Imagine widgets are $10 in country A, but a company in country B can make and sell them for $8. Buyers are likely to buy the cheapest (all else being equal). A 100% tariff would turn $8 into $16. Company B still only gets $8, but they now look far more expensive to customers in country A.

They are designed to price out external competitors to local companies. This can be used to protect industries. Steel is a good example. China can make steel far cheaper than the rest of the world. However, steel plants take a long time to build and get producing. You generally don’t want a potential rival to have control of the materials you need for war production.

Another legit use is to account for local regulations. If you require local companies to pay in a carbon credit system, an external company could undercut them from abroad. A tariff would help level the playing field.

None of these apply to what trump is doing. He’s swinging a claymore mine around like a toy hammer. It causes huge damage to all involved.

The ISS has been pinholed by debris a few times. Likely paint. The shuttle was damaged by foam breaking off, amongst other events.

By comparison orbital velocity is around 7km/s, while a bullet is around 0.367km/s. Any mismatch will push debris up to bullet speeds easily.

As for relativistic speeds. C is 300,000km/s assuming you get up to 1/3C (barely relativistic) you are moving at 100,000km/s or 14,000x faster than the ISS moves, or 39000x faster than a bullet. A 10g rock would hit with 10kilotons of energy. About 2/3 the energy of the first atom. bombs.

It’s actually a legit concern with any (hypothetical) interstellar mission. Even hydrogen atoms will hit with significant force. Dust hits like nukes, and an asteroid is just game over.

The maxim used in a lot of sci-fi is an ablative armour plate. Often in the form of ice. Interstellar ships would likely aldo be needle like, to minimise their cross section. We could also use electric and/or magnetic fields to move smaller particles out of the way.

As for densities, I believe it’s a couple of hydrogen ions per m^3 . Dust is rarer, but still present. It’s only bigger rocks that are rare enough to just hope to avoid.

I fully agree that nuclear SHOULD have been part of the solution. I disagree that it should now be part of it. We have lost too much knowledge regarding nuclear power to lack of investment. We no longer have time to rebuild that to get it online. Hopefully it can become part of the solution eventually, but 10-20 years is now far too long to wait.

I agree with the mental bandwidth. I’m fine with he/him, she/her, they/them. I’ll also tend to default to appearance, though I will try and correct if asked to do so.

I’ve yet to find anyone who wasn’t also an arsehole who has an issue with this. That includes places where seeing an obvious male in a dress could equally be someone taking their first steps away from norm, or just a guy that likes wearing dresses. Also, neither was seen as unusual at the event.

I help with a social group. We jokingly refer to it as anarchism under a lazy iron fist.

Day to day decisions are made in a fairly ad-hoc manner, by those involved. If there is a disagreement that can’t be resolved, or if it will have large repercussions (e.g. changing the fabric of the building) it gets raised to the committee and chairman.

The chairman is the sort who is only there because no one better wanted the role. He has no interest in micromanaging, but will resolve issues to get them to go away.

It’s a remarkably effective system. Unfortunately it’s a bit unstable in large groups. Those who want the role are also those you REALLY don’t want with that power. No one has yet solved the issue however. How the f@#£ do you keep the troublemakers out, when they are also the ones most willing to work towards getting the role?

The other problem with anarchism is that the natural self policing systems break down by the Dunbar limit. Parasitical or cancerous behaviours tend to become crippling, forcing people to adopt other unofficial power structures.

There is also the fact that European armies rarely sat idle. If they existed, they were often deployed against each other.

Hopefully the last 75 years of peace has broken that cycle. Most European nations focused on tactical capabilities, over strategic ones, letting America play hammer to their scalpels. If Europe builds an full military then finding the balance between individual and federation armies will be the challenge.

Orbits are all about speed, not height. To deorbit, you need to reduce your speed at the highest part of your orbit. This will lower the lowest part. You jump off the back. You would need to jump FAR harder than your legs are capable of though.

Unfortunately, the sheer speed will kill you, without shielding. As you hit the air, you are going so fast, the air can’t get out of your way. You compress it ahead of you, that heats it up. It gets hot enough to melt most metals. The air will cook you, long before you get slow enough to use your parachute.

For comparison, terminal velocity (max speed you reach falling) is around 200km/h. Orbital velocity is 7km/s or around 25200km/h.

