Could she have given donors the middle finger

“Losing” is a middle finger to the donors.

To a donor, the only thing worse than losing is winning without the donor’s support. A donor would rather lose than be proven irrelevant.

Which wouldn’t be so bad if they actually had shit that people wanted to buy. But all the guillotine shops are out of stock, with expected ship dates after December 4th.

You can even add a search plugin directly in the client.

Huh. Well, that’ll make things easier.

In terms of pure numbers, if you removed all of the US carriers, China will have a similar number of aircraft in their navy.

To be fair, I assumed 30 aircraft on the Wasp and America class ships. 20 is a more realistic number, so my estimate was high. I don’t know why I had it in my head that they could carry 30 aircraft each, but that was the basis of my claim. I was also under the impression that that 003 was another STOBAR carrier, rather than a CATOBAR.

Still, 9 US ships times 20 STOVL aircraft:

• 180 US aircraft total.

001, 002, and 003 are reported to carry 24 STOBAR, 24 STOBAR, and 50 CATOBAR aircraft, respectively:

• 98 Chinese aircraft total.

My claim of “more than twice as many” was wrong, but by single-digit margins.

Their Type 075 and 076 ships are described as “Helicopter Docks”. To the best of my knowledge, China doesn’t currently have any STOVL aircraft to operate off these ships. They are developing a STOVL aircraft, the J-35, which would almost certainly be able to operate off 075/076, but it’s not operational yet. I’m disinclined to count the four operational 075s, and the 076 they are building.

The US Navy has 13 “Landing Platform, Docks” (San Antonio Class) that I’m not counting, because they only carry helicopters (up to 78 total) or tiltrotors (up to 65 total). They did do some evaluations on using them with the Harrier, but I dont think that went anywhere.

Pretty much every large ship in both navies can embark a couple helicopters; I’m not counting any of them either.

Again: Democracy is government by the consent of the governed. The system you described made no effort to ensure constituent consent. You described a populist system, not a Democratic one.

There are many good ways to popularly elect a singular representative. The one you described is one of the better ones, but it is still two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. It is still populist: the sheep does not consent to a “government” that can put it on a menu.

A democratic system would be one in which the government lacks the power to put the sheep on that ballot: the minority has no cause to protest.

There are no good ways to democratically elect a singular representative. As soon as you allow that representative sufficient power that the minority protest, the appointment of that representative over the minority may be populist, but it is not democratic.

most of the electorate

You just defined “populism”.

If that’s not the mathematical ideal of democracy,

That is the mathematical ideal of populism.

Democracy is “government by consent of the governed”; There is no good way of democratically electing a singular individual. Which is why the presidency should be little more than a figurehead, with very little actual authority.

There’s going to be an election, or we’re going to learn the meaning of “All enemies, foreign and domestic”.

Scott/Mark. Or Mark/Scott.

Walz / Kelly, Kelly / Walz, Kelly / Kelly, or Kelly / AOC.

Just to put this into perspective: There are 13 ships comparable to US “Aircraft Carriers” on the planet. The US operates 11 of them. France has one. China is building one.

There are an additional 38 ships on the planet designed to carry aircraft, but with less than half the capacity of actual carriers. The world calls them carriers; the US calls them “Amphibious Assault Ships” and operates 9.

If we remove all 11 US “Aircraft Carriers”, its 9 Amphibious Assault Ships still carry more than twice as many aircaft as the entire Chinese Navy.

The real advantage of CATOBAR carriers is the ability to deploy heavily loaded, long-range strike aircraft and large support aircraft, like the Hawkeye, Growler, buddy tankers, etc.

STOBAR and STOVL carriers are reliant on land-based support aircraft.

That’ll be the most popular 3D print file in a couple years.

Statistically, he is likely to be president for the rest of his life.

steam cools back to water

That one. The most common methods of condensing that steam rely on large bodies of water acting as heat sinks. Water in those large reservoirs is lost to evaporation, which is exacerbated by the additional heat.

The water in that reservoir must be reserved for the nuclear plant; a drought that drains the reservoir will knock the plant offline.

Air-cooled condensers are possible, but at significantly reduced efficiency, especially in already hot environments.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Did you know you can just buy shoe polish? You don’t have to find a boot to lick it off.

Prime is garbage. Even if it’s free on Prime, I hoist a sail.

Relevant: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-2nd-amendment-folks-stop-clintons-supreme-court/story?id=41239648

The GPS almanac is a table of the exact orbital information of every satellite. Every receiver needs a copy of the almanac to understand where the satellites are supposed to be, so that it can determine where it is in relation to those satellites.

When their clocks all shift one minute simultaneously, the almanac isn’t updated. Every satellite is 60 seconds away from where the almanac says it should be.

If the satellites were geostationary, receivers would still work, they’d just be off by 0.25 degrees of longitude as the entire constellation would be shifted the same amount. But the GPS constellation consists of satellites in a variety of inclined orbits. Nothing is where the almanac thinks it is, and nothing is where it is supposed to be in relation to anything else.

Parent comment is correct: GPS will immediately fail, and remain down until an updated almanac is published and distributed.

Galaxy S Relay

5 line keyboard!