corporate registration number was "0001."
Historically, majority of popular armed revolts were followed by bloodbaths, and years of economic dismay. Falling of Eastern bloc was a major exception, because USSR, the primary sponsor, crumbled itself. And even then there was Yugoslavia.
Dying in the name of freedom is just too much to ask of a normal person. Moving and freeing yourself is a more pragmatic move. Its not that hard to uphold your ethnic identity outside of arbitrarily defined borders, anyway.
Foreign invasion, on the other hand, has a much higher potential to galvanise all sorts of radicalists, as it has done every single time, everywhere.
So, please, be mindful of your call to arms to people in the faraway lands.