leicsmac

That's what a few people have said too, and I'd agree. I'd also very much recommend the original book on which the show is based. They've nailed all of the characters so far, especially Rodrigues - and I can understand all the minor changes they've made. Alvito seems a bit younger than I'd imagine him, though.

That's another one on my list. Should prioritise it after Shogun. Or even during, seeing as Shogun is one ep a week only.

Sadly not, not enough hours in the day. That Netflix list sounds like mine.

It's true, Goddard and Tsiolkovsky had the theory down a century ago. The practice can be a bit harder though. On topic, the man was a colossus last night and it's such a shame he didn't get to put away that chance.

It's a bloody difficult watch in places, but excellent.

Korea really does produce some excellent TV and film, I'm glad it's catching on worldwide now. Have you seen The Glory?

A couple of interesting, if rather depressing, articles on the Beeb. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68402139 I've said it before, but the issue here is that women in South Korea have less de facto rights than in, say, the UK, but have more than in, say, Saudi Arabia. That means that they can't balance motherhood and a career, but then they're free to choose either as well, so you get this situation. Government doesn't seem to have a clue other than to throw money at it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68380445 On the one hand, you do wonder if we were ready for social media and all it can do. On the other, this particular platform seems to only have become a bigger problem once Elon took it over and relaxed the restrictions.

Don't worry, we'll always have Nalis' volley vs Leeds.

First two episodes of Shogun released on Disney+. So far, frankly, a faultless adaptation of Clavells epic work.

I'm likewise sceptical of them because of previous discussion on here regarding Article 5. Unless Putin genuinely thinks that NATO is engaged in a massive bluff, that Trump will just let things play out, or he's simply lost the plot and gone full nihilist, it has to be all bluster.

Well, that's a little more measured than I thought it would be, but it still sounds like a ridiculous suggestion in the name of public bravado. Unless he's far less intelligent than he appears to be, he knows exactly where that road ends, at least an unacceptably high percentage of the time.

.... he actually said that? Fvck me, I'm dumbfounded. Unless he has a pretty damn precise insight into Putins brain and therefore knows to a certainty where he'd stop and that it's short of pressing the red button, that's a truly stupid thing to suggest.

They do exactly that. But let's not let something like that get in the way of obfuscation in the name of ignorance regarding the future of our civilisation.

Judging from what he said today, I reckon Wimbledon this year will be Murrays last tournament.

That's just horrific.

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-russia-space-weapon-anti-satellite.html In a week where national security has taken center stage in Washington, the White House confirmed on Thursday that it had evidence that Russia was developing a space-based nuclear anti satellite weapon. John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesperson, informed reporters that the White House believe Russia's program to be "troubling," despite "no immediate threat to anyone's safety." The problem is that, depending on what type of weapon this is, the consequences of using it could be indiscriminate—threatening everyone's satellites and causing a breakdown of the vital services that come from space infrastructure. ....At a press conference on the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Joe Biden stated that there was "no nuclear threat to the people of America or anywhere else in the world with what Russia is doing at the moment." The president added that there was "no evidence that they have made a decision to go forward with doing anything in space either." If Moscow did decide to go ahead with the program it would be contrary to the Outer Space Treaty which 130 countries have signed onto, including Russia. The treaty prohibits "nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" in orbit or stationing weapons in outer space "in any other manner." Anti-satellite weapons are nothing new. China launched a weapon to destroy a non-operational weather satellite in January 2007. While the temptation to launch a nuclear strike in space may seem alluring to nations looking to challenge US dominance in the domain, such actions come at huge risk. It is not necessarily the destruction of objects in space from Earth that should be the primary concern when it comes to anti-satellite weapons more generally, but the effect they have in space. Space-based weaponry is like biological weaponry - as potentially dangerous to the user as it is to those they attack, and everyone involved is aware of this. There's not a lot of point for such a weapons system at the present time when it has such obvious drawbacks for little benefit.

If an obviously silly one shot picture, or even many, is enough reason for people to disregard the very serious and very real evidence we have regarding climate change and its consequences, then that's on them. The Earth isn't going to sit around and suffer such a lack of critical thinking, and should the shit hit the fan, I'm pretty sure those who are left would hold everyone who didn't do what they could responsible - whether they were actively malicious or, as per above, too lacking in critical thought.

Pretty much. And that emphasis on isolationism and different types of "security" leads nowhere good.

It surely is self interest, given additional Russian expansion and weakened allies don't benefit the US. Though whether there is a direct correlation between such increased spending and a change in the overall strategic situation is a very many layered debate and is by no means certain, as per the discussion above.

.... even when it's done in the name of blatant bombastic self interest? I guess the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons and it remains the right thing.

Well, what this tournament has shown is that Ireland are a street ahead of any other NH team at the present time. Just a shame they get awful draws and seem to lose close contests every World Cup.

Remarkable game!

Precisely this.

No, I absolutely think that maximum support for Ukraine up to the level of NATO troops actually meeting Russian ones face to face there should be given, but I also think there is a very big difference between the Russians going after NATO members and non-NATO members simply because of Article 5. That could be a mistake and the other NATO members (particularly one headed up by Trump) wouldn't get involved if somewhere like Estonia was attacked, though. Perhaps I am thinking too linearly about the way things would go, but I'll leave it there too.

I do think that all those comments are reasonably unnecessary so long as the strategic situation re. escalation remains the same tbh. I do agree that more ammunition for Ukraine is really needed, but for me it's reasonably obvious that Russia expanding their want for war into a NATO nation only ends one way and that's been the case for several decades now and will continue to be that way so long as both NATO and Russia have nuclear weapons, barring either party being willing to take a catastrophic loss of face by losing a conventional war and doing nothing more, which I honestly can't see, or Trump simply rolling out the red carpet and not engaging Putin at all. What was said today by the Estonian PM and what was said by the Chief of the Defence Staff doesn't change that.