Ssnake

...rust-colored dust, maybe? Otherwise I agree, that'd be terrible.

Rust may also occur withiout a prior fire.

Eurofighter might be slightly cheaper, and it's a European solution. This is a matter of retaining a certain domestic industrial capacity.

There's also the decades-old theory of Public Choice that investigates how group leaders make their decisions. Union leaders do not necessarily have the best interests of their paying members on their mind. They get rewarded with public attention and power if they latch on to ideology-driven parties.

Usually, because they don't really understand what choices they make. There is, of course, also the case of the knowing and willing self-sacrifice. Usually however, people prefer to sacrifice something or someone else.

HEAT jet travels at 8...10km/sec, propellant burns at 2km/sec. Absence of moving plate interference has been mentioned already, but the velocity comparison alone is already a good hint why your theory doesn't work in practice.

It's a modelling assumption, and those models do yield useful insights. There are other models that involve transactional costs which explain why people are often satisfied with second-best results, but those models are more complex and therefore not suitable for macroeconomics 101. The error is in your assumption that the 101 is a comprehensive overview over the whole field.

It's not like it was a hellhole, but compared to today the only positive metric that stands out, maybe, is that the 1950s future held more promise than the 2020s, at least for some. Medicine has become better, so have cars; we have computers, satellites, and internet now, mobile phones - all things that simply weren't available to consumers (or pretty much anyone) back then. The overall standard of living of the average Briton in 2023 is massively better than in 1951. Maybe in 2019 things were even better than in 2023, but pretty much every decade after 1950 brought substantial improvements that all compounded on each other. Occasional setbacks are inevitable, but there overall long-term trend for the average person is undoubtedly positive.

I haven't tried it, but I strongly suspect POCs wouldn't appreciate strangers rustling through their pelt and give them a belly rub, or play in a cute and entertaining manner with a dangling piece of string (I'll try to keep an open mind, though, if anyone has first hand experience). Which would neatly explain why most people treat kittens better than people in general, but ... hey ... it's not like we're talking to a crowd who can still think straight.

I bet he's trying that too.

The report was about the rate of decline meeting the 1950s, but not the actual living conditions of those years. You'd be in for a rude awakening if you accidentally stumbled into a time machine dialled for the UK, 1951. Spoiler alert, it'll be nothing like Back to the Future.

Passing on restricted documents for money, what could possibly go wrong here.

"You were supposed to be the watchman." "I watched it all!"

I'm not saying that politicians have no destructive power over the economy, they certainly do. And most of them don't even seem to understand that the power they have is heavily shifted towards the destructive end of the economy rather than being able to render constructive contributions with regulation. But I suppose there are other ways to heat a dog shelter than just 100W incandescent light bulbs. Yes, the workaround may be more cumbersome, but it's not like all dogs must freeze to death now.

He also portrayed the top villain in Lethal Weapon 2, and had a memorable appearance in one of my favorite heist movies of all time, Flawless.