The glue gets weaker when it’s heated. They use the same film for oven meals as well. It comes off fine when you finished heating, but it’s a pain in the arse when cold.

Europe is moderately self sufficient, but only for tactical level operations. No-one wanted to break the understanding on strategic level capabilities.

Europe has a long pattern on that front. Large scale militaries rarely sit idle for long. With multiple nuclear powers in play, that genie has been kept mostly bottled up for 75 years.

It’s also worth noting that I don’t think the UK, France and Germany (previously Prussia) have ever been on the same side in a large scale hot conflict. Figuring out how to do it, without it imploding in 20 years is a challenge. The original plan was NATO, but Russia has managed to neuter that via Trump.

We left the union (an action I fought hard against). We are still part of Europe (geographically ) however.

We need a system with “regression to the mean” built in.

Savvy investing, business and hard work should get you ahead. The key is that it should be taxed enough and in a way that, unless your children are also exceptional, the generational wealth will tend back towards the average. The same applies from the bottom. Someone from a poor background should be able to pull themselves back up, if their work ethic etc is appropriate.

Right now we have run away in both directions. Wealth begets more wealth, and poverty begets more poverty.

I used to find that. It turned out I was just chronically tired. I couldn’t sleep properly until I was exhausted. Once I was medicated, it hit me. It took a while to relearn sleeping. It might just be that you need more sleep than you think.

He’s doing the equivalent of robbing a bank while wearing a suicide bomb vest. The only difference is that he’s threatening the world economy instead.

The fact that he hasn’t thought through the consequence chain afterwards is just him being stupid. Akin to a robber trying to pay the stolen money into his bank account, at the branch he robbed a few days before.

This is a learned effect. We got so battered during childhood that we internalised the criticism, but lost track of the praise (if any was given).

A good solution is “basking”. Take the time that a task took. You should allow yourself to bask in that achievement for at least half that amount of time. This includes bragging to friends and family etc.

This helps to recondition your brain. You’re ALLOWED to feel good about getting stuff done. You’re allowed to sit back and just feel happy about it. This starts retraining your brain to give you that hit. That, in turn, makes the jobs/chores a positive thing, and so your more likely to get it done.

Another trick that’s related and worth mentioning.

Externalise the negatives.

I know, at least personally, my thoughts can lense around problems. I train myself not to even think about them. I’ve found this is because I beat myself up internally. This is quite counterproductive. I learn to avoid the problem, while eroding my sense of self. Instead, direct it outwards.

This is easier by example. E.g. washing up. I used to get annoyed with myself for not doing it. This made me avoid it, and so feel worse. I now direct my annoyance at the washing up itself. It’s ugly and smells. There’s old food congealing on my plate. There’s mold and nastiness growing there. I WANT it GONE!

While this seems silly, its effect is huge. If I don’t get it done, I don’t feel negative about it, I’m annoyed with it. Once I do get it done, it now feels good. I made the problem go away! I no longer lense away from it. My brain actually wants to get it done.

Poor wording on my part.

The B1 trades rugidisation and capacity for speed.

The B21 trades them for stealth.

B52 is optimal for mass bombing. It’s shape makes spares, repairs and production cheap. It’s optimised for bombs/$ via mass deployment. The B1 and B21 could fill the role, but not as well. They are optimised for other uses (B1, get in fast, smash a target and get out. B21, sneak in and pummel a limited target.)

That being said, the last time the US needed that capability was likely Vietnam eta (leveling large areas of jungle). Having it available is still militarily useful.

The physics of a strategic atmospheric bomber hasn’t changed. The B52 is close to optimal in shape for the task. A lot can change, however, both within that shell, and construction materials it’s made of.

There’s an addage that likely apply well.

“In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there’s a huge difference.”

America (and Europe) have a lot of theoretical knowledge. How that plays out in practice is another story. Ukraine has a lot of practical experience. They know which corners can be cut, without losing anything, and which are critical. Lessons payed for in blood.

There are lot that fit that pattern. However, most/all naturally used irrational numbers seem to be normal. Maths has, however had enough things that seemed ‘obvious’ which turned out to be false later. Just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean it’s mathematically true.

It’s also perfectly possible make cheese from it, too.