I have always intended to lookup the difference between supersonic and hypersonic. I knew ss meant > speed of sound, I learned hypersonic means >= 5x speed of sound. If that thing can fly 1500 km, it can do it in ~17min. That’s like Hamburg to Kyiv in the time it takes to make an Aldi Margarita pizza in the oven(with extra tomatoes, cheese, basil, and garlic salt)… or get one delivered to Hamburg from Kyiv via hypersonic missile.

Despondent, we collect here,

No fight left in our souls,

We heal through immolation,

Our torture ends in coals.

That’s too bad, I really lichen terrariums.

For Peat’s sake!

It’s like they underwent some kind of MOSS extinction event.

You didn’t get them to the inFERNary in time to save them?

They’re confidential informants where I’m from - regional differences isn’t surprising, wonder how it’s abbreviated for other languages.

I agree. Further to that I believe protocol is that when speaking, one must address their comments to the speaker as opposed to any member in the chamber. It is mostly decorum and intended to keep a lid on tempers and direct personal exchanges that can flare up into a hubbub. Speaker is intended to be the impartial head master of the school he oversees and keep the house in order and apply the rules fairly. As you well will have seen - there are varying degrees of success in that pursuit.

I read that URL as the Bill of Frights. I figured it was some fringe mob running an “institute” for tax breaks and brainwashing. I gotta go to bed. 🤦

It’s Netherlands, but yes - he was selected by the national team.

Wow man, that’s a hot take. I’m not complaining at all. The crowd is upset that the Dutch team have chosen to select a man convicted of a heinous act. I absolutely abhor what that criminal did and in my mind there is absolutely no excusing or trivialising or equivocating on that. It’s unthinkable. I am not putting judgment on the crowd at all. I completely understand why they are doing it.

I don’t believe he was complaining in the interview. A journo asked him the world’s most obvious question and he has nowhere to go. He can’t defend his partner (not should he, not that he wanted to). He can only speak for himself and say it’s hard to get booed when personally you didn’t do the thing and you’ve worked so hard to get here.

I don’t know why you think I have anything but sincere empathy for the poor victim. I’m recognising that having a truly horrific life experience become fodder for the media, years after you last had that chapter of your life made public and the subject of speculation and judgment, must be a terrible ordeal - she will never forget his name or what happened, but there’s a difference between that and having this asshole on the front page of every news outlet for a month. It must be a genuinely traumatic experience to have it be made acute again.

You’re passionate and assertive in your feelings about this. I respect that and I don’t disagree with your sentiments. I don’t think your read meshes with what I was trying to say. I actually think we’re morally pretty well aligned. In the context of your comment, I don’t know many genuine heroes, they do what most people can’t - that’s why they’re so revered. We all know the way, only few actually walk it.

I guess that’s my point - no he wouldn’t. If his partner was out, that’s it. Min 4+ years gone. The nature of the sport and what it takes to qualify - no he wouldn’t.

If he has known for years and continued playing in the partnership then he’s made his bed and it’s time to lie in it. In the absence of info saying just that, I’m leaving room for the possibility that he’s found this out at the same time the news reading public has.

I’m not endorsing his choice. I’m saying he was faced with a shitty one. There may be a moral black and white here, I’m not trying to argue the right thing to do. I’m suggesting that likely through no fault of his own he had (and has) a choice to make. Obviously he’s made it. I think it’s reductive to declare it is a simple decision when you’ve dedicated years of your life, made daily sacrifice, put off having a family, a career, bank savings, preparing for the future to chase the chance of something fleeting. When it is all culminating in a moment- it takes a unique person to have given up so much for that dream to then willingly let it go at the last hurdle. He may for the rest of his life wish that he did.

Again, I’m not arguing the morals of the situation, I’m recognising the complexity of it.

It’s been said that all it takes in this world for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I sincerely want to be the kind of person who would abandon my whole life’s drive and focus to do what I believe is right. There is a hell of a lot of evil in this world - perhaps that’s because it’s a lot harder to do when facing it in the moment.

I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here. Beach volleyball is incredibly demanding, and at the elite level, a very low population sport. It takes athletes their whole careers to just to make the world tour hoping to one day reach the olympics. For Immers he has busted his ass for years and at some point his national body probably paired him up with the other guy. It’s possible he may not have even known about it until they were partners and had established their dynamic and working relationship. Finding and building a team with a partner you click with on the court is hard-earned. I can imagine that Immers is absolutely distraught at the situation he’s been put in. He has a crappy choice here no matter what. Abandon what he’s spent his whole career building up to, now that he’s made it - because of something he had nothing to do with, knowing he may never get this chance again, even if he were to find another available partner… it takes years to learn how to play as a team; or he sucks it up, focuses on his own journey, cops the reflected criticism and hostility and tries to keep his emotions out of it…

It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.

Don’t get me started on the poor kid whose life was never the same again, having all this trauma dredged up and shoved back in her face. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t suck.

I knew you were gonna say book. (I never knew either existed but now I want to read the book)

I understood that reference. Really got into that show!!

I know people are reacting strongly, prob a large US contingent here and that’s understandable. It is a completely different world in the UK. The police don’t carry firearms (specialist response teams do) as they are just not as available to the general public. Knives or clubs/bats are the most common weapon encountered. Even in that context I too find the sentence pretty heavy on the face of it. The article was rubbish at giving anything other than rage-bait. It didn’t explain if there were circumstances of aggravation, does he have form (ie prior same or related offences), were there vulnerable people in the vicinity, which specific charge was he accused with (possessing or threatening with) did he plead guilty, were there mitigating factors that actually reduced his sentence as the mandatory minimum sentence for “threatening with a weapon” is six months, eg did he cooperate, is he a sole caregiver for someone at home etc.

Only thing I’ve walked away knowing is the author of the article seemed more interested in provoking outrage and upping their hit count than demonstrating any investigative nous or journalistic integrity.

I’ll take a shot at the metaphor. Delete: telling someone they can use the whiteboard (but you didn’t erase it) Secure: cleaning it off when you’re done for the next user.

Fun Mom Energy!

No Mother, that’s just the Northern Lights!

It is because everything must end that everything is so beautiful.