The official one child policy didn't actually have much of an impact. Birth rates had already fallen a lot, despite the official "lots-a-children" policy.

The one child policy is gone now but birth rates haven't really moved upwards.

It's debatable and impossible to disentangle from living standards going up, but a lot of the economy is built on assumptions of one child, from apartment sizes to personal transit (ebike can do 2 adults + 1 small child).

Of course it had an impact, if nothing else, a cultural one. It basically eradicated the concept of large families.

So China has similar family sizes as the US that had no one child policy.

It's difficult to near impossible here to determine which counterfactuals would actually hold true. Based on other world wide trends it's very likely that Chinese family sizes now would only be slightly higher than if the policy didn't exist. In the modern world there are just a huge number of different factors working together to decrease family sizes.

Not what I heard from friends who were subjected to it, and their parents.

It was insanely disruptive.

Of course it was devasting for some families. That is never the same thing as saying that it affected China's birth rate much (which it didn't).

There were forced abortions (sometimes very late), there was forced contraception, forced sterilization (I think), and lots of punishments for people who broke the policy.

There were also others who got around it fairly easily by paying a bribe and by not registering their "surplus" child/children (especially if they were girls). That of course caused some problems down the road.

That still doesn't mean that it affected China's birth rate much. It was already low (and had fallen steadily) when the policy was instituted. It also had plenty of exceptions for rural China and ethnic minorities.

Uh huh [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy]

And they are more about sounding good than about reality. They also affect a much smaller share of the economy than they used to -- which is very good! The original five year plans caused nothing but misery and starvation.

I’m pointing out it’s disenguous to say ‘it’s not like there was a plan’, when there was explicitly a plan with that title on it. Especially if the plan didn’t work out well.

It's disingenuous to characterize "don't anthropomorphize the political process" as saying no planning documents exist as part of that process.

And, to the point I was responding to originally, we can check those documents! They don't speak of "annihilating" other countries' industrial capacities.

>They don't speak of "annihilating" other countries' industrial capacities.

Why would they have to?

When China talked about their 5 and 10 year plans on solar panels there was no need to talk about putting the rest of the competitors out of business. That was a highly probable end goal of what they were doing, no need to state it.

It would be like Walmart stating "We're going to put out massive loss leaders in sporting goods to put X out of business". Instead they'll talk about growing market share and long term customer loyalty.

I'm sorry, I'm not following. Is the problem here that China is too capitalist or too communist?

Yes.

More of, China is smart enough to use the benefits of both capitalism and authoritarianism to grow their country while western governments are busy stealing the furniture and fixtures off the walls.

I agree with 100% of that comment but I'm struggling to understand the beef?

Of course they're trying to take care of themselves while the US implodes, how can you blame them for that? The whole world has a serious oil problem right now, because of US actions, and of course each country is dealing with it in their own way. Why is that a problem?

You do realize that a lot of people have had problems with America after WWII and using their economic and military power to dictate what the rest of the world does, right?

"Problem" is a relative term for those dealing with the consequences of it. It is one if you are America means a whole lot less economic freedom than you had in the past. If this is a good thing or not depends on your position.

If your beef is that they are succeeding or at least failing less while America steps on it's dick repeatedly, maybe this isn't their problem?

If you're fired up by nationalism but your nation is sucking, getting mad at the Chinese isn't the answer. And that's before we even get into relative levels of activism, Chinese political ideology is much more biased towards "neutral, just trade" than American politics.

Oh boy, how to get a bunch of seething haters more seething.

Near as I can tell, they fundamentally believe that the US actually can’t do better (despite protestations to the contrary), at least not with them there doing there thing, which is why they get so manipulative and shitty. They are unwilling to make other decisions than the ones leading to these outcomes.

Yes people, it is actually possible to do better. It requires making better choices, however.

False dichotomy. the problem is far deeper than that, and wanting to simplify the problem to those two extremes belies a belief that the world could and should be able to be simplified into two power dynamic. It is not. The world, and the powers that fight within in, are far more dynamic than a simple communist or capitalist spectrum, and attempts to simplify the world along those lines is only going to hurt you.

Mostly, yes. They didn't really apologize for the abuse they sent towards Muratori but they did essentially wind up with the architecture he proposed.

In other words, it's because of the greater lift.

No. Your calculated landing speed doesn't change depending on the winds, so you'll always be touching down at roughly the same airspeed for the same aircraft type, weight, and flap setting. Touching down with a headwind just means you don't need to use the brakes as hard.

It's beneficial on takeoff because headwind already factors into your airspeed before you even start rolling, which gives you more lift for the same groundspeed yes, enabling you to rotate sooner than you otherwise would.

Becoming French was an amazingly good reward for being pirates and slave traders.

Ireland is not part of Schengen because the UK never was (and they wanted to keep the Common Travel Area).

They mostly died from European diseases without ever meeting a European. It wasn't even planned or known by the European "visitors".

Germany also has a crazy Communist party that is more in the pocket of Russia than AfD is -- but somehow that is almost never mentioned, not even in German media. It's quite big and influential.

Idk, to me it looks like the German green party is very anti Russian...

Did the Sami compensate the Indo-Europeans they displaced?

Something they might have is a lot of strain gauges around the rocket. They can tell if the rocket is bending and compressing (and how) -- but they are also essentially high-speed microphones. Valves make sounds (cause vibrations) and they are easy to spot if you have high-speed samples of your strain gauges. You can also triangulate distances if you have multiple strain gauges with synchronized high-speed samples.

It's good practice to dump data into several flash memories + transmit live. The live transmit is likely only a small summary of all the data that they capture -- distributed flash memory locations is a cheap way to increase the chances of getting useful data after a boom/crash (put them in orange water tight containers that can float + give them a beep-beep radio transmitter).