I think you’re misattrubuting causation here. There are numerous factors that distinguish those two places. Chiefly, they are among the densest places in the world.
Generally speaking, cars are at odds with such extreme density, simply due to geometry (i.e. how much space driving requires); it’s super easy to saturate driving supply in such places.
Think of mass transit and driving as being in an equilibrium with each other. Depending on where the bottleneck is in driving supply, shifting driving demand to transit demand (via improved transit infrastructure) should most often improve driving.
Extreme density like the places you mentioned is challenging just because space is at such an extreme premium. I would argue (and I’m not alone here) that it’s especially challenging because driving is consistently underpriced; the fair value of driving there is likely far higher than the cost that drivers pay. In such circumstances, oversubscribed car infrastructure is the natural outcome.
Not the original poster but have tried all that that. It's far easier with Kubernetes - just deployment, service secret & ingress config and stuff just works cleanly in namespaces without stuff at any risk of clobberring each other.
This take misses the real un-stated strategic mistake which is what I'm pretty sure Merz actually means but can't say aloud.
Shutting down nuclear reactors means you lose a source of plutonium that can be diverted to weapons manufacturing. You also lose nuclear engineers and workers with skills and knowledge to fabricate with fissile materials which you need to manufacture those weapons.
Similarly, the reason so many countries have a civilian rocket launching program in spite of having no chance in hell in beating SpaceX economically is to have scientists and engineers who can build missiles if needed.
These are just insurance policies. Both Japan and Korea have them for instance. As recent events have shown, countries without nuclear weapons are essentially defenceless against and dependent on those with them.
This is true, but I don't think the reason for his proclamation. It would be very unlike him.
For better or worse there is zero chance that Germany starts a nuclear weapons program. The public sentiment just won't allow that unless we are already at war, in which case it is too late. Besides that, nuclear weapons are stationed in Germany already. France and the UK are next door, so I am also not sure if it would actually benefit Germany at this point.
> Are you saying countries without shipbuilding facilities or not producing semicondutors are being conquered and their citizens being slaughtered?
Yes that is a clear risk. For most of human history, powerful leaders have unleashed violence on their neighbors to increase their wealth and prestige. For about 70 years, the cold war balance prevented very catastrophic wars between powerful nations but we now seem to be having an atavistic throw back of powerful nations being led by expansionist leaders. You either need to create your own manufacturing capacity or be at the mercy of others.
The point of the whole Congressional exercise was to grab ownership of a highly lucrative social network on the cheap to the American investor class. Whoever won the presidential election got to choose the winners.
You are assuming military pilots will pay attention enough to unilaterally notice and stay clear without making mistakes. In the Dulles disaster at least, this clearly didn't happen.
With transponders on, both aircraft (via TCAS) and the air traffic controllers are able to pay attention and avoid the situation, so much better chance of catching.
This does seem insane from a civilian perspective, but I'm curious to know the military side of it. Is this totally normal and not something they worry about, or is this as crazy as it seems for everyone involved?
From what I have seen, I believe that both types of aircrafts are controlled by the same ATC. Otherwise, the two ATCs will have to coordinate among themselves to create non intersecting vectors for each aircraft - which sounds needlessly tedious. But the military does have its own ATCs in many areas. They usually separate the airspace into 'civilian corridors' and 'military corridors', each under the control of the respective ATCs. In conflict zones though, the military operates entirely under their own control. The concept of ATC becomes a bit blurred here. The aircrafts are vectored either by ship-based controllers or more frequently by AEW&CS aircrafts. This is what I assume was happening with the tanker in the story. They were near Venezuela and the Curacao ATC had no information about the tanker.
Hopefully I'll finally get to see Chernobyl and Game of Thrones. It's virtually impossible outside of US or Europe to legally stream so many movies and series.
reply