There are almost always these exemptions for military/law enforcement use cases in EU Directives and Regulations, because while the constituent countries in the EU have miltary and law enforcement co-operation, they would veto new legislation that impacts their independence in those areas.
The dictionary: "immigrant: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country". Note: permanently. But expat can be temporary.
So, if you haven't decided that you'll stay permanently in the new country, but maybe instead you'll move to a 2nd new country, a 3rd and so on, then you might consider yourself an expat, but not an immigrant. At least that's how foreign students here, seem to refer to themselves: They're here for a few years, and then will probably leave, and they call themselves "expats".
And also, what about this: If you still have your identity in your home country (e.g. the culture there?), you'd think of yourself as someone from that country: "I expatriated from Home-Country". But if your identity is in the new country, then you'd think of yourself primarily as an immigrant to country New-Country?
Historically, it was the other way round. An immigrant only became an expatriate if they took on the citizenship of their host county.
I know that expatriate can colloquially mean a person temporarily abroad, but in this context, it refers to immigrants to Spain who generally intended to stay permanently.
In practice, nothing; but if brits can call themselves expats abroad (which they do even when they’ve no intention to ever go back, the attempts at language sophistry are a laughable attempt at justifying exceptionalism and casual racism), then I can call myself expat here.
Yes, that's certainly fair. Hopefully I didn't offend.
I'm Irish, but once was an immigrant/expat in the US (in that I intended to stay permanently and to become a citizen, but things ended up not working out that way). I always thought of myself as an immigrant, but there were a lot of people I met who called themselves expats and never immigrants. Some almost seemed offended by the word. I think your comment about exceptionalism probably captured the reason why.
> As far as I know, none of the helicopters mentioned above are rated for sling operations with 40ft containers.
There was a sea basing study and that only looked at 20ft containers and dismissed even a theoretical upgraded CH-53X (although of course the study was looking at much longer range than just lifting it and putting it back down) but again, that was just 20ft, these 40ft ones are just too heavy for choppers.
>
For many containers, using helicopters would probably mean at least partially unloading their cargo, which is a difficult and time-consuming endeavor. The process of removing containers by helicopters would be even more difficult, dangerous, and time-consuming, so it is very, very unlikely we will see it implemented unless the situation gets really desperate.
From my experience working with helicopters in the military, I think that is wildly optimistic. Probably closer to 60-240 minutes to get each container even 100m by helicopter, with severe limits to parallel operations either in the air, or on the ground/water nearby.
Yeah, and it sounds like they can't fly that long without parts failure. It's hard to find thorough information on how long heavy lift helicopters can run for, but a new CH-54K only has an 88.6% reliability rate for missions lasting only 2.25 hours. Shit's looking bad for the helicopter idea.
However, the current estimate for mission reliability is still below the required threshold (i.e., minimally acceptable) requirement. The program office reported in November 2020 that the helicopter demonstrated an 84.5 percent reliability rate, which is short of the program’s threshold requirement and below where the program office expected the reliability to be at this point in development.15 The program office projects that the helicopter should reach mission reliability of 88.6 percent after operational testing.16 According to program officials, the main causes of the reliability shortfalls have been technical issues identified during developmental testing. For example, the reliability of the main gearbox has been one of the main factors affecting the helicopter’s overall mission reliability metric.17 As mentioned, the program office has mitigation plans in place to address many of those technical issues, but has not yet demonstrated the required level of overall helicopter mission reliability.
I think you can already do this using the unload event in the Page Lifecycle API and the Navigator.sendBeacon() function. It won't be reliable on mobile, though.
For various reasons including this, advertising tracking is moving server-side, where the company can much more tightly control what gets sent to the vendors, and where third party JavaScript no longer has access to the DOM, network requests, or cookies.
The upside of third-party trackers is that you can completely block all of them by just blocking third-party javascript. What are we going to do once all of this tracking code starts getting served from the first party domain instead? Or even served inside the same source files as site code?
I imagine we will start seeing a new class of privacy extensions that behave more like anti-virus. Checking for known hashes of tracking scripts, monitoring for certain patterns of behaviour during execution.
The future is entirely server-side tracking, with no JavaScript executed in the client unless for UX tracking like Hotjar or A/B testing like Target or Optimize.
Personally, I haven't seen a desire in companies to skirt GDPR. Rather companies just want to be compliant and not have to worry about data breaches or reputational damage from their marketing tools. This example with Backblaze is exactly what companies are trying to avoid.
