They say you can judge a man by his enemies. >slow clap< Congratulations you now have a nation state as one of yours! You should take it as a victory that they feel compelled to respond to you, well done!
If they were caught in a flash flood the odds of all of them ending up together seems very low just from my experiences with flash floods in the Sonoran desert. Flash floods are VERY violent and will take 2-4 ton vehicles and throw them about like a tiger playing with a mouse. Those remains don't look like they weight that much so I would think some other, less violent, event led to them all expiring near one another at the same time.
Flash flood is the modern species. They were splash floods back then, until dash floods emerged, leading to the modern variety as speed increased even more.
As the flood dissipates downstream particles will fall out of suspension and/or wash ashore. They're all the same shape and density so the conditions in which they drop out is going to be about equal. If they were all swept up from the same starting point they could very well all end up washing up in the same place. It's made more likely if the river has something like a natural lake for the flood to dissipate into. The dead stuff is free to float about and get naturally sorted by the wind and mild currents.
D-day in Normandy was a much shorter and more protected crossing than the Taiwan strait. Additionally, the Taiwanese are much better fortified than the Axis were, and they have radar along with anti-ship missiles.
So far, though the attempted Mongol invasions of Japan, while premodern, were on a similar level of difficulty.
The sea between Taiwan and mainland China is really a formidable obstacle to such operations, even without radar, advanced missiles and drones. Ships are expensive, slow and vulnerable; even the Russians had to yield in the Black Sea after suffering serious losses against a nation with no navy.
Is MMA not meant to be a spectacle? Meanwhile WWE is more like a cooperative dance in drag than it is resembling actual fighting. And I mean that in a sense of absolute respect for the art.
> Even Cirque du Soleil carries more risk of death. The corpse removal process is seamless enough that the show continues.
I was shocked to hear this and looked up a Wikipedia article [0]. Given their reaction when a performer died (abrupt stoppage of the show with full refunds), I think you're making this up.
You really don't know anything about pro wrestling if that's what you think. The moves they perform might not have the intention hurting, but they're both dangerous and painful, there's a lot of skill involved to not end up in a hospital, not to mention some of the less spectacular moves come directly from olympic wrestling and it's variants. It's a performative spectacle, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous or skillful, saying otherwise is just being ignorant.
For what it's worth: As a martial artist, the hits WWE fighters take are mind boggling. Part of learning martial arts is learning how to safely take a fall. As far as I can see, a lot of the falls and hits that people are taking in WWE are the sort that you can't really take "safely". As far as I can tell, they are often just ignoring the pain and doing the best they can to minimize the damage.
I am deeply saddened that people are so comfortable stating that there is no moral issue with murder, aka abortion. Or that people should not have strong beliefs around it.
I don't know how flexing their power is wimpy. It is pretty aggressive imho, "I can do what I want and you can't do a damn thing about it". That doesn't sound weak to me. I am not saying I agree with it or like it but it appears to be a complete power move.
How much of that market do you think or know was bought with corrupt money?
Looking at it from the outside there were big gains in crytpo and the stock market. Which drove a lot of buying. Now as there are wars raging, uncertainty about the biggest economies in the world and what their output will be in the coming years seems to be playing a larger part than corruption from what I am seeing.
Also the high end watch manufacturers seem to be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to control the secondary market for used watches which has driven used prices up. I feel the prices are at a point now where even very affluent people may not want to spend money on them as they are way overpriced compared to just 4 years ago.
I would totally accept there is a legitimate market for watches in the tens of thousands - millions of dollars, and people who can acquire that legitimately.
But I have also seen many luxury watches in particular be a vector for identifying corruption, so I would expect a lot more corruption-funded purchases especially given how conveniently you can move hundreds of thousands of dollars in that form-factor.
I am an American and I support having less "American news"...way....way less
When I was younger I enjoyed reading my local newspaper (local news/local sports/classifieds), the USA Today (national news/sports), and the Wall Street Journal. Between those 3 I felt pretty well informed and enjoyed my daily ritual of reading them in the morning at school in the library. Unfortunately as other commenters have noted the quality of journalism has gone way down hill since then.
