Skua

The small one is an E30 3 series and the big one is an X7 (pre-2022). The X7 does get slightly better fuel consumption than that, 27-29 mpg on the petrol engine. The 3 series is probably somewhere in the low 20s based on forum posts but I’m not sure where to get actual data for that one, and I’ve got no idea which engine is in it

Courtesy of /u/idiot206’s sleuthing work when this was posted to reddit a couple years back, it’s a modded Mac SE

https://www.cultofmac.com/229732/this-13-pound-vintage-mac-laptop-was-killed-by-the-sony-walkman/

Oh, that I’m not sure of. I misunderstood what you were asking, sorry about that

While I don’t know about actual jets launching munitions over Russian airspace, Ukraine did successfully hit a Shahed drone factory over 1,000 km from the Russia-Ukraine border with what appears to have been one of these light aircraft converted to be unmanned. So Russia’s air defence is definitely not impenetrable.

Well they’ve been flying Su-24s, and the F-16s certainly shouldn’t be any less capable than those for this sort of thing

Can Ukraine use stormshadows within Russia?

The UK okayed it a couple of weeks ago, France this week

Nice gesture but why would Ukraine risk losing their new toys on adventurism where is work closer to to home to be done.

Where the frontline is close to the official border, Russia is able to keep its artillery and logistics on the Russian side of the border where Ukraine is not allowed to use half of its equipment. Russia’s ongoing Kharkiv offensive is an example of this

Now if they were supplying rockets with ranges over 200km

France and Britain have been supplying the storm shadow missile, which has almost three times that range. Ukraine has been launching it from its own Su-24 aircraft, but those are very old and there aren’t a lot of them left. The F-16 could be a good new platform to launch them from. As I understand it, storm shadow and F-16 are not compatible out of the box and would need some modification, but the same was true for the Su-24 and that appears to have worked out

Well considering both the EU and NATO have articles of mutual defence, they’ve already agreed to it twice (or once, for Norway and Iceland). I’m not sure sinking a ships qualifies as an escalatory response to bombing bases and sinking ships though. At that point the escalation has already happened.

Well since neither of them included any sort of language to the effect of “Russia gets to invade if the terms of this agreement aren’t upheld”, I’m gonna go with more than two. Especially considering DPR forces kept pushing for Debaltseve after both agreements.

Several NATO members have already okayed this for Ukraine and remain distinctly un-nuked. Plus, of course, the Ukrainians have been doing it with their domestically-produced gear for ages and also haven’t been nuked.

China isn’t that big for domestic cobalt extraction, it’s Chinese companies working in other countries. The biggest reserves are in Congo-Kinshasa and Australia, but Australia doesn’t extract much

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#Second_French_colonial_empire_(post-1830)

Huh, not sure what’s going on there. It looks fine on my instance obviously, but it seems fine on yours and the post’s in the browser at least. Then again kbin seems to be particularly janky with links in particular. Thanks for making a version everyone can see

Actual explanation: these squid are transparent normally, but can turn on a dark pigmentation when that is a more effective camouflage. Being transparent works quite well most of the time, but if the predator has its own light source (as several deep-sea predators do) then their transparent state becomes a problem, because it’s relatively reflective compared to the water around them. In this situation, turning on the dark pigment helps them blend in with the dark water better.

Source: Zylinski and Johnsen “Mesopelagic Cephalopods Switch between Transparency and Pigmentation to Optimize Camouflage in the Deep”

The language used seems very Abrahamic for a Hindu nationalist. Like consistently referring to a singular God usually referred to only as God. Is this some translation weirdness, or is it just normal language that’s surprising me because I’m not familiar with the context? I know that a lot of denominations of Hinduism hold one of the gods as being the primary one, but even that seems like it would be a fast way to alienate other denominations

Spain is a particularly interesting one. They’re not normally too keen on recognising any sort of breakaway region so as not to legitimise the Catalan independence movement. Take a look at a map of recognition of Kosovo for an example. Not that I’m complaining by any means; it’s a welcome surprise

NASA’s design is a few kilometres long and accelerates the vehicle at about 3 G up to roughly Mach 1. The technology is the same principle as a railgun, but it’s more like a maglev train with a track that ends pointing upwards a bit

The Wrong Trousers (1993)

Aviation is about a fortieth of the world’s total emissions, so while there are certainly bigger sectors to look at it’s still substantial enough that it’d be extremely helpful to fix it

For sure, I’m not disagreeing with the article. The problems raised by this report are not what the comment I was replying to raised, and I think that we should criticise these things for their actual problems.

The advantage of making fuels from plants isn’t in them burning cleaner, it’s in the fact that growing the plants takes carbon out of the atmosphere. That means that the carbon released upon burning them was carbon that was already recently in the atmosphere, as opposed to being deep underground like it was with fossil fuels

That doesn’t negate the issues of land use changes and similar, but in terms of plain old net carbon emissions they absolutely are better

If someone says something like that, there’s no point interacting with them anyway. You’re not going to persuade them that it didn’t happen if they truly believe it, and you’re not going to gain anything by attempting to do so.

Either way, in your first comment you’re complaining about feelings and behaviours resulting from entirely plausible experiences, not about experiences that are themselves implausible.