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.

If you read the article you will see that it is about importing materials like rare earth metals from China

I humbly present my proposal to include Wales https://imgur.com/a/tIrnplu

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.

Only if you never think more than an election ahead.

So how many elections are you expecting that the Dems must lose in order to start fielding candidates you like, or for another party that does so to take their place? It doesn’t matter how many they lose if it never moves the needle your way, so you’ll have to be quite persuasive that this will achieve something that’s worth capitulating to the American right for a decade or longer.

How is that different than what lead the Republican party to trump?

Because of the actual outcomes during the four years between each election and the fact that you can protest and write and whatever else you want for improvement during that time. Your vote does have to be your entire political engagement.

Does this suck? Yes. Does the Republicans winning do literally anything to fix any of it? No. For that you need the Overton window to shift so far that the Republican party dies and the new two-party system has the Dems on the right, or you need a new electoral system. Neither of these is accomplished by the Dems losing.

Why do you think it’ll be different this time?

I don’t think it’ll be different this time because the candidates have already been picked. We already both know what the options are. Unfortunately, “no different” is a lot better than the other option. That’s why I’m advocating voting for damage control on the day. Vote against the worst option, because that’s how FPTP works.

Both are first past the post, which is creates a two-party system. There are a lot of other differences, yes, but for the purposes of the post it’s close enough where it counts

If neither winning nor losing does progressives any favours, then there’s no issue with trying to make the least bad realistic option win

Right, but I agree with you about that. I’m just saying the meme also applies well to the upcoming UK election.

Did you reply to the comment that you intended to here? I’m not sure I understand why you’ve said what you said. If that’s just me being thick then please clarify for me, I’m lost

I think you’ve misunderstood me. Last time the Democrats lost an election, you got Joe Biden as the next candidate. Why would making the Dems lose this election produce a more progressive candidate?

The UK is having a general election in a little over a month, and we have a similar electoral system and a similarly miserable political landscape. It’s fairly applicable here too.

The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections and looks to be 2/3 in a few months should make everyone reconsider the quality of candidates we’re running against him.

After the Dems last lost an election, you got Biden as your next candidate. Why are you expecting this approach to suddenly produce a candidate you would like?

I think you should vote for someone you believe in, rather than voting for someone who is not someone else

This would be the ideal situation, but for so long as we have first-past-the-post it’s a fundamentally ineffective way to vote. Thanks to Duverger’s law, unless one of the two big parties just so happens to coincide with your views then the best you can do is to vote against whichever of the big two you dislike most. “Big two” here depends on your constituency - it may not be Labour and the Conservatives locally, but it is true that virtually every constituency has at most two realistic options. Labour may not be very good, but if they’re in power it’s probably at minimum going to make this a better place for asylum seekers and trans people (or whoever the Tories would go after next), and Labour’s voting record on the environment really is far better than the Conservatives’ too.

party cannon it is