The full time guys all had a Sun on their desk next to their PC. We also had to run an IBM 3270 terminal emulator and X server to connect to the Suns. It was all so unstable. I rememember a bunch of "Win32s error" popups.
The other intern and I found a room full of decommissioned 486 machines, installed Linux and didn't tell anyone for a month. Everything worked great and then we started an assembly line of installing Linux on those old machines for all the older coworkers to take home.
> 3.11 also introduced 32-bit disk access and 32-bit drivers.
IIRC a lot of it wasn't turned on by default due to hardware/driver compatability concerns, and there were articles all over the place about how to turn it on for extra performance. Essentially they used optimising tech-heads the world over as a giant beta-test group for parts of Win95's IO subsystem.
Mera Peak is said to be possible without any climbing experience, and it looks like the trek from Lukla is about 2 weeks. Is that true? How hard is the trek -- Looks like it requires well above average fitness level?
(Based on my recollections from ~25 years ago) Mera peak is the second highest non-technical peak in the world (the highest is in S America) at ~21,000 feet. Meaning you can basically walk to the top (no real climbing, but we were roped together for the final section, in case of crevasses). But the altitude and weather makes it much tougher than the equivalent trek near sea level. The summit day was incredibly gruelling, the hardest thing I have ever done physically. So you need a decent level of fitness.
If you are significantly overweight or have dodgy knees, then it isn't for you. You are moderately fit and prepared to do some long walks in preparation, then you are probably fine. If you aren't sure, maybe go on one of the lower level treks and see how you get on.
Haven't been up Mera, but back in the day, did do Island Peak which I understand is more difficult these days because of some glacial fissures.
That altitude was about my limit even at the time. I had done a couple of previous Nepal treks to fairly high altitude but not actual climbs and had done a lower altitude glacier climbing school in the US northwest.
Aconcagua in Argentina. It's on my 'things to do if in the area' list. The nearest airport is only a 200km drive on a tarmac road away and then a 40km trek to the peak! Although the 4km altitude gain is likely to be harder than the distance.
Mera Peak is in an amazing location, you can see a number of the world's highest peaks from the top (if it's clear), including Everest. IIRC Aconcagua doesn't have quite as much going for it, apart from being slightly higher. Each to their own.
BTW Everest is so steep that it doesn't have a lot of snow on it compared to other high mountains. So it is not even a very attractive mountain (subjective obviously).
Yes the altitude is harder than the distance :) Aconcagua has cca 30% summit rate mainly due to frequent high winds which make windchill temperatures go to -30s C easily. We had to turn back ourselves up there, nobody summited for whole week due to high winds.
There are higher non-technical peaks in South America. Ojos del Salado at well over 22,000 feet comes to mind as a peak that is often considered non-technical. Also an active volcano which is cool.
Isn't Cho Oyu (around 8201m) the highest non-technical peak in the world? Ice wall can be often bypassed/traversed around. Aconcagua is ~1.25km shorter.
This doesn't really align with CNN's view, but may apply to another even more popular US news channel that seems to be much more aligned with the current administration...
Greenland and Denmark are not the same. Greenland is a self-governed territory under the Kingdom of Denmark. The US administration wishes to take over Greenland from Denmark completely. So you should replace your headlines with "Greenland" and "Greenlanders".
Note: There have already been discussions about making Greenland independent from Denmark, but there is uncertainty over how to handle economic and defense situations. Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
>Greenland currently receives significant support (about $10000-15000 per capita yearly) from Denmark. So it is not clear how the country would run without that.
Greenland absolutely positively cannot run without outside subsidy. Pacific islands (barely) function as independent countries because their tiny populations are commensurate with their small areas. Greenland's 50,000 people live on an island three times the size of Texas.
Currently that subsidy comes in the form of €600 million in annual funds from Copenhagen. Now Washington has emerged as a potential outbidder.
Europe has not just "cheered on". There were demonstrations throughout Europe against the wars in the middle east and both e.g. France and Germany openly opposed the war in Iraq.
The Europeans I know (from all over) have generally been opposed to American geopolitics both in the Middle East, South East Asia, and South America. The US has traditionally been seen as an ally, but that doesn't mean we "cheer on" its actions.
Because there are many financial and military interests, it is very hard to do much for e.g. the EU, and the politicians are very careful with their words. Just as it is for the rest of the world...
Note: Europe is not a single entity but a continent full of different countries including (part of) Russia. Even the EU doesn't really have one single foreign policy.
Many EU countries did send troops did it not? And what happened when it became clear the war was a farce? There were zero consequences right? It's a "told ya" moment for a lot of asian countries who didn't fully trust the US.
Some European allies joined US in the Iraq war for the initial invasion: UK, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Denmark. The "Coalition of the willing" was larger, though.
