u10
That being said, acting as if actions and words can exist in a vacuum and immune from any sort of criticism, feedback, or debate is an incredible amount of arrogance.
What DHH said about London is deeply problematic, bigoted, and frankly doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't want any criticism for his views he shouldn't be saying them! Free speech goes both ways. Either take the lumps on the chin and quit complaining about people being mean, or shut the fuck up. Does not make him a Nazi though.
>That was then. Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third. A statistic as evident as day when you walk the streets of London now.
Unambiguously referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London, 2001 census 60% of London was white British, 36% in 2021.
https://old.reddit.com/r/CitiesSkylines/comments/17gxkrf/pat...
You might point to the early days of the Ukrainian War as a sign that BCM is not dead but that wouldn't track these days. Russia is sitting with MiG-31's flying over Belarus and Western Russia firing extremely long rage missiles. The enviroment is simply not permissive enough for the type of aggressive CAP that might result in BCM.
When shit hits the fan it's the PT gods that can grab their shit and hump it in the boonies who are going to survive, not some pencil neck weekend warriors with guns and ammo and a motorcycle.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-sanctio...
> Those reports were from ukrainian rockets which failed to intercept attacking rockets
This doesn't track either, if that were the case it would be incredibly suspicious that these intercepts are failing and just through sheer bad luck that the failed intercepts consistently land on Ukrainian forces or residential areas at incredibly high rates.
> Don't you think it's kind of ironic to have title "Russia’s stock of weapons running low" just when Russia bombarding entire Ukraine with hundreds of rockets as I write it.
No, whatever Russia may constitute necessary reserves to actually fight a war with NATO and simply running out of missiles are two different things. Much like the reports of Russia going to the DPRK to ask for assistance in providing artillery shells, it is literally not the case that Russia is running out of artillery shells, but more likely Russia seeks to backstop the current usage to maintain necessary strategic reserves.
And it doesn't really contradict the notion that Russia is in fact running out of PGM's, given that the S-300's are being used for ground attack, which Russia has massive stockpiles of and aren't really needed in the current conflict.
There have been plently of reports of Russia using S-300 missile systems in the ground attack configuration.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-63247287
And it is not unreasonable that the missiles may have originated from Belarus, since Russia has sortied out of the country throughout the war.
That's specious reasoning. Someone who posesses an action movie likes action movies, while someone who posesses child porn likes child porn. One is ok, the other is pretty vile and illegal for a reason.
I don't agree with Apple on this but let's be clear on what is and what isn't
The GAU-8 couldn't penetrate the frontal armour of the T-62, let alone the turrent on the sides. With ERA armour it becomes even more ineffective. Those tanks? AA, SAM, and enemy CAP are covering them so good luck getting slow and low enough to hit the tanks in the rear and 1. surviving, 2. actually hitting the damn things.
>F16's can't do what A10 does the best (CAS).
This
>In 1st Gulf War A10s are credited with something like 1000 tanks destroyed (mostly with Mavericks though)
contradicts this.
an F-16 can carry mavricks just as well as the A-10, can get their faster, and has higher survivabilty rate compared to the slow as molasses A-10.
Hell, you could replace the A-10 with a single engine turboprop with rough airfield landing capabilities and it would be way more cost-effective than the A-10.
And the A-10 was obsolete the minute it rolled off of the assembly line. Most estimates that the majority of A-10's would have been destoryed within 72 hours of the Warsaw Pact rolling across the German border. The gun is not particularly effective against modern armour, and the same mission can be carried out better by other aircraft like the F/A-18 or the F-16, as seen in the 1st Gulf War. It's found new life in Afghanistan and Iraq but even than drones would have been better suited for the role. In fact, the AF wants to get rid of the A-10, but congress wont let them.
The F-16 did not conform to what Boyd wanted out of a combat aircraft, execpt for the lightweight part. The F-16 has a RADAR, BVR, and while designed as an air superiority it has exceeded expectations as a multirole platform.
Sure, you could point towards regulators but we know that the advantage will always be with the regulated.
Your example would make more sense if the car they were selling a what may seem as a perfectly fine Lambo, but in actuality it was a lemon. And the only way to find out if it was a lemon or not is to tear it apart piece by piece.
I don't think you understand how the options market work. Several of the large spikes on Friday and the past week is the result of MM (like Citadel Securities) having to purchase shares to cover the naked calls they sold.