leicsmac

I disagree, I think there is a middle ground where somewhere like Ukraine can be supported enough to at least avoid strategic defeat while at the same time not being provocative enough to force a catastrophic escalation. I think that's being met (reasonably) well at the present time. Of course, MAD doesn't get Putin what he wants either, but I'm not sure there's a reason to push things further than they need to be pushed when the stakes are absolute. Edit: of course, my post was referring to the more jingoistic armchair generals, rather than much more nuanced and knowledgeable takes as this one is.

On the topic of gross, (uncharged due to legal eagling) sex trafficker Matt Gaetz on the charm offensive in the Senate today. I wonder how many Senate Repubs might actually have a hint of principle left and not confirm him?

I would agree that the response from NATO aligned powers has been pretty much on the money. I do however take issue when the word "appease" or "appeasement" gets bandied around when concerning a party that, at any time of their choosing, can decide to end human civilisation. Those words imply Chamberlain-esque weakness and it's not weak to be careful in diplomacy towards a power that has nuclear capacity. Belligerence and "acting strong" only goes so far (and appears only so macho) when the other guy can wipe you and himself out at the push of a button with nothing you can do about it. Perhaps it's because the UK hasn't been involved in a large scale shooting match since WW2, but some folks in the UK appear to think the strategic and diplomatic game hasn't changed at all since. It has, decisively, mostly due to that power of mutually assured destruction.

And all the time there's a hundred regional conflicts costing lives and the climate is getting more and more unstable. World's in great shape, isn't it?

Fair to say. It's an unfortunate thing however, I might add, that if you don't pay elected officials well, they become increasingly open to corruption from the highest bidders (but then, that may well happen anyway). WRT the bolded, it's rather clear to see that this is true, but it still baffles me to see that the future of our civilisation and the biosphere is a political matter and should the shit hit the fan everyone who thought it was a talking shop rather than a matter of fact will be blamed. Do agree about how ideology often interferes with what really should be politically neutral areas.

After the last decade and a half and given the news about them, I would submit that public services are cut to the bone/on their arse as it is. There are precious few leaks in that area.

I think personally that the amount of sympathy for each of those groups differs wildly, but fair enough. They want faster action (rather than drastic) to meet carbon neutrality, but AFAIC the discussion about the methodology is redundant anyway - they're not being much more disruptive than other groups taking action and while the perception is that such action is counterproductive (and perception is important), if they were really honest the people that have an issue with them would admit they have it because of political stance and because of self interest, not because of the methodology. FWIW I think the farmers do have a legit argument and this should have been more nuanced from the start, as you say. My issue is with the self interested hypocrisy of those backing the farmers to the hilt with one hand and decaying those other parties looking to safeguard themselves (and safeguard the future) with the other.

Going back to a previous point, it is a little telling how the same parties backing the farmers to the hilt on this matter (and there are a lot of good points made above on both sides) are the same ones that would absolutely decry environmental groups protesting about matters that a. those farmers contribute to and b. are already causing them massive problems. Pardon me for thinking that for most of them this is an excuse to play politics rather than genuine concern for the welfare of farmers - if they really were concerned, they'd back any environmental measures necessary, too.

Mass budget is huge, as you say. And every launch they're learning more. Hopefully they'll be in a position where they have all or most of the information they need in time for the next Mars Hohmann transfer window.

And as per above, no one, least of all farmers, can survive without changing the way they do things anyhow.

Lower stage diverted into the sea, soft landing followed by going full Kerbal. Shame, but let's see if they can recover the upper stage.

Cleared tower and away, good stage separation!

And the first people to really be hit by the way the world is changing due to our reticence in switching energy generation and the resultant global consequences of doing so.

In the short term, certainly. In the long term (a few decades), not pursuing such projects will result in a cost that is so high it may be absolute. (There has to be a way to balance both food and carbon-neutral energy generation as needed for the future, and I'm sure there is.)

Tbf any cost of introducing carbon neutral energy generation will be less than the consequences of not doing so. This is reasonably obvious. I get that such initiatives should ideally be bottom up rather than top down though, but not doing them at all will be much, much worse than either.

Wonder if they'll be able to recover the upper stage this time?

I don't think so. Putin knows as well as anyone that using that kind of weaponry crosses a line that cannot be uncrossed and doesn't get him what he wants. The changing of the wording regarding release of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation doesn't really change much, when you look past the news that it has changed. I would, however, expect a more withering conventional response targeting the civilian population of Ukraine. The only situation I can see where the worst may well happen is if a situation arises that results in NATO and Russian combat forces actually and actively engaging each other in battle.

Fair enough, at least the self interest is in no way sugarcoated here then. I suspect, however, that given the way things are going, the more serious consequences will arrive faster than that time frame. NB. Trump may not want to pick a fight with Russia, but he seems rather bound and determined to pick one with China.

Tbf the scientific policies of the Trump administration will go a long way towards that scorched earth anyway - just perhaps not as quickly.

Thatcher the Milk Snatcher was a decent one, with the bonus of actually being 100% accurate.

Teachers, farmers and medical staff are all equally vital to the healthy running of a country and I don't think people should be prioritising the needs and rights of any one above another.

A very good piece because it does highlight the fact that once we "save" the world (for ourselves and for the life that's here now), then we're going to have to be dynamic in terms of finding solutions to keep saving it. The current changes, if humanity is truly to be a long lived species, are merely the first of many.

It's equally plausible that the concept of a totally "Wild West" platform as Twitter is now (or Musk idealises it to be) doesn't work long term, too.

Is it bad that this isn't even in the top 100 worst/ most pointedly banal Daily Fail headlines?