Many opposed it. Remember "Freedom fries"?
As for Afghanistan, that's a completely different thing. US invoked article 5.
Yep I vividly remember Tony Blair supporting the war. Millions dead. People just went on with their lives with a "oops". I'm just saying this behaviour is nothing new. Might makes right I guess.
You are right. People went on with their lives, just as they did in many other parts of the world, but I don't think what happened is forgotten -- Not even in the US.
Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Small detail on casualties in Iraq: the estimates listed on Wikipedia range from 150K to about 1 million (1).
> Btw. as far as I remember neither China, India, Russia, nor practically any other nation stopped trading with the US over the war in Iraq. Maybe I am wrong about that.
Yep. Because countries only care about themselves. The US is too important economically. But are you saying that Europe like India and China does stuff that benefits them and isn't a better standard morally?
Neither Europe nor EU is a single country with a single foreign policy. There are around 40 different small and large countries in Europe each with their own foreign policy, history, culture and language. Two of the countries are currently at war with each other (if we still include Russia in Europe). Historically, Europe is a continent of wars and full of disagreement, where countries have done much to benefit themselves.
I really don't know much of what is happening in China or India or how you would ever measure something as subjective as morality. The point was, that it isn't just European (or EU) nations that don't stand up to the US. Nobody really dare -- Even those other heavy-weights. So it doesn't seem fair to me to single Europe (European nations) out for not doing anything.
I would say that Europe has a lot of bad history and guilt and we know it. And there is an aspiration in many of the European countries to be better and do "the right thing" now, but it is definitely debatable whether those countries actually do it, or if we even know what "right" is.
I don't think Europe should feel guilt or anything about their history. They are just operating like every other region prioritising their own citizens first.
I just hope all of this is a nothingburger. The last thing the world needs is a war between the west. But looks like globalisation is going to slow down regardless. Sad.
Yes. You are right. Unfortunately, many countries that were/are part of EU sent forces to Iraq (not all).
You mention that Asia was suspicious, but the "coalition of willing" actually included Asian countries such as Phillippines, South Korea, Japan, Uzbekistan, Singapore.
I believe the current overarching feeling in Europe is that we were mislead by the US administration more than our own politicians. Already back then, there was quite a lot of skepticism and significant doubt in the media all over Europe about the justification of that war. Also in the coalition countries.
And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point? How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading? Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?
I agree that it wasn't pretty, and that the European nations and EU should have opposed more, but even as it was back then, it was not a clear "cheering on" moment. I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started. Although a large group did support the war (I think many were still emotionally affected by 9/11), I actually don't remember talking to any one of them.
The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.
> And Indeed, there were no consequences later. But what should have been done and by whom at that point?
Reparations?
> How do you prove that it was deliberately misleading?
Are you denying the fact that countries didn't know? Many EU countries did indeed stay out of the conflict after all. Are you saying the incredible intelligence agencies of western countries were simply oblivious?
> Why would it be the job of nations of Europe or EU?
Because you sent troops? And because people there genuinely think they are the good guys?
> I remember having discussions about Iraq with people from Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Germany, and France back when the invasion started.
Would you let Russia off the hook for Ukraine then? After all the people there are under dictatorial rule. I'm sure there are large groups of people there who oppose the war.
> The reality is that the US is the most powerful geopolitical entity and Europe is a continent consisting of many individual countries. Even the EU is a divided group of nations, and even if united would not be as powerful as the US is currently.
I completely agree. The US is too powerful. I'm just saying it shouldn't come as a complete surprise that they would one day target Europe as well. Unfortunately might makes right. I just hope the US comes to their senses.
It seems a distinction needs to be made between what is being discussed. The ruling class of Europe has cheered it on, even if the peasants complained; but as with so many other things, it’s wholly irrelevant what the peasants want, as you highlight. Americans also were 90%+ opposed to entering WWI and WWII and Vietnam, but that doesn’t change that it was done to serve ruling class objectives.
That’s long been the system; the peasants are manipulated or forced to enter into the meat grinder for the ruling class. See the Ukraine for reference.
But rejoice, soon robots and drones with fight each other instead … or maybe get rid of “useless eaters” more efficiently? It could go either way, or both.
Note this is the M5, not even the M5 Pro and definitely not the M5 Max or M5 Ultra. If they are getting these improvements on low end M series, I’m sort of interested in what happens with the M5 max when it’s ready (I. Not holding out hope that the M5 ultra will be done anytime soon).
It will be by far the longest span of a suspension bridge at 3300 meter.
The current longest is in Turkey at 2023 meter.
Each of the pylons of the Messina Bridge will be around 400 meters tall. Which is taller than the Empire State Building.
The strait is too deep, with too much current and seismic activity to place the pylons in the water. So they have to be on the shore, as I understand it.
