If they just wanted to hop on a regular commercial flight to the US that might be a problem, but I'd expect they would fly on military aircraft.
Instead of taking the most direct route which would fly over Europe they could stay over the Mediterranean until they reach the Atlantic and then head straight to the US.
That adds about 500 miles or so to the trip which probably isn't a big deal on a trip that long.
Now I'm wondering if airspace spreads out horizontally from the coast the same way that shipping rights do.
I'd assume so, but a quick skim-read didn't tell me either way.
If it does, then they'd pick between going through Spanish or Moroccan airspace, because the straights of Gibraltar are narrow enough you can see Africa from Gibraltar.
From what I've read, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when you have things like that strait where it is the only reasonable route between two bodies of international water ships and planes that are traveling between those two bodies have the right to pass through unimpeded.
If you want to do something other than just a continuous and expeditious passage through the strait than you do need permission from the bordering countries and have to obey their rules. But if you are just going straight (no pun intended) through then it legally counts as being on the high seas all the way through.
Presumably if they get invited to Europe it will be with assurance from the state that nothing happens to them. And traveling uninvited is probably a bad move anyway. So not much difference.
If you mean to imply that Europe is somehow going to shoot down their planes if they fly over that’s obviously absurd.
From what I've read the Strait of Gibraltar is covered by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which guarantees ships and planes that are just traveling through to get from one area of international waters to another area of international waters the right to do so without interference.
You will find that you'll get much better discussions if you do some introspection on how you might misinterpret someone when you think someone says something that you think is 'obviously absurd'. Why would they say something that is obviously absurd?
Maybe it is more revealing that you jump to the obviously absurd interpretation rather than the even more obvious, and not absurd one?
"Invitations" for government officials are pretty much invitations in name only.
Many of the emails of Assad and his government have been leaked and show in great detail how various governments interact with each other. And how Assad ran his country by forwarding NYT articles...
`uv` is definitely not a wrapper. It's written from scratch. If you mean by wrapper that it's mostly compatible with pip (using `uv pip`), that's one of their adoption strategies to make it easier to switch to.
But it does a lot more than that.
Unnecessarily high speeds to show up the Continental duffers raised costs exponentially, then every Tory rural constituency claiming the line would disfigure their pristine arcadia had to be appeased with hugely expensive tunnels. But HS2 Ltd was also incredibly mismanaged. They made sure to rule out the manager of HS1 (successfully delivered under budget) as he would stop the gravy train (pun intended).
That’s essentially what RDMA is, except it is usually run over Infiniband although hyperscalers are wary of Nvidia’s control over the technology and looking for cheaper Ethernet-based alternatives.
If it's a secure internal network, RDMA is probably what you want if you need low-latency data transfer. You can do some very performance-oriented things with it and it works over ethernet or infiniband (the quality of switching gear and network cards matters, though).
Back in ~2012 I was setting up a high-frequency network for a forex company and at the time we deployed Mellanox and they had some very (at the time) bleeding edge networking drivers that significantly reduced the overhead of writing to TCP/IP sockets (particularily zero-copy which TL;DR meant data didn't get shifted around in memory as much and was written to the ethernet card's buffers almost straight away) that made a huge difference.
I eventually left the firm and my successors tried to replace it with cisco gear and Intel NICs and the performance plummeted. That made me laugh as I received so much grief pushing for the Mellanox kit (to be fair, they were a scrappy unheard of Israeli company at the time).
That's because "soft touch" finishes are usually basically incompletely polymerized plastic painted on the body instead of more premium materials like rubber or silicone, and yes, they will break down over time. You can fix it using isopropyl alcohol and a scotch-brite or similar sponge to scrape it off, but better not to have it in the first place.
The average wealth of a free person in the South was significantly higher than that of a free person in the North. In 1860, the average wealth of a free Southerner was $1,042.74, while the average Northerner's wealth was $546.24 1.
In the Lower South, the average wealth was even higher, at $1,508.61 1.
England was not as overwhelming over Scotland demographically in the past as it is today, and the Scots were eager participants in the colonial venture. In fact, the Act of Union was motivated by the failed Darien Scheme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme#Consequences_of_...
> The insistence on explaining every successes of the UK/Europe with its colonies is politically orientated, not factual.
And where do you think the capital to fund all the investment came from? Colonization mostly benefited the elite at the expense of the state and majority of the people, but those are also the people able to invest.
Now, if you meant that beyond the colonies we should not discount the role of obscene profits from slavery, foremost the royal family, then yes, I agree with you.
The war proved ruinous to the UK in a way WW1 wasn’t because of the destruction visited by the Luftwaffe, and the UK squandered its lion’s share of the Marshall Plan on maintaining Imperial pretenses:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.sht...
I agree with you and I think we’re both right. WW2 made things much worse for Britain, and Britain was still in a very strong position in 1940 compared to the other European powers (along with leading the world in multiple key technical endeavors) but WW1 was when things started going downhill for them. If you went back to 1900 or even 1910 it would have probably been unthinkable that Britain would default on a foreign debt or allow a foreign rival to match the Royal Navy, and yet Britain did both of those during the interwar period—the latter of which was agreed to with a formal treaty, negotiated and signed in that foreign rival’s capital city!
reply