I used to pay more attention to the news but it became such a time sync that I came full circle, no I check the local news station in the morning and apnews, if it doesn’t hit the first page of those, it’s not worth reading. Occasionally I’ll read something more in-depth like propublica but that’s it. Worrying about things you have little to no power over is kind of useless.
The quality and Quantity of journalists has fallen off a cliff over the past 30 years. In 1990's there were 500,000 journalists, now we have around 100,000. Investigative journalism, where you get a crew of people and fly them across the world, and conduct first-hand research, is basically gone.
It is surprising to me that this is not common knowledge and we have people disputing a basic fact.
A counter point to your assertion is that more sources are better, if they are not all saying the same thing and being controlled by the same few owners. Which in today's world, in the west, most certainly are. Many years ago the news was covered from multiple angles so even with few sources I felt I was getting more insight to the story due to different perspectives.
Honestly due to the deluge of news I feel people today are more opinionated, less informed, easier to manipulate/deceive via controlled narratives, and have way shorter attention spans. The quality of journalism is so far gone it is laughable, so having more of a bad thing doesn't make it better imho.
Thinking from 10,000 feet, the quality of the media seems bad at a time when anyone can publish contradicting accounts, with evidence, on the internet.
Do you think the old media was actually better? Or was there just no platform for dissenting voices?
If there are no dissenting voices heard, then the media seems like “the truth”.
This is exactly why authoritarian governments and religions are very concerned about counter narrative publications. They want the people to believe that the official sources are the truth.
I mean, yes, but they also love playing the "Firehose of falsehood game", and playing with 'Bullshit Asymmetry'.
The problem with reality is it's way more complex than binary, things are not black and white. If you can't have and control a single news station, then make thousands of them that take small pieces of truth and stir them in a bucket of shit. Pump countless dollars of petro money into these sources so they have extreme reach into societies. Use the latest targeting tools to pull these people into their own little reality tunnels they'll have a hard time getting out of. Watch and laugh as the nation collapses in its own civil war.
How much does a country allow foreign actors to dictate what their citizens hear?
> A counter point to your assertion is that more sources are better, if they are not all saying the same thing and being controlled by the same few owners. Which in today's world, in the west, most certainly are. Many years ago the news was covered from multiple angles so even with few sources I felt I was getting more insight to the story due to different perspectives.
I've found ground.news to be a good tool for finding different angles on stories. Sadly it only split sources based on American left/center/right which certainly is different from where I am (South/West Europe), but better than nothing.
I used Google News regularly for years, but I've had to abandon it. It has so many sources, and 9/10 of them are pure garbage. I mean absolute dreck.
More perspectives are better, except you have to rank the perspectives by descending popularity and then pick the top X, where there's a strongly diminishing return on every source after that.
How does this make sense? The insurance company has an overwhelming asymmetric advantage in regards to the data that is used to make such claim decisions and would be used to train such AI agents. Unless of course you are referring to legal proceedings specifically and not the data that would be used in the case.
You overestimate the ability of an insurance company to make use of AI - it will take them years of meetings, internal political maneuvering, technical failures, etc. Individuals can basically start using chatgpt today.
They already can reject your appeal based on BS like you didn't fax a form correctly (or more likely, you did but they claim they didn't get it), or they require a peer consult with your doctor and chose a time he wasn't available (on purpose).
And don't forget they already use tech to speed up denials - Cigna had one doctor "review" and sign off on 60,000 a month via automation. That's under a minute a case, assuming he worked 24/7. It takes longer than that just to fax in your form. So you submit an appeal via AI, they spend 20 seconds rejecting it, with their tech stack from a few years ago. If they invest in AI it's only getting worse for individuals unless there are new regulations that put the burden of proof on the corps instead of on patients and doctors.
reply