leicsmac

These are both true but for me represent a failure of application and intent, rather than the theory itself. If the principle itself is indeed flawed, I'd love to know what a better idea in terms of preserving life and comfort for many people, rather than a few, would be.

It's almost like addressing the root causes of such problems rather than addressing the symptoms in reactionary and often discriminatory fashion works better, isn't it?

Or they assume, possibly accurately, the worst of us. Zoo Hypothesis with added dose of "until they actually become civilised organisms".

People of the highest integrity. That scientific knowledge, the discoveries it makes and the progress it gives belong to humanity rather than a small part of it is not only a moral truth, but also fundamentally utilitarian in giving our species and others the best chance to survive.

Definitely one Luke in the final then and you'd expect whichever one it is to win.

At least one Luke in the final, perhaps both.

England just can't seem to be consistent over a series right now, as good as they are when on form. Aussies doing the Aussie thing of roaring back after adversity, hopefully India can keep it competitive.

I guess it comes down to whether people think "best" means best technically or best in terms of individual achievement. I would submit that Chris has had to do far more than any other competitor just to get to where he did in terms of standard, but yes, in terms of technical and artistic merit he wasn't ahead of the others.

Yeah, I think that sounds pretty much spot on tbh. It's a long term project though, so it requires consistent governments willing to back a plan like that, and additionally backing plans to have support for similar schemes across the world. Unfortunately, I fear that is in no way guaranteed given a statistically significant proportion of people appear to not even think there is a problem at all and that somehow humans have more power than nature in terms of devastating consequences to our actions.

Just one part of human activity responsible for the current extinction event, more's the pity. That being said, it would be really nice if there wasn't a massive human population crash either, so hopefully a balance can be reached.

Likely food web and multiple knockon extinctions. But considering the current track record for humanity and species extinction, it would be par for the course.

After the false start last week, Yoon impeached. Joins the storied history of Korean presidents who have had the same happen to them - they're not shy about addressing wrongdoing and corruption from their senior figures.

I would assume it would be similar to the ISS schedule, which is eight hours sleep followed by 16 hours of whatever the mission plan says, to the letter, day after day. Presumably there are days where downtime is worked into that mission plan.

Might I ask what the point you're driving at here actually is? Is it simply that everyone is a hypocrite? If so, fair enough, that's pretty much right.

... if the question might be rephrased then, is the mention or outrage in any way proportionate to similar protests made in the past by other groups? (Rhetorical question, I have to say, IMO the answer is obviously "no".)

And the dark irony is that the very thing people looking for action on climate are advocating for will also shield the farmers and their very important industry from the very, very nasty effects that they're already starting to feel and complain about.

Unfortunately I agree. We live in interesting times.

.... in a single St Helens council seat with a 16.3% turnout, yes. With that being said, they should be taken seriously, even with likely over four years to the next GE.

With all of this in mind, I'd be interested to hear what you would think is the best way forward.

Sadly, with the way the world is as it is now, I agree. If we also don't spend on other essentials, we'll have the same outcome - just perhaps a little further into the future. Shortages of critical resources will make warfare inevitable no matter what is spent on military hardware and upkeep. Here's hoping there's the resources and the will to do both.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly41x7eg71o "I'm really pleading directly to the one billion people living in Nato territory, and particularly in Canada and Europe, to ask them to help me," Rutte said. "Call up your politicians, tell them that you agree that yes it is difficult, it will mean somewhat less spending on some other items, but that you want them, your politicians, to prioritise defence, because this is long-term crucial… "My plea here is if you have children, grandchildren, if you think our way of life should be preserved, the democracy, our values, then we have to prioritise defence. "And if we don't, in four or five years we are in real difficulty." ... and this is after a quite large part of the overall world military expenditure of $2.44 trillion was spent on it last year. I mean, I understand the need, but Meneer Rutte surely understands that directing money to that one area won't solve the problems the world faces.

This. Wind is merely one part of a suite of solutions, both generation and storage related, that need to be applied. Gen III/IV fission really should be in there too, to be honest. But also honestly, such solutions need to be rolled out to the rest of the world to be truly effective in addressing the problems already making themselves manifest.

Ah, thank you. That appears to be nothing new under the sun, but then info on it appears to be sparse anyway.

The Avangard system? Yeah, it's apparently an answer to the US Prompt Global Strike - the idea of delivering a high power conventional warhead to anywhere in the world in 24 hours. Of course, ICBMs have that ability already, but seeing as they're inextricably associated with nuclear weapons, that means somewhat perversely that no nuclear power can now use them for conventional purposes (because naturally those attacked would get the wrong idea), so the big players have had to develop different options. It's true that this new idea from both the US and Russia might in fact lower the chance of mutually assured destruction for the exact reasons you say here.

From what I can tell, "counterforce" tactical weapons for precision targeting are in the low kiloton range, but "countervalue" weapons for targeting cities are hundreds of kilotons to megaton strength. But as you say, rationality goes out the window when the use of the former would almost inevitably escalate to the use of the latter on a wide scale anyway.