I don't believe that humans can really sense it on their own. But there was/is a group of "body hackers" who would implant a small shard of a magnet into their finger tip to allow them to feel electromagnetic fields.
Of course Chinese entrepreneurs can innovate. That being said, the CCP has been making it more difficult. As of this month every single mobile game needs government approval at cost to the developer.
Yes the statistics suggest that older, less educated voted more for Leave.
But aren't those also the ones who have been hit hardest by Globalization? Isn't that the big divide we're seeing here: the fact that high skilled and well educated have greatly benefited from the EU. Meanwhile the working class have faced stagnation.
Leaving the EU gives up power, economic might, and so on, but I don't find it so surprising that so many would risk such a decision in hopes of breaking away from the status quo.
The recession has hit the Whole world, not just the EU. countries outside the EU also have inequality problems, arguably more so.
You have decided to leave beleaving that being independent will improve your chances of facing global problems: globalization, immigratiin, inequality, tidal movements in the labor market due to technology disruption ... It is not a given that global problems can be better confronted by withdrawing from international organizations. Time will tell.
But even if you happen to ne succesful in that front, the political damage, for the UK and the EU is huge. The EU is much more than a market, and the UK is about to realize about it.
You can focus on global problems if you like, there is no guarantee the EU will help there, you've cherry-picked your concerns: what about non-global problems, what about global opportunities?
It is still an issue on a practical level. Last year of the 160K asylum seekers in Sweden less than 500 found a job. That's of a country which has a population of less than 10M. How is Sweden's benefit system supposed to cope?
I haven't read too much into the topic until a week or two ago but I've seen those exact arguments coming up time and time again. Given how close it was I think remain shot themselves in the foot by not articulating their points.
Right, but let's imagine there is a vote to abolish congress and it goes through. Wouldn't it be logical for many people who understand congress and how it works try to figure out all of the nuances of the decision?
I think the WaPost is really trying to hammer hard the narrative that:
Searched = Evidence of ignorance = Leave won thanks to ignorance.
There has been a mood that the EU has benefited many of those who were more educated and better off while many blue color working class members of British society were left very much behind.
Sure there's the immediate market shock of a decision the market didn't expect, but we can't say for sure that end result in one, two, or five years will be more negative than positive for those Britons.
The problem is that the same massive range of area denial weapons and cruise missiles also puts fixed assets such as airstrips and bases as far as Guam in jeopardy of attack. Thus there is the problem of how do you get platforms capable of delivering payloads onto your adversary.
Carrier's are efficient at that. Unlike fixed bases, they're far more difficult to track and hit. They can launch a large number of aircraft which can hit a larger number of targets with stand off munitions. Drones can be used to delivery, although it is worth noting that most modern cruise missiles effectively are drones themselves with a several hundred pound warhead.
The author completely ignores China's increasingly sophisticated anti-submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary? Furthermore how long with a submarine stay hidden after launching a cruise missile attack? If we're to assume that the range places it within the sphere of A2/AD then it would be just as vulnerable as a surface ship after attacking.
Which then begs the question of how do you deliver payloads? You could opt to instead rely on munitions which can be launched for farther away, but such munitions certainly would be more costly. I would think that the optimal solution in respect to limited resources would be some mix of long range munitions to counter area denial capability followed by the deployment of shorter ranged assets.
But that's just my 5cent as an enthusiast who doesn't actually have any professional experience in the matter. Although from what I read about the author, it appears we're on similar footing in that regard.
》 The author completely ignores China's increasingly sophisticated anti-submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary?
Our nuclear submarines would probably be easily tracked with their "listening network" (I don't know anything about it) but diesel-electric submarines, which seem to be making a resurgence although not with the pro-nuclear forces in the navy, are far quieter and harder to detect. Combine that with the sound matting being develop for next gen subs and/or titanium hulls like Russia used to make, and you've got a very formidable submarine capable of high speed travel which will be very hard to detect with passive or active sonar.
Passive, maybe, but active? I'm skeptical that there's any submarine in the world which can avoid active sonar. Further more the difference between a nuclear and diesel electric submarine's noise level would likely quickly be overcome by the resulting low frequency noises produced by the propeller at high speeds.
For example the Russian Alfas class were so loud when they were going top speed that US listening posts across the atlantic could hear them.
Diesels are used only when the ship recharges batteries. When the sub is underwater, they can run very silently and be completely silent when they stop.
Nuclear subs generate noise and vibration from the steam turbines, pipes etc. that can't be completely eliminated.
> When the sub is underwater, they can run very silently and be completely silent when they stop.
True, but diesel boats normally run on the surface, and on diesel, because battery life is limited; they generally submerge only to run an attack or to escape an attacker (or briefly at dawn, in case there's an unpleasant surprise out there that wasn't picked up). That's why nuclear submarines were once referred to as the first true submarines, as opposed to mere submersibles.
Modern air independent propulsion equipped diesel electric submarines have underwater endurance for several weeks. Even if they sprint full speed non-stop they could stay submerged several days.
