Funny, you cut off the important bit right before that quote where the man cut her off as she was about to explain her most recent book. Here’s a bit of context:

“She began to talk about her most recent, on Eadweard Muybridge, whereupon the man cut her off and asked if she had “heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year”—not considering that it might be (as, in fact, it was) Solnit’s book.

See how the context changes the situation? She was already speaking, and the man cut her off, assuming she was unaware, and explained to her something that he would have learned to be unnecessary if he had simply treated her as a conversation partner to be listened to, rather than something to be narrated at.

I can already tell I’m not going to be able to convince you, though. In order to support your point (and, perhaps, avoid any self-reflection) you’ve ignored nuance - generally bad practice when talking about the intricacies of social interaction. Certainly, men monologue to men, men monologue to women, women monologue to men, and women monologue to women, but much like when people equivocate the fear of sexual assault to the fear of false accusations, the thing being ignored is the amount that these things happen; they are not equivalent.

To be absolutely clear: I am a man. An autistic man, even. One who loves to learn, loves to info-dump, and has more female friends than male. In all my time info-dumping to my female friends, I have never once been accused of mansplaining, because I ask before I explain to ascertain their knowledge, and I actually listen when they speak.

Funny how that works.

Probably bait, but I’ll take it anyways.

Mansplaining is when you make an assumption that a woman doesn’t know something basic and fundamental about a topic, and then explain it to them like they’re an idiot or a child. You may not even be aware you’re doing it as a man, because misogyny is ingrained into our culture and social conditioning. Such is the nature of microaggressions; you do them without realizing, because it’s a bias that has become so baked into your worldview as to become subconscious.

It’s easy to avoid doing, though. Anytime you’re about to explain something, to a woman or otherwise, simply first ask if they are familiar with ‘x topic’. If the answer is yes, proceed without explanation, if the answer is no, explain as you would to anyone else without condescension. It’s literally that easy.

Wild. That seems incredibly stupid, but incredibly stupid is very on-brand for the US education system lmao.

I’ll take that to mean my experience was very much not standard, then.

For what it’s worth, as someone who graduated highschool in Utah (one of the shittest US states in terms of funding and education) I learned the recorder in Elementary school and was required to take a financial literacy class in highschool to graduate. True, that class taught now-useless skills like how to write a check, but it also taught me about 401Ks/Roth IRAs, how to file taxes, managing credit scores and lines of credit, mortgages and debt, budgeting, and a bunch of other skills besides. I’m not sure how standard this is across the US, but I can’t imagine it’s too uncommon given that it was a shitty small town high school in a deep red state. Hell, I’ve seen memes like this posted by people who graduated in my year and it always perplexes me because I know for a fact they had to take that class.

Jfc they really keep finding ways to outdo themselves here

Interesting question! I hadn’t heard about the royal navy looking into this recently! The last I was aware they had discussed retrofitting the QE carriers around 2011-2012, but the project cost estimation at that time was ~£2b, two thirds of the approximate procurement cost of one carrier at ~£3b.

I wasn’t able to find anything definitive about if this more recent proposed retrofit will go forward, but I will say that the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defense Review white paper specifies in section 7.2 they will be using F-35B for their carrier air wings. The full section is as follows:

“The Royal Navy must continue to move towards a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet, developing a ‘high-low’ mix of equipment and weapons that exploits autonomy and digital integration. Carrier strike is already at the cutting-edge of NATO capability but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck.”

My guess is that they found similar results to the previous time they looked into retrofitting the carriers. The language here makes me think they’re moving toward more drone integration (manned-unmanned teaming is all the rage right now) in order to offload extra munitions and capabilities to autonomous platforms which compliment and counterbalance the weight limitation weaknesses of F-35B rather than broadening the scope of their available air wing, but it’s hard to say as I didn’t see any mention for or against the retrofits in that whitepaper. Definitely something to keep an eye on, though, as I doubt they would have reconsidered the retrofits in the first place without some reason to make it potentially more viable. Good looking out!

I think that’s just cynicism or perhaps pessimism.

