Royy

Because that is where the water droplets are. If you mist a hose in front of you on a sunny day, you'll see the rainbow close.

Thank you for partaking in this conversation in good faith. This is a good conversation.

That being said, I absolutely hate that attitude. When you look at it as a percentage of annual spending you are right. When you look at it per capita you're right, for the UK it's only £7 per person if my math is right.

That perspective is an extremely privileged one. How many lives could be saved every year with that money? How much good could be done?

We agree that the overall spending and allocation of taxpayer money is inefficient. The difference that I see in this conversation is that you're throwing up your hands and saying "the problem is too big, welp better not do anything about it", while I'm saying "This is a great step in the right direction that can help people now".

Can you give me some reasons to keep the royal family, rather than reasons not to get rid of it?

No? You're saying you wouldn't even consider spending the exorbitant amount of money it cost to maintain those purely decorational vases on something else? Like saving for your retirement or your kid's retirement, setting up community gardens, beefing up your home security, funding medical research, etc?

Imagine you have some decorational vases on your mantle. They cost you an extraordinary amount of money each year, but you like them and they're family heirlooms. But then one vase starts spewing the most insane conspiracy theories that make everyone uncomfortable, one shills dangerous health advice for money (despite you paying its salary), one is facing multiple accusations of sexual assault, and has been indicted for rape, and one it turns out is heavily in the Epstein files. Would you reconsider if those vases were worth paying a ton of money every year that could be used to better yourself or others?

I'm a bit confused by your criticism. Windows 7 came out in 2009, Windows 8 came out in 2012. And your criticism of Windows 7 is that it doesn't run great with modern hardware? Microsoft not optimizing an old operating system for new hardware when it's focusing on a new version, to me, isn't a reflection on the quality or design of the old operating system. To me that's like criticizing DOS for being limited to 640kb of memory. It was designed for the hardware available at the time.

If acceleration were constant (and my math is right), it would be 194m. We can assume due to air resistance being proportional to the square of the speed that acceleration will be more initially and less later, so realistically it will be >194m