“These [combustion] gases spin the [turbine] disk, which is attached by a drive arm to its associated drive shaft. The shaft then transfers the turbine’s rotational energy forward to the corresponding compressor at the front of the engine.”

I'm probably misunderstanding, but it sounds like the disk is attached to the shaft by a single so-called “drive arm”, which could be imagined to span maybe 10° on the circumference. I would have thought there'd be at least 3 such arms at 120° intervals, if not a continuous full 360° connection, which then I wouldn't call an arm. Could you clarify this point?

Allegedly this was in reaction to the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 on March 10, 2019, near Addis Abeba, killing all 157 people on board. The factuality of the incidence is, however, questionable. I haven't seen a single convincing photo of the crash site. The 737's large modern turbofan engines are said to have been buried in a crater 10 m deep, which is totally implausible and reminiscent of the Shanksville part of the 9/11 hoax. Well, it's just mirroring brazen US lies, basically any BS will do.

https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo-contest/202...

The story goes that a UN delegation was among the victims of the alleged crash. I read somewhere that this was, basically, “world leaders uniting in protest” against the wave of airline terrorism perpetrated by the US (CIA/NSA/wtf) via cyber attacks, one of which was GermanWings 9525 which was crashed into a mountain via remote cyber hijack (remote control system compromised, probably industrial espionnage) on March 24, 2015, shredding to pieces all 150 people on board, mostly from Germany and Spain. The perpetrators had the NYT announce it was “wilful pilot action”, which is factually correct, but they blamed it (via French investigative authorities) on Andreas Lubitz instead of on the CIA or whatever US agency was responsible.

Not sure to what extent US cyber terrorism has been “covered” by HN, probably close to zero, although it couldn't be more “on topic” for US “Hacker News”.

You might already know this, but as for US intentions in this war, here's the 2015 Friedman video about US involvement in the Ukraine and the “drumbeats of the future” (very unsavoury person, dishing out quite some lies to a naïve American audience, but also quite revealing):

George Friedman, "Europe: Destined for Conflict?" – Chicago Council on Global Affairs, February 2015

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc&t=43m46s

If “nukes” existed many of these bases, being somewhat removed from human settlements, could be destroyed much more effectively and without much “collateral damage”. As the US and NATO hide behind Ukraine, other “players” could hide behind just any type of “terrorist”, just as the US/UK have done again and again.

« USA is afraid of other people's nukes » – And of extraterrestrians, too. It's all just propaganda playing back in people's minds.

« conspiracy theorist? » – The book I referenced has lots of hard empirical facts, notably the medical details, which the author is professionally qualified to assess.

« film footage » – Huge quantities of explosives, WWII production kept going. As for Japan, their gov had to collaborate somehow, and eventually resigned themselves to do so because the US wouldn't accept their capitulation and instead kept democratically napalming women and children.

« assassinations and sabotage in our countries » – They did assassinate a Georgian terrorist, murderer and war criminal in Berlin in 2019 (whom Germany refused to hand over to justice), and a Russian traitor in Spain, and maybe others I'm not aware of. Compare these to the mass murder via US cyber-attack (true one), on March 24, 2015, of 150 people (mostly from Germany and Spain) by crashing an airliner into a mountain, and then ridiculously claiming (via NYT) “pilot suicide” (as they did with Egypt Air 990 on Oct 31, 1999). I ignore the exact motive, but I suspect it had sth to do with Merkel's trips to Moscow earlier that year.

English is indeed not my first language, and yet I know exactly what “hypocrisy” means. You can see an example of it by looking at the top of your reply, where you slyly pretend not to understand that the US had ample motive to destroy the pipeline for geopolitical reasons. It is absolutely not meant as an insult, just an analysis of the rhetorics you're using. After all, such rhetorics and styles of twisted reasoning are often unconsciously absorbed and reproduced due to exposure to propaganda (“free press”).

So you're German?

