Not sure why the BBZ feels the need to mention the rocket strike launched elsewhere in Rafah. Must hope their readers are stupid enough to believe Rafah the place with >1 million refugees is just a small tent camp.
But what about the Hamas that’s hiding behind all the Humans, and not to mention the beheaded babies. Isn’t it a bit too early for a ceasefire, since Israel hasn’t gotten its vengeance?
I can imagine living in a world where this is the top point of conflict across the globe. No wars, no famine, no climate change, no oppression… Just, “can you believe this twat saying we should put salt in tea!?!”
And once we’ve solved that conflict and everyone is on the right side of history, the true conflict can begin between the virgin Tea Salters and the chad Salted Tea Enjoyers.
That would be doctrinal breaktrough, but the long strings of popes saying whatever they find convenient at the moment tuned the formal requirements for pope to be infallible pretty high. And i won’t even mention that whatever cool thing Francis ever said as a pope have exactly zero influence on church reality.
So by “relationships” he just meant “marriage” as church always did? It’s clear from the context he is not, since lower there is mentions of “same-sex relationships”, not to mention even the word itself suggest any something wider.
I think he’s intentionally vague when using the word relationships. The word does not explicitly mean any one thing. But yeah sex within marriage has always been praised in Christianity. It’s been a big selling point of marriage in general. I don’t see anything in the article to suggest he’s explicitly blessed homosexual sex or truly changed any doctrine.
Yeah, if that was taken on a face value then the acceptance of all kinds of extramarital relationships would be a big doctrinal change, but nothing is happening, as i noted in my first post.
I’m not a very religious person. But if Jesus (the human being) could see what his followers have become, he would be disgusted. I don’t know how they can read the bible and say that Trump is the sort of person it heralded. There is a major cognitive dissonance in the miswired brains of these ‘evangelicals’.
That is the “beauty” of that book. It is self-contradictory. It can and has been used to justify anything. Almost everyone reads just the bits they like and ignore the rest. Taken as a whole it is on par for what you would expect from 2 millennia old shepherds. Not some divinely inspired work of absolute truth.
After looking at that diagram I have to ask - why in the everliving fuck would a pressure bearing panel like that be hung by bolts and not inserted into the cabin and held in place by the ribs of the fuselage? I mean seriously?
I don’t get why they don’t just make it a bit bigger on the inside so that when pressurized, the pressure itself seals it. Seems like a fail safe solution instead of this shadiness.
It’s a well documented that when Boeing merged with McDonald Douglas, they turned from an engineering led company to an executive led one & have been shit since
It is, kind of. The plug is secured by 6 stops (or tabs) along each side. The positive pressure differential pushes the plug outwards into those stops.
To remove the plug you uninstall 4 bolts which allow the plug to go up and over the stops, after which it can hinge outwards on a hinge found at the bottom of the plug.
Just seems like a better design would be if no bolts existed (like from them loosening over time and falling off), it would still be sealed perfectly fine. The obvious failure point is the bolts and seems they could do better.
That’s how the normal doors work because they aren’t permanently secured in place. The reason is weight as it pretty much always is in aviation design.
It’s a door plug, which means it’s meant to be replaced with an actual door if required, so a lot of the hardware for an actual door are in place. Doors are designed to slide in, then raise up so the stop pins engage the stop fittings from the inside, so the door is in effect bigger than the hole it’s in. this video provides a detailed explanation of how it works.
The big issue here is that the airplane is only 2 months old, it was delivered from Boeing in late October. Which means it’s either a design flaw or a process flaw in the original manufacturing. This smacks of corporate cost cutting again. Boeing are totally on the hook for this and it’s only lucky there were no lives lost. You watch, they’ll blame it on the airline initially but the fault will come back round to them again.
They designated them as twins. How far apart would they have to be for them not to be considered twins? Say someone with the same condition gets a second pregnancy started 3 months later and delivers 3 months apart. would those still be considered twins?
Maybe it just has to do with date of conception? If they were both conceived at the same time but one was born earlier, they are still functionally the same as fraternal twins because they come from the same, er, “batch”?
Really interesting point! Also, what about babies born via IVF that don’t technically share a womb at the same time, but were from the same “batch” of sperm and eggs?
I suspect that it would be impossible to get a 2nd pregnant after a couple of weeks of the first. The baby produces hormones that stop ovulation. The 2nd one would have to be in before that window.
I also suspect that the birth of the 1st would induce the second. She likely didn’t leave labour, the 2nd just took longer, since it was, effectively, induced by the first.
Going back to the broader question, it’s likely that both were inside the mother at the same time. In theory they could be 9 months apart, though that would likely require significant medical effort, and so is effectively impossible.
"I asked one Taliban brother, what do I feed my children if I don't earn? He said give them poison but don't come outside your home," she says. "Two times the Taliban government gave me some money, but it is nowhere close to enough."
bbc.co.uk
Top