From what I've been told, the local pilots does not bear any responsibility.
While I don't work on container ships, every time a pilot comes onboard our vessel (87m) we maintain control. The pilot provides guidance and assistance in navigation, but the captain or a bridge officer (depending on watch) is in control of the vessel.
I think liability is removed from the pilots because ultimately the ships captain is responsible for the ship, and the officer on watch is actually in control.
I’m curious what would happen if (or when) a ship’s captain/bridge officer “disobeys” a pilot’s order? Does that happen? Are ship captains obligated to comply with the pilot’s instructions or is the pilot offering take-it-or-leave-it guidance that most captains take?
Can it be regarded as mutiny when the pilot isn't part of the crew?
I would have assumed that the captain is the master of the ship, and the pilot is there to provide guidance.
I would have guessed that if the pilot provides guidance that places the ship at risk the master is then responsible if he follows the advice without recognizing the danger.
So for anyone curious, the article mentions very briefly that there was a pilot onboard. A pilot is someone who comes onboard to help the ship navigate, and is usually required in areas like this (areas with shallow waters, etc). Transiting the Suez also requires a pilot come onboard. They come on to prevent these issues.
The colds that would crop up after a month always surprised me during my deployments. Where did it come from? We haven't had contact with anyone outside our group of like 40-50 people.
I remember always feeling suddenly overwhelmed by people. You spend a few months with only a couple dozen people. Then you end up in NZ or Chile and fly back stateside. Suddenly there are thousands of people around.
During our current isolation I've had probably 3 bouts of colds, that seems no less than normal (and one that I thought was a cold and now think might be a midlife tree pollen aversion). That surprised me - like where is it coming from!
Freedom of the Press doesn't give you carte blanche to disclose state secrets without repercussions. Just because the information is hard hitting doesn't give you a pass on the crimes you committed to get it.
I realize this is the Guardian, but something that stood out to me was the author suggesting that the election in November may not happen. Does anyone agree with this? I was a little shocked by that statement.
It would not be surprising, given this administration. We’ve already seen widespread voter suppression in local and primary elections, along with hyper aggression from major police forces. The executive branch has learned that no one holds them accountable since their party hold one other branch of government.
Since the police and the federal administration have allied, and they both have a lot to lose in a democratic election, it is completely conceivable that we will see wide scale arrests, voting center shutdowns, unacceptance of any results, and likely outright violence. The main contender for the presidency has already made public statements about how the military may be necessary to remove this administration from office post election.
Maybe I'm just naïve, but I am surprised by this response as well, and would be surprised if the election didn't happen.
Honestly, it just feels like status quo for the parties. With 3 branches of government and a 2 party system, one party usually has 2 of 3 branches. I think it's dangerous for 1 party to have all 3. I just feel like every election cycle it's the end of the world for one of the parties. In fact, I think only Regan and Bush Sr didn't have the party support in congress for part or all of their terms.
I borrowed a friends 80-400 for a day, and it was big and heavy, but I loved the shots I was able to get from it. I purchased the 200-500 when it came out, and some of my favorite photos I've ever taken came out of it. I havent compared them directly, but from memory the 200-500 feels lighter. The 200-500 is great for the money I think.
Full disclosure: right now FATpick will import gp3, gp4 and gp5 files. The "import song" button both enforces and mentions this, as does the user manual IIRC, but it's not something that's called out in any way.
If you have a gpx file (produced by Guitar Pro 6 or 7) then you'll need to convert it to gp5 to import into FATpick, at least for now. If you're using the GuitarPro app itself you can just save it that way. If you don't have the GuitarPro app TuxGuitar is free and handles this well (it works for editing GuitarPro files too).
Obviously it would be better to support .gpx directly, and for that matter things like MusicXML, too. But the GuitarPro format has to be more or less reverse-engineered, and gpx is unlike gp3, gp4 and gp5. Most files in the wild seem to be gp5 (or after that, gp3) anyway so that's where its at right now.
It seems like one could probably use some headless form of TuxGuitar on the back-end to convert gpx to gp5, but other than a cursory scan to see if that's a feature they already provide (it isn't) I haven't dug into it much more deeply than that.
Not the original poster, but absolutely. "Import custom tabs" is pretty vague in my eyes, and reading it just makes me think that the tool simply has a way to work with your own custom tabs. Just from reading it, I would've never guessed that it supports Guitar Pro tab import.
The US Government spends more money than it takes in taxes. In order to finance the difference it takes out loans (in many ways just like you might take out a loan to buy something). These loans take the form of government bonds.
