Much faster.
The massive storm's crimson-colored clouds spin counterclockwise at speeds that exceed 400 miles per hour – and the vortex is bigger than Earth itself. The red spot is legendary in part because humans have observed it for more than 150 years.
This is like Mach 18.
How would it hurt anyone?
I don't know about the situation there, but in some places in Spain, there are agricultural workers who are upset about the conversion of plant farms to solar farms, because the solar farms require less labor, so they're unhappy about job losses. From what I've read, it's been something of a political hot topic there.
Looking at another article on this community, it sounds like China's way ahead of you on that.
https://lemmy.today/post/17388857
Chinese authorities demand schoolteachers and other public sector employees hand in their passports as President Xi Jinping tightens his grip on society
Hmm. Doesn't the F-35 basically do this?
I don't know about this new version that will be released, but here's a link to a PDF of the current version:
https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/30828.pdf
You can feed it into Google Translate.
Forgotten Weapons talking about its history, including why it's still around:
Well, the receiver got an update, but if you're gonna count that as a replacement, the B-52 has had a lot of updates too.
No, that's from some "disboard.org" service that I linked to. I just used Kagi to find that page.
Oh, that's a good point -- missed that in the article. They did say that it started in 2015.
I don't know anything about the specifics here, but here's a 5 year graph of futures for live cattle versus beef:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/live-cattle
If there's collusion to engage in price-fixing by meat packers, I'd expect to see beef prices rising without a corresponding increase in cattle prices.
Beef prices did indeed recently start rising rapidly without a corresponding increase in live cattle prices.
But on the other hand, beef prices are also a lot lower relative to live cattle prices than they were during roughly COVID-19.
Just set up your browser to delete cookies on exit. If you want, just have it delete them from specifically that site. The entire debate over whether-or-not a site sets a cookie seems to me to be pretty pointless. If a site can set cookies, then some bad actor will. The dialogs that sites put up talking about it are pointless. No solution other than having your browser not retain them regardless of what a site wants to do is going to be a reliable solution. Not policies, not laws.
I have my browser delete all cookies on exit. I have a very short whitelist of sites that I permit to keep cookies and track me. Every one of those is one that I need to log in to use anyway -- so I could be tracked with or without a cookie -- and the only thing the cookie does is buys me not needing to log in every time, doesn't have privacy implications.
Paying doesn't buy you anything unless they offer a no-log, no-data-mining policy. If you log in to use the site, then they can track you anyway via the credentials you use.
They're not imposing it on you. They're offering you a service that costs them money. They give you news, you give them money or data. If you don't want to do that deal, there's a whole Internet out there. Don't go to that particular site. There are lots of websites out there, many of which offer the same deal. Getting upset that somewhere on the Internet, someone is offering a deal that you don't want seems pointless.
If you want to have some kind of tax-funded news site, go advocate for that. Yelling at them isn't going to get you there.
If you want to just view news done by volunteers, something like WikiNews, then go visit those sites instead. Maybe contribute work as well. I don't think that volunteer news is going to realistically compete with commercial news, but hey, there was also a point when people thought the same thing about volunteer-run encyclopedias, so maybe it'll get there.
I'll also add that I'm going to be generous to the EU and assume that the goal of their "cookie warning" law, which is why many European websites show these, was to raise awareness of cookies and privacy implications by having warnings plastered all over, so that it starts people thinking about privacy. Because if the goal was actually to let people avoid cookies, then it is costly, disruptive and wildly ineffectual compared to just setting a setting in the browser, makes actually having the browser delete cookies more-annoying, and duplicates a browser-side standard, P3P, that already accomplished something similar, and was just all around a really bad law.