It's also possible that the one that did it said "why did you do that" to try and shift blame for reason(s) of insurance payout, shame, or something else and the one that said "I didn't" is telling the truth.
Whichever one did it, that video from Captain Steeeve makes a pretty good case that one of them did.
If one pilot tries to ram it into the ground, or just throttles back, the other pilot can fight them for the controls and possibly prevent a crash. When those switches are flipped the engines almost immediately flame out. Even if the other pilot quickly flips them back and prevents the first pilot from doing anything else, it takes time for the engines to automatically relight and spool back up. Done right around liftoff, which seems to be the case from the RAT deployment, there might not be anything the other pilot can do no matter how fast they act.
Edit: According to the flight data recorder, the cutoff switches were flipped 3 seconds after takeoff, one was flipped back on 10 seconds later, the other flipped back 4 seconds after that, and the recording ended 15 seconds later.
Because the pussies are just going after regular people. If they actually went into rough neighborhoods and started rounding up gang members, like they claimed they were going to, you might see some gunfire. But that'll never happen because they're weak and cowardly.
You joke, but there was some dude in Florida (I think) who was contracted to do this with fruit flies and he started dropping healthy ones to make sure the program never ended.
Source; I can't be bothered to look it up, trust me bro.
The unexpected part is the increased surface salinity. Previously it was thought that the fresh water melt would stay on top of the denser, saltier deep water trapping some heat and salt below and allowing some refreezing slowing the overall melt, but still melting. They're finding unexpected vertical mixing bringing up saltier water from the deep, causing more melting, causing more mixing; a feedback loop.
The article doesn't really explain why this is happening, only what is happening. It does link to a paper but I'm still trying to parse it. I think I need something a little dumbed down from the paper in plain language but with a lot more info than the original article to understand it.
It follows the normal pattern where everytime we learn more about climate change we find out it's even worse than we thought.
Because an entertainer/athlete gets a paycheck for doing a job. They're not getting rich underpaying employees.
The debatable part comes in when you get more nuanced than that: The richest of them probably derive most of their wealth from investments once they've accumulated enough capital. Their industry requires the efforts of many underpaid people (even if they don't directly get a say in that). Anyone that keeps (not just earns) a billion wakes up every morning and decides not to solve homelessness in their city. Etc.
But a 20mm paycheck to put asses in seats is a paycheck, not exploitation.
It's always hard to judge AoA unless you're looking side-on with a horizon for reference, but excessive nose-up attitude caused by cargo incorrectly loaded or not secured properly so it shifted aft during rotation could have caused an aerodynamic stall.
Fun fact: Alec Baldwin's character was invented for the movie to provide exposition. The filmmakers didn't trust movie-going audiences to pick up the information from the three conversations that occur at the beginning of the play.
I see a lot of these postmortems and I don't know what combination of them is the actual truth, but I wasn't the slightest bit surprised when she lost. As soon as she got the nomination I thought it was likely.
For what it's worth, here is my take on her as one Californian that's had to deal with her since before 2010 when she ran for attorney general:
Even before she ran for attorney general, I was constantly hearing about all kinds of awful stuff the SF district attorney's office was doing under her leadership even though I'm not from SF county.
I was very disappointed when she got the nomination for attorney general because I didn't want her policies applied statewide. I voted against her in the primary but of course I held my nose and voted for her over the R in the general.
I don't recall who I voted for in the 2016 primary for Senate but it wasn't her, or blue dog Sanchez. I think I barely tilted toward Sanchez in the general but I honestly can't remember. I was so disappointed in those choices that I didn't really give a shit. I thought we could do better in California than two conserva-dems, especially with the top-2 primary system.
Never even considered voting for that cop in a presidential primary.
Didn't like that she was the bottom of the ticket in 2020 especially considering Biden's age, but the alternative was clear.
Of course, due to the alternative I voted for her in 2024 but without one iota of enthusiasm. I think I may have been more enthused to vote for John fucking Kerry, but that was a long time ago, it's hard to remember my feelings for a block of wood.
A small silver lining to her losing is I'll never have to hold my nose and vote for her ever again.
She lost because she just sucks. Whether an individual's reason for thinking she sucks and not being excited about her was based on misogyny, racism, her record of public service, her policy goals, or her personality doesn't matter. I didn't know anybody excited to vote for her. I knew some people excited to vote for a WOC, but not her as a person. A little enthusiasm was what was needed to turn the tide in the three states that mattered this time.
As soon as Biden dropped out too late for an actual primary, we already lost.
Even if both people wanted a divorce they would have to do something like fake an affair. The husband could hire a hooker and the wife would hire a P.I. to "discover" the indiscretion.
If I remember correctly that's kind of what happened. The Klingons used augment genes from Earth's eugenics wars (the ones used to make Khan and others) to try and create their own augmented Klingons. It went wrong and the result was human looking Klingons and it somehow became a transmissible virus. That's where the TOS looking looking ones came from. All of this is retcon of course.
Edit: What I wrote was pretty close. Here is a link to the Klingon page on memory alpha. The explanation is just after the start of the "History and Politics" section.
I don't know if I'd be so quick to jump to racism for that. I think most people see an attractive person and think "damn, they're hot". If after a while they find themselves thinking this about a particular group more than others they'll start thinking they have a thing for that group.
I think it's creepy when people get super specific about the range of skin tone, nose, eye shape, hair texture, etc. that they like. When someone has a detailed list like that I find it objectifying, like they're selecting options on a car (or sex doll).
Maybe the person in your example does have a thing for Namibian women. But unless they asked invasive questions about every striking woman they encounter I don't think they'd ever realize it unless they're from the region.
Add to that the specific example of someone from the U.S. where ancestry can be mixed and uncertain. The person from your example might think they've died and gone to heaven if they ever visit Namibia but walking around an American city I think they can forgiven for just thinking they like black women.
My understanding of fetishizing is that it has little to nothing to do with physical characteristics, but is instead determined by stereotyping.
Saying you have a preference, even a strong preference, for physical traits that are more often, or even exclusively, found in a certain group is simply what you're attracted to. Saying you prefer partners from "X" group because (insert list of stereotypes) is fetishizing.
For one example, consider the language that incels and people looking for "trad" partners use. They talk about preferring certain ethnic groups because they think all women from those groups are submissive, more feminine, adhere to traditional gender roles, etc., that's fetishizing.
It's also possible that the one that did it said "why did you do that" to try and shift blame for reason(s) of insurance payout, shame, or something else and the one that said "I didn't" is telling the truth.
Whichever one did it, that video from Captain Steeeve makes a pretty good case that one of them did.