Various people/organizations buy these bonds and give the US government money. Later on these bonds "mature" and those people get their money back plus some interest.
This post is saying that about 9 trillion dollars worth of these bonds will mature in the next 4 years so the US government will need to come up with that much money to pay the bondholders. The way the government does this (for the most part) is by "rolling over" the debt. This means the government will issue new bonds that pay out at some point in the future.
In some ways this is actually great for the government because interest rates are at very low levels right now, which means the new bonds will (in most cases) have a lower interest rate than the old ones.
>In some ways this is actually great for the government because interest rates are at very low levels right now...
Just what I came here to mention. The debt that matures will almost certainly have had a higher interest rate than whatever the amalgamated rollover rate will be.
So right now the yield curve is inverted. This means the demand for medium term government bonds is high, so their interest rate is low (lower than short term).
Historically this means a recession is coming. The reason is that investors are thinking that other investment options are not good, so they are parking their money in safe bonds.
Anyway, this is good for government dept I guess.
Government dept is held mostly in short term, so the percentage of government spending used to service dept is very quickly tied to interest rates. Things can go bad fast if interest rates go up.
Also keep in mind that right now, debt is often monatory creation. If this debt is reimbursed, it might slow the economy and might create a deflation and push the growth of GPD to th negative (GPD is a bad indicator, but for stuff like that it is quite usefull). Its not likely, but still, people often forget that debt is good for our current economies.
That's extremely difficult to explain for many, many reasons.
Ignoring a great deal, basically that debt either needs to be paid off when it matures or rolled over into bonds e.g. issuing debt to receive cash that can be used in paying off those bonds.
Now, how that will affect the USD is where things get complicated. Will a higher interest rate be needed on new financing to attract investors? Will the Treasury have cash on hand to cover paying off all of those?
Assume they goto the market to refinance all of those bonds and have to pay a higher interest rate: this means tax payers have to pay more taxes, and get less services because more of their money is going to interest payments on this debt. Or perhaps they can only find investors willing to buy 8 trillion in new bonds, then that means the budget needs to cut out 1 trillion for that year in services, just to give a couple ways how this could play out.
Everyone has their own idea of what will happen and will speculate accordingly. Some might think interest rates will explode, of the Fed might cut. Maybe Foreign flows will not be reinvested and affect the USD accordingly. Etc, etc, etc...
US Treasuries are considered the safest types of bonds (confining our discussion only to the US bond market). They are backed by the full taxation power of the US government and so are extraordinarily unlikely to default.
In that sense, they set the "risk-free rate of return" by which other investments are baselined. Not happy with the 2.5% (or whatever) on a Treasury? Well, you might want to invest in a state/municipal bond, or a company's bond offering, mortgage-backed-securities, or stocks. You would only invest in those riskier investments if they promised to pay you a rate higher than the "risk-free" rate of Treasuries.
In that regard, rising Treasury rates increase the market-clearing interest rates on any borrowing which is considered riskier than the US government's likelihood of non-payment, so in short, on all other sorts of borrowing. (On fringes, this may not be the case where statutory limits apply, such as on credit-card default rates. If the risk-free rate rises high enough though, such lending might be curtailed in favor of simply moving down the risk ladder if the returns become artificially compressed.)
I too prefer the Beyond Meat burger to the Impossible Burger, but I don't know about a meat eater not noticing. I love meat - especially beef, but lately I've also been trying meat alternatives.
Just recently, I ordered an Impossible Burger, and it just left me wanting beef. It's not that it was bad - the burger looked similar to beef, and was juicy and delicious. But it didnt taste like beef. Maybe it's different for others, but for me, the beef is the spotlight of a burger. Beyond and Impossible haven't gotten that beefy taste - at least to my buds.
When I cook a Beyond Meat burger at home, I usually add a little butter - I dont think there is enough fat, and I also add some Takii umami powder (which I believe is just salt, and ground up mushrooms). I think those additions help the illusion of beef. You could probably also cook the burger in rendered beef fat, and that would probably really help the beef flavor...probably defeating the point of meat alternatives though.
I wish I could cook an Impossible at home, just to experiment.
While I don't work on container ships, every time a pilot comes onboard our vessel (87m) we maintain control. The pilot provides guidance and assistance in navigation, but the captain or a bridge officer (depending on watch) is in control of the vessel.
I think liability is removed from the pilots because ultimately the ships captain is responsible for the ship, and the officer on watch is actually in control.