« getting their own nuclear arsenals to deter Russia » – Stuck in the 20th century? Everyone can see that nukes don't work, else Russia would have used them in March '22, on military objects, and to draw a line; not “democratically” on women and children as the US did, of course (in truth the US used a kind of napalm, poison gas, pumpkin bombs, flash bombs, and coloured smoke bombs, see “Hiroshima revisited” by Michael Palmer). “Nukes” are just an elaborate deception created from 1945 through the 1950s, basically in maintenance mode ever since.

« It was, and is, in the self-interest of Europe » – Where are you talking from, geographically? What European languages do you speak so as to be able to know "the self-interest of Europe"?

There's quite a bit of smugness and hypocrisy in your response. Because I don't believe you're as dumb as your responses suggest.

The US has around 900 military bases abroad. Far more than all other countries combined. These bases are a constant source of threats and bullying, deploying and projecting a GDP largely based on death and destruction. Why don't the US retreat into their internationally recognized borders?

The trouble with drawing any sort of line is that when you're complicit and “aiding and abetting”, there's simply no motivation. And as long as the populace doesn't have a clue what's going on, their understanding being reduced to “evil Putin”, that's not even much of a problem.

Guilt with a corollary of subservience to “Western values” having become the predominant ideology in Germany, strategic shortsightedness and failure to properly “relaunch” after 1990, also the occasional murder of more “promising” members of the political spectrum (sans doute at the hands of our dear “friends”), brain drain to the U.S., catastrophic “investments” like Chrysler or U.S. telcom, and barely anything of it ever raised to the threshold of public debate and intelligent reflection : a lot of things combine to explain the dismal state of affairs in modern Germany.

It cannot be ruled out that the German gov was complicit in the bombings; not wilfully, but passively, like someone too weak to resist for lack of self-esteem. Like chancellor Scholz on Feb 7, 2022, at the White House press conference where Biden threatened the pipeline:

▪ “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine, again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it.” ▫ “But how will you do that, exactly, since the project is within Germany’s control?” ▪ “We will… I promise you we will be able to do it.”

There was no reaction from Scholz. Just nothing. By the way, could be I'm wrong, but that part of the press conference seemed scripted/scheduled to me. Not the exact words, but the contents.

Well, that's what you're assuming. I had never heard of Sauvy and was totally unaware of his definition that had lost all meaning by the time I grew up (and I guess the same holds true for most other participants). But okay, learnt something in the process.

What I took issue with in floh's comment in the beginning was not some improper definition of a term but the arrogance implicit in his tone (learnt or rather osmotically received arrogance, instilled by propaganda), an irritation possibly accumulated from a series of prior comments he'd made and which I'd read as part of my feed (because I appreciate his tech comments).

Now I respectfully suggest that we leave it at that.

As I said, I didn't intend to diss either Sauvy or you, first time I heard about this guy, and also asked some French contacts about whether he's still known in France, and the answer is « Pas la moindre idée de qui c'est ».

Also, in the article you linked, which I duely read in its entirety, he does talk about hunger and misery looming over the Third World, and he laments the misallocation of funds for more war and NATO (« pacte atlantique »). The bit about the origin of the expression and Sieyès is just the final note.

So I frankly don't think I insinuated (unterstellen) anything that was not in his text, and I was and am surprised for being reprimanded. If we are to assume good faith, then it must apply universally, not selectively.

I respectfully read the Sauvy link you provided, but frankly, despite reading/listening to lots of French, I've never come across him anywhere, and I was unaware that he coined that term in French (when it may already have been coined differently in English before). Now I see that the German Wiki article has Sauvy right at the top. (Is that where you got it from?)

By the way, Sauvy "repudiated" his definition in 1989 (French Wiki):

Auteur de l'expression [« tiers monde »], [Sauvy] la désavoue à la fin de sa vie : « Que l'on permette au créateur de l'expression tiers-monde, il y a déjà près de quarante ans, de la répudier, tant elle fait oublier la diversité croissante des cas. Englober dans le même terme les pays d'Afrique noire et « les quatre dragons » ne peut mener bien loin. »

J'espère ne plus me faire sévèrement réprimander ici pour avoir commis des « grave base failure in the mandate from the guidelines here ». :)