They might have been intercepted by military. It is doubtful that they would have been shot down, but it would have been legal to do so.
The big difference is: No one forced them to land at a specific location -- they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so. They landed in Austria because they decided to go to a neutral country and that they wanted to avoid NATO.
It is fairly obvious that not letting someone enter is very different from letting enter and then coerce.
It looks like Amazon reacted by at least renaming their product, I can't find Amazon Basics Everyday Sling anymore, but instead encounter the Amazon Basics Camera Bag when searching for "Everyday Sling"
Glad to see that Reason magazine has made it to hacker news. Like Slate Star Codex this is what I consider one of the best researched and most thought through publications
Yes, because in the political desire to solve the pandemic they lifted lots of regulation that make the approval of new medicines prohibitively expensive
There is a documented accident like this of a civilian B747 cargo plane carrying military equipment that shifted to the back.
National Airlines Flight 102
Very scary and impressive videos of the crash on YouTube
As long as there is air friction complete zero-g is highly unlikely. It takes a lot of training to set the engines correctly to cause zero g by compensating exactly the air friction
That is incorrect. There is a friction clutch between the controls in case there is a mechanical jam the other pilot can at least control half the control surfaces. It needs a significant amount of force to detach, though. It is documented on Egypt Air 990 however that both elevator surfaces turned into opposite directions.
42 SV in Fremont has closed down for good. Students have been transferred to an online curriculum managed from Paris and were kicked out of the dorms in a rather hastily and stresful manner. Despite having its own flaws, I was a great fan of 42 and think this is a shame
> Politicians often say one thing when in opposition and do the oppositie when in power.
Totally agree, it's all talk and no do. Does not change the fact that intending to do so (or at least pretending the intent) would not make you a progressive leftist in the us as the author suggested.
Ok, so let's look what Merkel did what would never be possible in the US according to that post (and by the authors opinion proves that the US is so much more on the right than Germany):
> In the 2008 financial crisis (and now again) the government paid part of workers’ wages to save jobs (Kurzarbeit)
Trump went even further and sent checks directly to every taxpayer.
> She stopped mandatory military service
US got rid of the draft in 1973 under Nixon
> Germany is getting out of nuclear power by 2022
> Germany is getting out of coal power by 2038
Neither is the business of the federal government in the US but instead of the states themselves, on top of that this is done in Germany by importing exactly that power from other European neighbours, an option the US does not have.
> She ran a balanced budget
That is considered as on the right in the US
> Legalized gay marriage
The US had that first nationwide, and individual states had it much earlier. On top of that, Merkel voted against that law in the German parliament (Bundestag)
> Accepted a large number of refugees from war-torn Syria
Since Syria is closer to Europe than to the US this is not surprising, the US accepts asylum from middle and south America instead.
> Cut taxes (Solidaritätszuschlag) for the working class and middle class, while keeping them in place for the upper class
Sounds like the tax reform of 2017
> If you did one of these things in the US, you would be considered a progressive leftist. Doing all of them would make you a radical. In Germany she is still considered center-right.
-> While this is a nice visualization, the author had no idea about US politics and how it contrasts to German politics
> That was a complete UI overhaul which is different than FB and their hundreds of mini-changes but the idea is similar.
The problem with facebook's approach is that you can get stuck in local optima and it might be hard to break out. That is why Facebook has done some big changes in the past as well, not just incremental improvements
Maybe this is what makes the difference between statisticians trying to predict the election and the method used by "Trafalgar Group" who try to understand each states regulations and specifics to make rule based predictions, instead of extrapolating from a big pool of data. In two days we will know who was right.
I would like to add that Hitler was a severe Methamphetamine addict (yes, seriously). During that time, Chocolate was laced with Meth and packaged under the name Pervitin.
That drug was the secret behind the success of the German Blitzkrieg against Poland, the soldiers just did not become tired. Of course it had the same side effects, that people became irrational and aggressive.
What the NYT wrote might very well have been true in 1922, a severe meth addiction changes people and makes them more aggressive.
The law of unintended consequences will always beat human made rules and regulations.
Quote from Wikipedia:
> More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.
The big difference is: No one forced them to land at a specific location -- they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so. They landed in Austria because they decided to go to a neutral country and that they wanted to avoid NATO. It is fairly obvious that not letting someone enter is very different from letting enter and then coerce.