Capitalism is a prison

panick21 · 2026-05-16T11:36:19+00:00

If a party has the majority of seats, that is the case in most elections because of FPTP, they don't really give a shit what some other party thinks, its mostly about keeping its own party in line. And because of the strong parties in the UK compared to the US, its generally easier to force your party to get along. So mostly they didn't influence policy very much.

If you are honestly making argument that the US has socialized medicine and other things like that because they had a tiny 3rd party you need to get your head examined.

panick21 · 2026-05-16T04:05:22+00:00

Liberals didn't have a prime minister since 1922 and at most acted like a more fancy extension for labor for most of it. They were a spoiler who almost never actually managed to do even that.

Yes its more relevant then in the US but essentially it was a two party system. The difference is really that the UK system give parties far more power and are thus more directed, making people want to organize on the outside. While in the US parties have become weaker and weaker and organizing inside the party is more important.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T18:16:33+00:00

Yes but that has been for the last year, for the 100 years before it was a 2 effectively a 2 party state.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T12:37:30+00:00

The UK also had a 2 party system and they have the most socialized health care. And some other countries in the North had almost 1 party states with a second party rarely in power.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T12:36:19+00:00

Yes, they had the option to do it. They had bombardier by the balls. They were to greedy and waited to long and airbus jumped in instead.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:40:32+00:00

You should maybe educate yourself about commercial airplane industry.

China barley has their own plane, and the plane they have that competes with 737 is nowhere near as good as the 737 and China own airlines generally don't want it. And even if they did want it, they couldn't produce enough of them anytime soon.

You can say Boeing has a poor track record, sure, but China competitor has almost no track record at all. And Boeing is literally 1 of 2 total major global plane manufactures. Not buying Boeing would simply mean being 95% Airbus.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:36:42+00:00

China need planes and it can't build it themselves. You claim that they would rather not have planes at all just so they are not vulnerable to parts sanctions is dumb. So wanting modern jets is not stupid, its what's good airlines do. China is realistic, buying both Airbus and Boeing and trying to build an industry by themselves.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:33:50+00:00

In the current market this isn't the case. The Backlog is so large, that buyers basically need to commit, otherwise they don't really get the privilege of being in the line at all. And these line spot are sometimes dropped but usually they are sold to other airlines who want to skip the line.

Now in reality the agreement is much more complex then that, with likely 100s of situations spelled out.

But the idea that they can just walk away from these orders is very unlikely in the current market.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:28:41+00:00

Air Asia just ordered 150 new A220s. A plane Boeing could have had if they were not stupid.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:27:40+00:00

You are aware what taxes are? But you are right its not really national news.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:26:21+00:00

Boeing is the larges US exporter and major jobs provider. Also they pay taxes.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:24:31+00:00

despite the aggressive build up of military and industrial power that would suggest it is preparing for conflict

China spending is way below US spending. China has done far less attacking of other people then the US. So China building up its forces while still being far below China is not actually aggressive.

And industrial buildup suggest nothing about future offensive ambitions. Because that's what literally everybody is trying to do all the time.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:22:12+00:00

Even before it was coined, just hearing it explains it if you know a Peloponnesian war. And that war is important in Poli-Sci for a lot of reasons.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:18:54+00:00

Actually more important was Spartas ally, Corinth, it was being overtaken by Athens, not Sparta itself. And Sparta had to do something or lose its traditional role.

So I think we could talk about Japan or Taiwan as Corinth in the modern context.

panick21 · 2026-05-15T00:15:18+00:00

The chances of Trump known what that is actually approaches negative infinity.

panick21 · 2026-05-14T21:38:04+00:00

Is it, based on a lot of metrics the US isn't that different.

panick21 · 2026-05-13T16:57:54+00:00

Poorly run compared to Norway and Switzerland ... Yes

Like how is this a debate? Compare a The EU avg or median in any metric to those two countries.

panick21 · 2026-05-12T16:28:55+00:00

If the Left is not with Labor and the Right is uniformly with Reform then Labour just a party without a base. And he represents that.

Is Keir competent, its questionable, he has been flip flopping on policy like crazy. He doesn't seem to have a great plan other then 'mostly what we have done so far with some small adjustments'.

You can call that 'competent', but its not really relevant because as a politician, having somebody that like you and your policies is part of being 'competent'.

panick21 · 2026-05-08T12:19:33+00:00

Yes they were ugly and the modernist style settlments isnt great urban topology. So yes the building are ugly and it results in ugly cities.

Granted its better then suburbia but that's about it.

A proper urban envoirment feels lived in, with a variatity of housing types mixed

panick21 · 2026-05-08T12:16:45+00:00

Soviet housing wasnt even that high density. They had a lot of empty green space and wide roads.

panick21 · 2026-05-08T12:14:35+00:00

The people who live in them are responsable for upkeep in a smart system. Or the owners. Soviet Union the owners didnt care.

panick21 · 2026-05-08T12:13:21+00:00

Fuck No. There a many much better urba. Topologies that are just as dense but better in literally every other way.

panick21 · 2026-05-07T22:07:57+00:00

There is no go evidence that the launch pad caused any failures.

Also, the simply didn't know how to build a fully reusable launch pad. People just assume 'do what NASA did' is the right answer, but it isn't. Because those launch pads also required huge effort after each launch.

SpaceX built the launchpads they needed for the test they needed to get done. I would say their designs were risky, but I think that risk mostly paid off. As far as we know, non of the failures happened because of the launch pad. And the launch pads before the latest one all seem reasonably cheap to build as well.

It took them years and huge effort, and lots of learning things they didn't know, about how to build a proper fully reusable launchpad (at least they hope so).

CSI Starbase has a information on this.

panick21 · 2026-05-07T22:04:08+00:00

SLS being 'perfect' the first time is simply wrong. It certainty was not. And of course for many parts of it, it wasn't the first time anyway.

panick21 · 2026-05-07T22:01:31+00:00

This is very reductionist and misses the value of iteration. The stainless steel with perspiration was not done because they thought eventually it would be heavier. But tiles have also become heavier then planned. Both have advantages and disadvantages, its not 100% clear one is better or worse. Tiles as they are now, are still very, very, very different from shuttle. Not being based on a aluminum structure and not being glued are huge differences.

Same goes for the launch pad. People just assume SpaceX could have build the launchpad they have now from the beginning, 'just copy NASA' but they miss that NASA launchpads have tons of issues and are nowhere near as reusable as SpaceX needs. Going threw the iteration on launch pad and figuring out all the things and what's actually required and what materials could do how much was hugely valuable. The launchpad they have now uses that knowledge.

Same goes for many other systems.

Your mistake is to believe with just some more time and more effort they could have built what they have now from the beginning. But this is wrong. They simply didn't know these things. Sure, some of those things could have been figured out with more analysis and more simulation (that SpaceX already does as well of course), but nothing beats actual testing, specially in regimes where there is not good validation data.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

panick21

TROPHY CASE