I really think that if Microsoft would be forced to improve user experience of Teams, it would lead to measurable impact when it comes to happiness of humankind.
I sort of hope someone will leak all private information about Peter Hummelgaard. He is one of the people behind this proposal, just so he would get a taste of his own medicine.
Isn’t it (ChatControl) also „marketed” as „safe and secure”? If they (politicians) don’t have their comms backdoored and still get their data stolen, then why would I trust them to secure (read „safely snoop on”) mine or even know what they’re talking about?
I was thinking the same! This would be great , have a puzzle each other day. But i trust the organizers are going to do a great job and we will have fun either way.
In short it seems like a combination of high labor cost, high corrosion risk (concrete chips and salt water erodes the rebar inside) and technological advancement (fiberglass). Also the steel shortage that birth these in the first place was short lived.
Yep that. Plus the Mulberry harbours were designed specifically to be sunk to act as harbours and breakwaters, for which concrete is actually fairly well suited. We have other ways of building harbours during peacetime that don't involve sailing them across a large body of water though
Fiberglass is super cheap and is what most boats are made out of now. Balsa wood core, fiberglass shell. Pennies compared to the cost of a concrete pour. Another issue is that concrete is porous so the rebar inside would rust faster.
In the end, there’s no reason why you can’t. There’s plenty of reason why you shouldn’t. Costs being the biggest. Fiberglass builds are just so much cheaper than anything before it.
It doesn't take away from your point, but from what I've seen balsa wood is rarely used these days and has been replaced with a high density foam core. If there's a crack or pinhole balsa wood is very problematic, it basically turns to mush.
But not as commercial products. Because concrete is just not the best ship building material, you only use it if you either want the challenge (as a student) or you simply don't have anything better at hand.
This video came up in my feed yesterday, and in the end he makes a reference to Michael Lewis Moneyball and ”working within constraints”, the best with what they had when steel was scarce etc:
Concrete is not a good material to build ships. As a ship moves it goes over waves and is subject to forces that want to bend the hull. Steel flexes slightly, but concrete does not not. It becomes brittle over time and the ship breaks apart.
It generally means that while you live somewhere permanently with no timeline on returning "home," you do not allow yourself to think of your new country as "home."
It comes across as a refusal to immigrate. It means that what you care about is that you are no longer living "at home," rather than caring about assimilating with your new home.
It's like going to a new place and identifying yourself as an "emigrant" instead of an "immigrant."
"Patriation" is about giving away authority so that the other country assumes authority. "Expatriate," then, would be that authority of the old country no longer applies, with no acknowledgement of your new circumstances.
Oh here's a good one; what if you got married, divorced, and married again? You would be an ex-husband or ex-wife, and it would be entirely appropriate for someone to refer to you as such in certain contexts, but it would be really off-putting...especially to your new spouse.
Imagine introducing yourself as an "ex-husband." If you're with a bunch of your ex-wife's old friends and associates, then it might make sense to introduce yourself this way under some circumstances...but usually, even then, it would be far more polite and in better taste to introduce yourself in some other way.
Much better to clarify your former relationship only when it's pertinent, and maybe even then "we lived together for awhile" might be a gentler framing. Otherwise, you are simply drawing attention to your divorce, and to what purpose?
Correct. So, you can emphasize your new identity as an "emigrant from A" or as an "immigrant to B." "Expat" goes one step further by not only emphasizing that you are an emigrant from A, but also that you are no longer a political participant or under the authority of A. It is not semantically incorrect to call yourself an "expat" if you are an expat, nor would it be semantically incorrect to call yourself an emigrant from A or an immigrant to B.
I'm attempting to pin down why some people might feel that someone calling themselves an "expat" has some negative connotations for the expat. It doesn't have anything to do with the correctness of any of the terms involved.
To say it a different way, I think people find it distasteful because it focuses on the political shapes you no longer are bound to, rather than who you are "now." It's normal to celebrate your cultural heritage, but it's kind of odd to focus on your status as a non-member of your former state.
You’re not going to find an answer to this by parsing out the technical definitions of the words. It’s about how the words are used and the connotations they have developed over time.
My take is that "expat" immediately indicates that someone has no intention to stay for good (unlike immigrants) and that they'll leave as soon as it's convenient because of course they won't stay here for good. It implies a mild disdain for the local culture - the person has no intention to integrate and, more often than not, will self-segregate into the expat bubble.
Really? I tend to associate it more with bourgeois folks who are well-off but certainly not wealthy, but most definitely want to remain in their own cultural bubble and do everything to avoid learning the local language or integrating with the society of their host country. “Little Britain” types basically. I tend to steer clear of them in my adopted corner of the EU.
reply