What’s interesting is that historically a lot of people never had children. But, by definition, none of your ancestors were among them.
So, even if being a childless femboy slut was incredibly common historically, that’s the one thing none of your ancestors would be able to understand.
Don’t get me wrong, nearly every fighter plane looks cool. But, it’s just different varieties of cool. Like, a lot of the US planes look Lamborghini-cool, with hard surfaces and so on. The Russian / Soviet planes just look more sculpted.
And, if the rule of cool doesn’t apply, then why did P-40 fighter planes have shark’s mouths?
I dunno. The nose of the MiG-21 looks weird, but I really like the look of the delta wings, the rudder and the ailerons. The F-104 with nothing mounted on the wingtips looks like a dart, which is cool I suppose. With the typical big fuel tanks on the wingtips it looks like some kind of catamaran.
IMO basically every Soviet / Russian jet has looked better than American jets.
I like the look of the MiG-15, the 21, etc. But, IMO the jets really got beautiful right as the Soviet Union was collapsing.
The SU-27 is a beautiful plane, the MiG-29 too. It just seems like with some of these jets, the American equivalents were designed by computer and manufactured precisely to spec. While, it feels like some of the Soviet planes involved guys with hammers trying to make a beautiful curved surface.
It also helps that the Russians often use colourful paint jobs, while the US uses flat boring grey that shows every flaw.
Not sure why the North Atlantic matters to China.
Or, just imagine what it says if they actually didn’t know about this last week. That would be even worse, it would mean that the team doing publicity and taking orders didn’t realize that they were half a year away from being done…
But, yeah, I can’t see how this doesn’t result in a disaster. They really do need to release something before then, something with this year’s DBs before they’re irrelevant. They could take the old game, update the DB and just sell it at half price. Or, they could sell it at full price but with a coupon for say 50% off the new game.
The November release date of Football Manager has always been awkward. The FIFA games all come out in late September / early October, right after the teams have been finalized. By the time Football Manager comes out, 1/3 of the season has already been played. IMO their best bet would be to release in the summer before the season starts and then do a post transfer deadline day patch. The initial release could use the squads as they existed at the end of the previous season – probably something a lot of people would want anyway because they could be in charge of all the summer transfers. In fact, I wonder if a release date of early June or something might be ideal.
My guess is that one major motivation for people to buy Football Manager is that they’re saying “I could do a better job of running my team than this bunch of idiots”. And, that feeling is probably strongest right at the end of a season. A Football Manager release at the end of the season might be ideal for people who want to spend the summer doing all the wheeling and dealing they wish their clubs would do well, as they wait for the season to start again.
If they think they can have the new Unity-based game ready and polished in March, just call it FM 26, release it before the season starts, and do a full update once the various transfer windows have all closed and the DBs are all updated. If they don’t do that, who’s going to buy FM 25 when FM 26 will have all the bugs fixed, the new season’s DBs, and is only a few months away?
Your well come.
I miss Allie’s blog alot.
Noone should of aloud this code to go out the door. Atleast alot of other people people probably complained aswell, so your apart of a bigger group, incase you were worried.
And yes, this was painful to type.
COBOL
Imagine thinking political theory involves selection pressures.
So, pre WWII that was more-or-less East Prussia. Does anybody know how Russian it is these days, in terms of language and culture? Is there any remaining hint of Prussianness vs Russianness? I would think that having no land route connecting it to the rest of Moscow might result in it having its own identity. But, I don’t know enough about its history to know if any of the people there feel a connection to the pre-WWII identity.
OTOH, sometimes you get the opposite effect, like people in the Falkland Islands feeling even stronger connections to Britain than a lot of the people actually living in the British Isles.
Also, since it’s the home of the Black Sea fleet, I imagine that means a lot of Russians in the navy moving there, which would tend to exert a strong Russian cultural influence on the area.
Greater Catalonia.
It’s so lazy to describe capitalism backsliding towards feudalism as “late stage capitalism”. If capitalism actually had “stages”, you’d have to progress forward to reach later stages. Backsliding towards the feudalism that birthed capitalism isn’t some kind of “late stage”, it’s capitalism failing and feudalism reasserting itself.
There was a quote from one of them the other day talking about being unable to sleep well because he’s constantly afraid of people coming after him for what he’s got. If only there were a way to remove that target from your back…
That looks more like feudalism.
For Capitalism there should be multiple different money scoops, some better designed than others. There should also be a greased-up rope that leads from the unicycle-bar to the top, showing that it’s theoretically possible to rise to a different class, it’s just practically impossible.
Yes… as I said. But, most people use hardware provided by other people, which means other people write the drivers.
It’s amazing the stories that Americans tell themselves about the American Revolution. They pretend that the “founding fathers” were heroic idealists standing up for honorable values against an evil despotic regime. The truth is much more complicated.
A major goal of the 7 Years War was about controlling the colonies in the Americas. Had the French won those wars, the modern people of North America would probably speak French. Look at how many US places still have French names, and especially are named after the French king: Louisiana, Louisville, St. Louis, Mobile, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Detroit, Lafayette, Arkansas, Illinois, Calumet, Decatur, Boise, Montpelier, etc. But, the French lost the war, so the English took over all that territory. Fighting that war was incredibly expensive, but it was worth it for the English because they now controlled a whole new continent with all its resources. To pay for that war, they levied taxes. The English colonists in the US, who were largely the beneficiaries of that part of the war, decided they didn’t want to pay those taxes, so they rebelled. They got the benefit of a continent won for them by English armies, but without having to pay the bill for that fight. Now, again, it’s complicated. The English armies were integrated with the colonial armies. George Washington was initially an officer in the British army (and was part of starting the French and Indian wars, which became the 7-years-war). The US colonists were part of the force that fought against the French and their native allies.
Anyhow, it was complicated. But, the end result was that after a war that took place both in Europe and in the Americas, the British crown had a huge debt. I have no idea what proportion of that debt was due to the part of the war fought in Europe vs. the part of the war fought in the Americas, but overall there was a big debt and the English crown tried to tax whoever they could to pay for it.
Was the English king a tyrant? Sure. Did the Americans have fair representation in the English parliament? Probably not. But, their main reason for rebelling was the same one that is nearly always the cause of rebellions: the rebels are in an area that’s wealthy for some reason, and they don’t want to have to share that wealth with the rest of the country / empire. In fact, it was suspected that the colonists chose not to send representatives to the colonial assembly partially because they knew that if they did that it would undermine their “without representation” argument, and the real issue was that they simply didn’t want to pay taxes.
As for the English system being tyrannical, the reality is that it has been a very slow, gradual change from an absolute monarchy to a ceremonial one. The English crown is significantly less wealthy than Elon Musk, and arguably has a lot less influence on British politics than Musk does on American politics.
By the letter of the laws, the British system is still more classist and controlled by money than the American system. But, is that true if you look at the actual real way that power is used? It doesn’t seem like it to me.