For some reason, the linked article claims the Netherlands has a Gini coefficient of 0.902 but the linked source claims a Gini coefficient of 0.281, significantly lower.
I can find no other sources claiming a Dutch Gini coefficient higher than 0.3 at any point in recent history. A Gini coefficient of 0.902 is practically unheard of, perhaps the article was written in error? Seems strange to put so much effort into writing an article without checking the source or questioning the number.
By comparison, Russia's Gini coefficient is 0.375 with the noted caveat that it can be very hard to track the true wealth of the most powerful Russians. The United States is 0.414 according to same source.
> The Netherlands skew falsely high on the GINI coefficient because house loans are insured by the state, causing many families to technically be in large debt, beyond the value of their houses.
That makes it hard to trust the wealth numbers, e.g. things like "the top 10% of the country owns 60% of the wealth" (according to the OCED). The bottom 60% of the country owns "almost no" wealth. It also explains why, if you visit The Netherlands, it doesn't seem like it is struggling with inequality…
From what a pilot told me, I believe the A320 he flies can take off, fly, and land totally on its own. I'm sure the same is true for other planes.
Also, if I recall correctly, he said in certain conditions it's against regulations for a pilot to be manually controlling the aircraft, such as landings in high winds.
"land totally on its own" suggests autonomy. In reality it's a three part certification: pilot, plane (autopilot), and runway. There is only one zero visibility landing system, and that's the ILS CAT IIIc.[1] If there's no ground capability for the runway (does not exist or is down for maintenance) then the plane can't do a CAT IIIc landing.
In practice there is no such thing as landing without an explicit clearance to land. Clearance is given by ATC to the pilot via AM radio. The autopilot has no language listening or speaking skills at all. Numerous clearance modifications happen during a flight, given verbally.[2]
The plane also doesn't taxi itself into position, and it doesn't retract or subsequently deploy landing gear. Many tasks aren't available to the autopilot, nor are many transitions between tasks.
About the last statement, FAR 91.3(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. You could construe FAR 91.13(a)No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. as requiring the pilot to use automation if the aircraft manufacturer requires it in certain situations. Otherwise, no, and I have only ever heard of autopilots needing to be disabled in high wind situations.
[2]
Example STAR which most airports don't have, but when they do you'll even see these are really just designed to allow ATC to "plug in" a smaller subset of data like an altitude or speed, without having to recite the entire arrival instructions. Can it be automated? No, because the variables are delivered by voice. The STAR is useless without the variables, and variables are useless without the STAR.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1709/09077POWDR.PDF
Fairly sure it still needs the pilot to tell it "now we're taking off", "now we're cruising", "now we're landing" (and under what parameters). Doing that switch automatically seems unsafe.
The other part sounds improbable - quite the opposite, a pilot always needs to be able to take over in case the automatic systems fail.
I've thought of this but am too worried a floating point number error or a problem with division could cause an automated fatal dose of insulin to actually do it.
I also have a bad Diet Coke habit. Drink cans and cans a day. I hear Elon Musk and Bill Gates also drink copious amounts. I wonder what it is about Diet Coke that's so addictive.
Caffeine and phenylalanine, in addition to the sweetness-without-actual-energy that is likely backfiring to create further sweet-cravings.
(I wouldn't be surprised if research eventually concludes regular Coke is safer than Diet Coke, even given the problems with HFCS. So, if trying to quite Diet Coke, you might 1st want to try substituting regular Coke... which you might find more satiating and thus consume less of, by volume.)
I'm not sure you can describe an essential amino acid as an addictive substance... sure there is a strong desire to consume it, but its closer to things like oxygen, water or any vital thing that keeps you alive.
Caffeine on the other hand has a well understood and documented mechanism of physical dependence, but its considered extremely mild compared to substances traditionally considered addictive (nicotine, alcohol)...
Do people crave phenylalanine beyond the essential levels needed? There's strong hints some do, via both diet sodas and sugar-free gums. And there's a plausible mechanism, given phenylalanine's relation to key neurotransmitters, and its use in treating depression and other neurologic disorders.
(I suppose we could raise the same question about food in general. Obviously food is necessary, but can it ever make sense to talk about a 'food addiction'? Or perhaps more accurately, an 'overeating addiction'? I think it can, in some cases. For someone wondering why they feel 'addicted' to diet soda, the high levels of mood-altering phenylalanine from the aspartame is highly likely to be a factor.)
Well it does, if all else is head steady. But the issue seems to be that nothing is held constant in reality and the missing sugars are made up for with snacks elsewhere.
I don't think they're breaking into their system at all. They're just abusing a public interface on their sight. A more apt analogy would be repeatedly calling their phone, or ringing their doorbell nonstop. Your analogy implies they are destroying GitHub's property, which they aren't.
Bit further than that. They're crowding your front porch with the explicit purpose of preventing any of your friends, family or customers actually getting to your front door. I think the intent is important to note. It's not a child who likes the sound of a doorbell, but an adult employed to achieve a very negative outcome.
How are death camps, the specific targeting of civilians, medical experimentation on detainees, burying prisoners alive and even cannibalism covered under "war of conquest". When does it become genocide? How is it any different (if not worse for its unparalleled scale) than what the Nazis did?
They didn't just target Chinese civilians, they targeted the civilians of every nation they invaded. This includes the British civilians in Singapore and Hong Kong who were sent to ghettos and labour camps, few of who survived. And this was the "preferential" treatment the Brits got. The Chinese and other Asians got far, far worse.
Google is buying the TLD, not all the subdomains under it. They will then have control over the namespacing for the TLD and be able to distribute subdomains as they see fit. This is how most TLDs work because "app" itself is a domain, not just an extension.
I can find no other sources claiming a Dutch Gini coefficient higher than 0.3 at any point in recent history. A Gini coefficient of 0.902 is practically unheard of, perhaps the article was written in error? Seems strange to put so much effort into writing an article without checking the source or questioning the number.
By comparison, Russia's Gini coefficient is 0.375 with the noted caveat that it can be very hard to track the true wealth of the most powerful Russians. The United States is 0.414 according to same source.