2) Why aren't the military craft listening to the local flight channel? Aren't you supposed to monitor local traffic? Especially when flying without a transponder? It's not like you can't listen to multiple channels at the same time!
Military aircraft mostly do not have civilian VHF radio, only military UHF radio. They can only communicate with civilian aircraft by using civilian ATC as a go-between, and only if the civilian ATC is equipped with military UHF radio. In the US, this military equipment is standard at civilian ATC sites for this reason.
Why don't they have at least a receive-only radio? I can understand if they're averse to someone keying up and accidentally broadcasting Secret Military Stuff on the civilian frequency, but a an air-band capable VHF receiver is less than $100 as a consumer buying single units. Surely the MIC could find a way to add one for just $10k as cheap insurance against losing a $5 million plane in a tragic and avoidable accident?
Absolutely, and the init system does not even have to set up the filesystem and all. If you boot your machine by adding `init=/bin/bash` to the kernel command line you'll have a fairly functioning system.
Do anything necessary from there to boot your game, and record those steps in a script. When that's done you can just point your init cmdline to that script (doesn't even have to be a binary, a script with the #!/bin/bash shebang should just work).
Another cool way to show that 'the Linux kernel as "just a program"' is that you can also run the kernel as a regular binary without needing QEMU to emulate a full system:
That's not the definition, the definition of populism w.r.t. this paper is well defined. It is literally on page 2:
> We benefited greatly from the fact that the academic literature of recent years has
converged on a consensus definition of populism that is easily applicable across space and
time and for right-wing and left-wing populists alike. According to today’s workhorse
definition, populism is defined as a political style centered on the supposed struggle of
“people vs. the establishment” (Mudde 2004). Populists place the narrative of “people vs.
elites” at the center of their political agenda and then claim to be the sole representative of
“the people.” This definition has become increasingly dominant, and is now also widely used
by economists (see Section 2, and the recent survey paper by Guriev and Papaioannou,
2020). Populist leaders claim to represent the “true, common people” against the dishonest
“elites,” thus separating society into two seemingly homogeneous and antagonistic groups.
As definitions go, thats well constructed and easy to reason about.
But that isn't how the word is used by the media. Mamdani and Trump are both described as populists, but resistance to elites is hardly in their platform. Trump would never describe the democrats as "elite", and AFAIK resisting elites isn't Mamdani's platform either.
I can only presume that you properly are using quotes to mock the word "elite", and not because you're quoting Trump? Because I really dont think he uses that framing
Read the original definition you're responding to.
The "elite" is referring to "the establishment"
The "deep state" and the "swamp" represent the establishment. You also have people like RFK Jr whose entire claim to fame is questioning the legitimacy of scientific institutions.
Imagine "the establishment" taken over by the worst people as you define it. Perhaps Trump and all the Trump associates you dislike most. Steve Bannon, you name it, the worst people you can think of.
ATC audio: https://youtu.be/Hto6aTt-X7A?si=2J-NnaXIcOnnWIqS
reply