Oh no, it's absolutely by design. It's a factory for producing broken people capable of committing atrocious acts of cruelty for the Empire. Now there is no Empire, they've turned on their own people.
My school wasn't English, or as elitist as Eton, but each year on Remembrance Day they would read the names of every pupil who died in the two world wars. Took quite a while.
As somebody who's been through a similar-but-different dual citizenship thing: it's just a bit of paper. You're still you, in all your wonderful complexity, and you can feel like any nationality or combination of nationalities you like. That will probably continue developing over time, too. You'll lose nothing by getting a second passport, and by the sounds of things you'll gain plenty.
Everybody should take every opportunity available to them when it comes to this stuff. Don't let others decide for you where you're allowed to make a life for yourself if you can possibly help it.
That only works for people with they right passport in the first place. Because if you have the wrong passport, you might not be able to get a visa for the country you want to go to or your stay in this country is very time-limited.
This is super cool, but the first thing I wanted to do was cast it to the Chromecast plugged into my hi-fi. It seems casting isn't available yet - do you have plans to add it? It would make this a total winner for just playing music in the background.
Sorry, you're way off there. My ancient car has a gigantic 90 litre fuel tank. At 720g / litre, that's 64.8kg. And that really is a huge tank - most cars are more like 40-60 litres.
The engine, meanwhile, well it depends what you count as "the engine". If we take it to mean "everything in the engine bay" - radiators, filters, pumps, etc. - you're going to be looking at several times that. Hell, even a battery is like 20kg.
All sorts of reasons, but it's got a lot to do with packaging and handling. Generally you want the weight distribution of the car to be 50:50 front:rear for optimal handling.
A car will handle great if you can put the engine and transmission somewhere towards the middle, but obviously that isn't great news for passengers. Mid-engined cars exist, of course, but they're usually two-seater sports cars where space and comfort are lower down the list of priorities.
So you're left with putting the engine somewhere towards the front, or somewhere towards the back. Some manufacturers, like BMW, achieve ideal weight distribution by mounting the engine relatively far back in the front of the car, and putting the transmission and some other heavy bits at the back. This is elegant, but too complex and expensive for your average runabout.
With a front-engined car, you can safely put some of the engine forward of the front axle. Doing so means more space in the passenger cabin, but hanging the weight out front makes the car nose-heavy. In an average front-wheel-drive family car, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and might even be desirable, as it means good traction and a tendency towards boring, predictable understeer.
Sling the weight out back, like a Porsche 911, and you get the opposite problem: the car naturally tends to want to swap ends in corners. Some drivers find this fun, right up until it kills them. If a 911 is a safe car today, it's because Porsche has spent decades pigheadedly perfecting a layout everybody else abandoned long ago for its tendency to send you backwards through hedges.
I like this reply very much except that I wonder why people say that sports cars are uncomfortable. I find all the ones I've driven, including two mid-engined ones, super comfortable. Maybe it's just me. (In any case, your point that they're not space-efficient stands.)
BMW does not use Front Mid mounting on anything current that I’m aware of, and I don’t think they’ve ever used a rear mounted transaxle (except the M1).
Alfa 75’s are along the lines of what you said, but not any of the Germans.
I rented an electric VW Transporter recently (think it's the same van as the Mercedes Sprinter), and it really felt like the future. It was just so nice to operate. Smooth, quiet, tons of torque, and will probably beating day after day with little to no servicing. Range wasn't massive, but for your typical daily urban delivery round that doesn't matter so much. It just made so much sense.
Even a light dog can put a surprising amount of pressure through its feet if it wants to. Tiny paws mean it's all concentrated in a small area. My 10kg dog feels like he weighs a ton when he puts his front paws on me and leans into it.
I've no idea what it takes to trigger a mine, and I don't know if it would be enough, but a dog can press down harder than you'd expect.
I know what you mean, when they stand on you wrong it's surprisingly heavy. But it's point loaded. A dog doesn't do that while walking around on even-ish ground. The point is it would take unusual scenarios for a dog to get 100% of their weight on one foot, but any toddler does it every step.
I would think this works both ways though. Yes, smaller surface area is bad, but also reduces the chance the dog presses down on a trigger. But then again... they have four feet, but then they a narrower track, but then they probably take more steps. It's complicated I suppose!
There's a fair chance you even used an ARM-powered device to do it. Also British.
Tesla, of course, based their first car on a Lotus. British.