I’m surprised anti-trans stuff isn’t in there with how much airtime they’ve given it, but I guess they feel there’s not enough distance between them and Starmer’s Labour.
Every party says they want to reduce immigration. Labour says they will "stop the boats" etc. Neither have done so, of course, it's all lies.
The Conservatives don't want to reduce spending on benefits. They always defended the triple lock that makes their pensioner base so happy, of course. They are merely slightly more willing to admit that huge cuts are inevitable than Labour is. Labour also tried a tiny reduction in benefits - there's not much difference between them really - but their MPs are in total denial of the scale of the problem and blocked it.
UK benefits are going to evaporate, it doesn't matter who is in power. Tweaking eligibility criteria is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic at this point. It's become a financial inevitability post-COVID, just look at the charts. The austerity that's coming will show the 2010s era as the weak sauce it truly was.
PS: This is also "backed up by Gemini" with the google search phrase "is first 737 flight closer to first wright brother flight than now?" .... but I'd rather do the math.
Huh. I'm an idiot. For some reason I figured that in three years time the "time between wright brother first flight and 737 flight" would vary by 3 years. But no. That is a constant.
So to revise my statement, in six years your statement will be true....
>One example that was recently pointed out to me: the first 737 was closer in time to the wright brothers first flight than to today
Out of curiosity, why use the 737 as a benchmark? Especially since the first Jet plane, the Heinckel HE 178[0] (1939) was the first jet plane, the de Havilland Comet[1] (1952) was the first commercial jet airliner, and the Boeing 707[2] (1957) was the first Boeing jet airliner, Followed closely by the McDonnel Douglas DC-8[3].
All of which are (unlike the 737) closer in time to the Wright Brothers' 1903 flight than to the present. That said, as was mentioned, in just three-six years the 737 will also be closer in time to that 1903 flight than to that future date.
So why the focus on the 737 rather than the 707 or DC8? Not trying to dunk on you or the 737, just trying to figure out why the 737 would be more notable than other jet planes/commercial jet airliners.
The Sud Aviation Caravelle first flew in 1955 and entered revenue service in 1959.
It was a small airliner with two engines in the rear. Although the Caravelle was retired in 2005, the twin rear engine layout was used by the very successful DC-9, MD-80 series, which is still flying, as are the similar Embraer ERJs. Twin rear mounted engines is also the design used by most private jets.
By 2015 it was no longer even a top level item reported in revenue, in 2014 it was like 5% of revenue. They pivoted hard to ads and media (HuffPost, TechCrunch, etc)
No doubt that is true but it doesn't seem to account for the discrepancy, at least not without acquiring more data.
Google's LLM is spitting out ~250K immigrant and first-generation Irish fighting in the Civil War, sitting roughly at 10% of the total.
That doesn't account for second-generation and older, so I would be interested to see what social mobility was like for those more-established Irish-Americans: were they languishing in the working class, or did they exit from the middle class to go fight in wars disproportionately?
edit: how significant is the class factor, anyway? Does that model really apply, and how many citizens would be considered middle or upper class; enough to make a large statistical impact?
Yes, I made sure to highlight that this was the (unreliable) source, consider it an invitation for the history buffs to chime in.
Food for thought: if I had posted the very first source available on Google as authorative, with no actual knowledge of my own to make the claim, that could be more misleading on aggregate, right?
Agreed, it's not so much where you find the source, but the source itself. Unquestioningly taking "first result" is just as bad as taking anything from an LLM and representing it as a factual answer. Also, kagi generally has higher quality search results (that can be checked).
Also we're not talking about the proportion of the entire nation that was Irish, we're discussing the fighting-age lower class population of the Union side only.
Salting already fixed this decades ago, and most modern password libraries will automatically generate and verify against a hash like <method>$salt$saltedhash if you use them instead of rolling your own.
Honestly, VR/AR is a small gaming peripheral business, like joysticks and third party controllers. And their are companies that make that their thing and make money from it, but it was never going to be profitable enough to be the thing that a company the size of Facebook pivots to, which I could see being a consumer in the space before Facebook got in and after too.
Don't get me wrong, VRChat and Beat Saber are neat, and all the money thrown at the space got the tech advanced at a much faster rate than it would have organically have done I'm the same time (or potentially ever). But you can see Horizon's attempt to be "VRChat but a larger more profitable business" to see how the things you would need to do to monetise it to that level will lose you the audience that you want to monetise.
Computers of course were invented by a state controlled war economy, pretty much the opposite of trickle down.
Permeation of technology due to early adopters paying high costs leading to lower costs is not what trickle down generally means. Being an early adopter of cellphones, AC, flat screen TVs or computers required the wealth level of your average accountant of that era - it didn't require being a millionaire.
People will also use "look society was fine afterwards" as proof the luddites were wrong, but if you look at the fact the growth of industrial revolution cities was driven by importing more people from the countryside than died of disease, it's not clear at all that they were wrong about it's impact on their society, even if it worked out alright for us in the aftermath.
- eliminate taxes on farm inheritance and private education
- reduce benefits spending by stricter eligibility criteria
- reduce immigration by making legal immigration more onerous while also blocking asylum
Per the top policies on their prospectus: https://www.conservatives.com/our-policy-prospectus
I’m surprised anti-trans stuff isn’t in there with how much airtime they’ve given it, but I guess they feel there’s not enough distance between them and Starmer’s Labour.
reply