God dammit, pressure is not how wings produce lift! (in his defence it's an extremely common mis-explanation)

If it was then they wouldn't ever work upside down (which they clearly can do when designed for it). Nor does the top and bottom airflow always meet again on the other side evenly, or in fact is the bottom stream always faster than the top.

Bernoulli's principle augments lift in efficient designs, but it's newtons 3rd law which actually makes them work.

You can even see the wash vortex falling down off the wings flying through smoke. It's the equal and opposite reaction from this deflection that causes the majority of lift and drag from a wing .

Dead for me too. Guessing it's region locked? (I'm in UK)

You're not even sorry are you?

As a lifelong flight sim addict (with a decent bit of real world experience), there is a twisted part of my brain that wills exactly this scenario to happen whenever I'm on an airliner.

I have no doubt that I would swiftly regret this if it ever did happen and I was mad enough to volunteer.

@mxxcon Unless a qualified pilot happened to be on the plane it would likely be the senior attendant that takes responsibility yes.

I imagine there is some procedure in place, but the scenario is so massively unlikely and modern avionics so good that there would be little point in doing much if any formal training (I can't see most airlines warranting the expense).

I dare say they might be shown how to work the radio though.

This is a fair and accurate example of how reasonably priced trains are in England.

By way of another example, a U-Bahn (subway) ticket in Berlin is around 1 euro to go anywhere in the city (perhaps it's gone up since but still). To do the same for a few stops in London can often be in the region of £20+.

They are also slow as shit due to the generally low speed limits across most of the network. If you are lucky enough to be on one and not a hastily co-opted bus.

We might possibly have the worst (or least least value for money) rail service in the 1st world, though I'm prepared to consider counter examples.

*promote

I could be wrong, but the internal panels are usually just sound and heat insulation.

Unless the outer shell had also ruptured (instant pressure drop & instrument warning), this probably posed little to no risk to anyone.

That said, if I was the captain I'd probably land soon as just in case too.

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

Did not disappoint, would cat monkey again.

You kind of just proved his whole point there...........

"I think feminism is..."

I'm not sure anyone can claim ownership of the terms definition, but it was originally a fairly hard-line collectivist ideology.

I would have thought only 1st wave feminists could really try to lay claim, everyone else needs to qualify their terms or expect to be misunderstood.

If I was you, I would just stick to "humanist" or "egalitarian". It covers everything you seem to espouse and avoids needless association with the psychotic ideologues.

What part of feminism, as you define it, is not already covered by humanism?

This sort of thing is why I'm wary of of grand overarching conspiracy theories these days.

The reality of the situation seems far too fickle and "Game of thrones" for that kind of co-ordination to be sustained long term.

If any individual element see's an opportunity to get ahead by shafting some or all of the others then try to shaft them they will.

Is Tina actually getting hotter as the years go by? Or am I just going peculiar with age?

I don't understand what this person is talking about. There were only 3 Starwars films, none of them mentioned any nonsense about a Jedi council, droid armies or racist fish men!

Yeh I anticipated the same stupid counter argument when he said it was 300 degrees over!

Best I've seen on the comments to that vid was someone suggesting that the molten metal seen dripping in some 9/11 vids could not have been aluminium because "Molten Aluminium is silver".

Derp!

Speaking as someone who played since the original I completely get where you are coming from.

But, this is easily the most R6 a game has felt since raven shield and once you start to learn the maps and build up a team the planning stage kind of comes into it's own.

I know it's not the same as spending hours tweaking the plan alone (before watching your AI sqaud mess it up). But the tactical depth is very much still there.

Terrorist hunt on realistic difficulty is the equal of any challenge I had in the old R6's, more so really considering the destruction and tools available.

A game with a good team, scouting with drones and breach/sweeping together feels every bit as tense and cerebral as before IMHO.

The only big downside is you need other players, there is a lone wolf mode, but no AI teammates regrettably.