More proof that Amazon's leadership views the balance of power between itself and its workforce tilting decisively in its favor: Amazon's employees are being told they must relocate to one of the company's large hubs -- with the company specifying the required location -- or resign with no severance. CEO Andy Jassy did have the grace to give people 30 days to decide.
"My way is the way of not fighting":- the book of Enter the Dragon.
That horrible man had the digging of the rose garden started last week to pave it.
He says that the lawn is not good for the high heeled women shows.
He destroys everything around him, probably the entire planet if he has a chance.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
I mean, it's not like Israel has been claiming Iran is about to have nukes for - well decades. The following is from Al Jazeera, which is somewhat partial, but hey.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
Ow, I forgot to add.
Apparently the US is planning to install Reza Pahlavi's son and restore the Iran monarchy.
I'm old enough to remember his dictatorship.
In anyway this time around they seem to be planning for a constitutional monarchy, something the father refused.
I just hope this doesn't end up like when they installed Karzai in Afghanistan and a little over a decade later the Taliban was back in power.
Note: I'm getting too old to be optimistic about this kind of thing.
PFVA wrote:Lots of movement at the the US base in the Azores
Media thinks the US is preparing for a major military operation.
Yeah, they've directly attacked three sites in Iran with "bunker busters", as the nuclear sites that they are claiming to be hitting are underground facilities (and in Fordo, it's within a mountain range as well).
(These are the non-nuclear "bunker busters", though. I did initially worry that America had done it again - being the only country on Earth to have ever attacked another with nuclear weapons - but, no, these are their largest non-nuclear bombs. They do have "precision" nuclear bunker busters, you see. But, no, these were not the weapons used. At least not yet, as Trump has threatened further strikes if Iran does not "seek peace" and as Iran almost immediately fired missiles at Israel, it doesn't seem like they are taking that option.)
Also notable is that there's been a "no comment" from other governments around the world so far. I'm not sure if they know what to say, frankly.
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
"…as soon as we made the deal". There was a deal? I was under the impression that it was largely Trump waving his stands and saying "stop, stop, there is now a ceasefire". Iran certainly hadn't officially agreed to a ceasefire, although they had said they would stop lobbing missiles at Israel if Israel did the same (probably because they're running short of them). Israel had agreed to nothing. And, as we see, there is a huge amount of not ceasing fire going on.
The man is a shambling moron. Any clue he might have briefly encountered isn't hanging around.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
I know there's a few military plane wonks here, so am I right in saying that the UK's investment in F-35As is more political than practical?
I thought modern doctrine was moving very clearly towards unmanned drones for cost effectiveness, and that the F-35 was considered something of a white elephant.
Its a bit puzzling. For the non-aerosexuals, F-35s come in three flavours: Bs, which are the Short Take Off/Vertical Landing variant. Its what we use from the British carriers, HMS Her Maj and HMS Talks To The Plants. Their advantage is they don't need catapult systems to launch from a carrier and it technically makes landing easier (in so much anything involving STOVL aircraft is "easy", it being one of the more eldritch aeronautical arts). The disadvantage is that the need to "go straight up/down" results in some compromises and trade-offs, primarily range.
The C is the US Navy variant, which can be launched from a carrier, but not British ones as it needs a catapult to do so. And then theres the A model, which is what the US Air Force uses and is probably the least compromised as far as carrier-stuff trade-offs go (carrier aircraft need extra weight to account for higher stresses, among other things). Its long been rumoured the RAF would be getting some, but we can't use the A from the carriers and for long range operations it will need a potentially vulnerable tanker (whereas a carrier can pop up almost anywhere theres a seaside). In theory it could carry long-range stand-off nuclear weapons, but as far as I'm aware its currently only qualified to use free-fall nuclear weapons, so you still have to get pretty close to what you want to turn into a glowing parking lot.
As for the F-35 being a "white elephant" - the jurys a little bit out on that one. Time may tell exactly how Iranian air defences feel about elephants, for example. There have been plenty of aircraft which had a troubled development and service entry that went on to become feared, including the AH-64 Apache and a machine that its designer originally wanted to be called the Supermarine Shrew...
What we're essentially getting is a small, very specialised sub-squadron of essentially, the Mirage IV - Frances Atomic Franco Doom-Plane from the 60s. [1]
[1] ""We don't have fighter aircraft, we have fear-inducing aircraft" - Charles "Who is the surrender monkey NOW?" de Gaulle.
