The answers I easily got online were opposite of what you were saying, hence my persistence.
But neither of us are political scientists. We’re both backyard chemistry enthusiasts in this metaphor. So when you claim something that doesn’t make sense with my cursory knowledge and searches, I ask you to back it up.
I did reread the thread. My summary still stands. Could you summarize your understanding of it?
Can you imagine how pointless, arrogant and entitled it would be for me, someone who has (as an example) no knowledge about chemistry, to go to a chemistry forum and ask an elementary question on an incredibly divisive topic within the chemistry field?
I actually love that. I love explaining engineering topics to friends and family when they have questions, even though they don’t have as much background. Do you not enjoy taking to people about your field?
What are you saying? That people who don’t have political science degrees shouldn’t participate in politics? The whole point of democracy is more people participating.
You seem to be holding yourself up as an authority, but I have no reason to think you are.
Your assertion was you can’t have an authoritarian communist. I gave a counter example of Stalin, an authoritarian communist. You seem unwilling or unable to refute that Stalin was authoritarian.
Can you answer my question too? Why is Google a bad thing? I know several of the OKB aircraft design bureaus were exiled/killed off the top of my head, but I didn’t want to mix them up and say the wrong one.
I was answering that in a different comment. This was my original question to you.
Are you seriously arguing that Stalin did not purge political opponents?
Was Stalin authoritarian? If massive purges to consolidate power aren’t authoritarian, I don’t know what is.
I’d define tankies as in favor of ‘communist’ authoritarianism.
Depends who you ask. I’d define tankies as in favor of ‘communist’ authoritarianism.
You familiar with the gender neutral dude?
Removed by mod
Or any other geopolitics ask community if you don’t want extremely .grad replies.
If it’d cost less than say 2x what it’d save, I’d say it’s beneficial. Making it obvious that corruption isn’t going to work has value, but no need to do really extensive audits just to get the last 0.1% of mistakes/fraud.
You left off Hitler being impressed by Henry Ford.
By the time they’re going fast enough, they’re high enough they don’t have much air to worry about. (And they do have an angle over too, not just straight up)
Missiles do go more or less go straight though the atmosphere horizontally. Most are slower than what we’re taking about, but hypersonic missiles get close to rocket speeds. And they do need big heat shields to keep from melting immediately.
You’re going much too fast to hit the earth, you’ll miss it and continue in orbit. To deorbit, you’ll need a lot of things to throw in the other direction, like the oxygen from your magic tank. You’d need about a full rocket full of oxygen (~170 tons) to slow down, probably more because the exit velocity would be slower than a rocket.
The other issue with this scheme is you’d slow down too slowly. You’ll start getting slower and lower, but you’d start to get into the atmosphere, which because you’re still going so fast would cause you to not have a great time. So your magic oxygen bottle will also need a massive tube off the end of it, maybe a couple meters in diameter.
But if you had your magic infinite air tank with a huge tube off it, theoretically you could get back down to earth safely with just it, a space suit, and a parachute.
To extend the metaphor, it would be like discussing cold fusion with a fellow chemistry enthusiast. They imply that it works, and was shut down by political motives, but that it’s been discussed to death professionally, so no use discussing it further. I agree that it has been discussed to death, but their conclusion is opposite of the conclusion I have found online, so I would push for further support.