I suppose you could but it would be both incredibly time consuming and incredibly expensive, and you’d be more likely to end up with a worse carrier than if you’d just built in those launch capabilities in the first place.

You’d need to rip out the deck, and then retrofit it and the internals to accommodate the rail and launch system. You’d also need to reinforce the deck and remove the ski jump as the jets you’re flying will now be heavier and the jump will just get in the way of the launch system. The system itself could either be electromagnetic (like the EMALS system) but that would require several times the current energy output of a Queen Elizabeth class carrier, so would involve extensive engine upgrades. You could use steam instead, but you have a similar problem in that a whole bunch of infrastructure that you didn’t design space for now has to fit. You’d also probably have to overhaul the fueling, munitions, and maintenance facilities to accommodate the new jets. I’m sure there are other things that would have to be adapted but this is just from the top of my head.

All told, you’d probably be spending a similar amount or more to building a new carrier in order to take one of your own carriers offline for years and at the end of it you’d be left with an incredibly expensive carrier which would likely still be subpar to something custom built for this purpose.

TLDR: You could, but it’d involve a lot of work, a lot of money, a lot of trade offs, and would be unlikely to yield something better than if you’d just put that money into building a new carrier.

I mean, they’re not forced to, it’s just a problem that requires tradeoffs. For example, France operates the CATOBAR-capable carrier Charles de Gaulle and specifically doesn’t fly F-35, choosing instead to fly the 4th gen Rafale for the express purpose of maintaining strategic autonomy.

Plus, unless you’re an island nation or doing expeditionary operations (i.e. the power projection game) you probably have little need for a carrier in the first place.

If you’ll only settle for a 5th gen jet that’s carrier capable, though, yeah you’re kinda out of luck. Su-57 is hardly even a 5th gen jet in the first place, and even if the Admiral Kuznetsov wasn’t continuously catching fire in dry dock, the jet still couldn’t launch from it for a variety of design reasons. Same story with China’s J-20. China IS developing J-35 for carrier operations, though, and the jet has launched from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers in tests from what I understand, but I don’t imagine they’ll export those for a VERY long time.

I mean, wasting our tax dollars has basically been the party’s platform for a while now, so no surprises there.

You would think, right? They actually originally planned to include CATOBAR capabilities in their new build carriers, but budget cuts due to the cost of it forced them to scrap the idea, and then the rest of the purchase decisions followed as a result.

The thing to remember is that the UK doesn’t have any CATOBAR capable carriers, so the only F-35 variant they can fly from their carriers is the VTOL capable one.

Holy shit it’s only been a year? I feel like I’ve aged a decade since then.

True. And there is nothing more dangerous to an autocrat than a competent military leader, especially as military victories tend to deliver public support as well. Either way, he’s got a fine line to walk, but if Xi’s time in power has taught us anything, it’s that he’s very good at walking that line.

This is the first I’m hearing of this, so take this with a grain of salt, but Im skeptical of the idea that the dismissal of ‘Xi loyalists’ indicates a weakening of Xi’s position. The thing to remember is that autocrats during peacetime are forced to pick people for top positions who won’t upset the balance of power; loyalty is the primary factor in selection, especially so in this case because the person who controls the military is by far the most dangerous from a coup perspective. Notably, this means that no requirement is made for competence at their given role. Putin faced the consequences of this exact problem in Ukraine, as several of his top brass (see: Shoigu and Gerasimov) were both deeply corrupt and deeply incompetent, and it led to massive issues in the initial invasion in 2022. This could instead be read as a preparation for war, with Xi learning from Putin’s mistakes and clearing out the loyal but not completely competent members of his military command apparatus.

A friend of mine also found their long-term partner on Hinge. Dating apps are kinda dead, but if you’re looking for something other than hookups, it seems like Hinge is one of the better options.

“Third Way said it was concerned about Mamdani’s affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America and highlighted what they said were “extreme” policy proposals embraced by the DSA”

> looks at so called ‘extreme’ proposals

> “give everyone water, education, and healthcare.”

God I fucking hate centrists lol.

There were definitely red flags before, it’s just that people ignored them because he was better than Dr. Oz. There’s a good Some More News video that goes into it.