Platform(s): PC
Genre: Isometric 2d as mentioned, kind of a top down/side perspective where you can see all the land.
Estimated year of release: early-mid 2000s, not sure if it could be earlier. But I played this game sometime between 2010-2013. The art style and everything make it seem like it could be a game made after mid 2000s.
Graphics/art style: it looked like Clash of Clans. Not realistic but I don't remember it looking too cartoonish either, hope you get what I mean.
Notable characters: There were many buildings like in clash of clans, one thing I 100 % vividly remember is there was a blacksmith Hut kind of building where he would make weapons(?), Etc with the resources we provide him.
Notable gameplay mechanics: Like clash of clans I remember visiting enemy territories, i remember crossing a sea to get to other places. There was a boat/ship icon which opened a sort of map(not sure) that you can use to travel to other lands.
Other details: Even though I've mentioned a zillion times it was like clash of clans, we did not have a stable internet connection back then, and what little we had, it was 2g so not that fast. I remember playing it without hotspot or anything like that. So it probably is an offline game.
My PC had Windows XP and then we upgraded to Windows 7, but I'm not certain which OS I used when I played this game. That's one of the reasons I think it could be an early 2000s game.
I vaguely remember attacking enemy territories but not much, there were many other buildings like the blacksmith I mentioned. About that, we could see the blacksmith at work, he uses his hammer to work on tools, etc.
This is sadly all I could remember of the game that I used to play daily during my childhood! If you guys could help me find this, which I can surely identify using just a screenshot or two, I would be amazed! I also have another game in mind that I remember even more vaguely but I'll just find this one first xD.

Please help
Build Request (i think i did this correctly this time
What will you be doing with this PC? Be as specific as possible, and include specific games or programs you will be using.**
Gaming and streaming, for games: ark, overwatch 2, cod mw2
>**What is your maximum budget before rebates/shipping/taxes?**
1600
>**When do you plan on building/buying the PC? Note: beyond a week or two from today means any build you receive will be out of date when you want to buy.**
Hopefully a week from now
>**What, exactly, do you need included in the budget? (ToweOS/monitokeyboard/mouse/etc\)**
Tower, Monitor, OS
>**Which country (and state/province) will you be purchasing the parts in? If you're in US, do you have access to a Microcenter location?**
US, yes i have acess
>**If reusing any parts (including monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/etc), what parts will you be reusing? Brands and models are appreciated.**
None
>**Will you be overclocking? If yes, are you interested in overclocking right away, or down the line? CPU and/or GPU?**
potentially, if its possible and easy enough
>**Are there any specific features or items you want/need in the build? (ex: SSD, large amount of storage or a RAID setup, CUDA or OpenCL support, etc)**
Pretty colors and anime based :)
>**Do you have any specific case preferences (Size like ITX/microATX/mid-towefull-tower, styles, colors, window or not, LED lighting, etc), or a particular color theme preference for the components?**
Full tower, Tempered Glass, Led Lighting, Red/Black color preference anime based..
>**Do you need a copy of Windows included in the budget? If you do need one included, do you have a preference?**
Yes please

>**What will you be doing with this PC? Be as specific as possible, and include specific games or programs you will be using.**
Mainly gaming such as Resident Evil franchise, Overwatch, League of Legends, Dead by Daylight, Genshin Impact, Honkai Star Rail, Nier: Automata, Persona franchises, Black Ops3, Apex Legends, Valorant, etc. I will also be doing work but that will mainly only be using google chrome so I want something that is able to run games and chrome, youtube/watching stuff, spotify, etc. in the background without causing stutters or fps drops. I would also like to run stuff such as wallpaper engine in the background. Additionally, something that can stream games on discord without causing me to lag while playing. To put it simply, I would like things to run better and quicker.
>**What is your maximum budget before rebates/shipping/taxes?**
$1500
>**When do you plan on building/buying the PC? Note: beyond a week or two from today means any build you receive will be out of date when you want to buy.**
1-4 weeks, if it's beyond 4+ weeks I will remake the post so the build doesn't remain outdated.
>**What, exactly, do you need included in the budget? (ToweOS/monitokeyboard/mouse/etc)**
Mainly the PC itself, stuff like mouse and keyboard is optional but please include it separate from the PC budget (it would make me happy if everything matches though not required; I would also prefer keyboards to be small)! I would like a dual monitor though so please send recommendations.
>**Which country (and state/province) will you be purchasing the parts in? If you're in US, do you have access to a Microcenter location?**
New Jersey, USA. Yes, I live very near a Microcenter so I am willing to buy from there!
>**If reusing any parts (including monitor(s)/keyboard/mouse/etc), what parts will you be reusing? Brands and models are appreciated.**
Nothing unfortunately :(
>**Will you be overclocking? If yes, are you interested in overclocking right away, or down the line? CPU and/or GPU?**
No
>**Are there any specific features or items you want/need in the build? (ex: SSD, large amount of storage or a RAID setup, CUDA or OpenCL support, etc)**
I have limited understanding but possibly an SSD (if it's good for what I am looking for). I tend to keep a lot of games installed but if I have to uninstall some to keep space that's not an issue, however I would like enough space where I do not have to constantly uninstall.
>**Do you have any specific case preferences (Size like ITX/microATX/mid-towefull-tower, styles, colors, window or not, LED lighting, etc), or a particular color theme preference for the components?**
LED, or something blue and black; generally just something vibrant and nice to look at.
>**Do you need a copy of Windows included in the budget? If you do need one included, do you have a preference?**
Yes if I need it?
>**Extra info or particulars:**
I am very very new to the PC world in general so please be patient with me. If you're able to explain the parts in descriptions and why it's a good choice I would very much appreciate it! Also, since I am unsure of a lot of the terminology in this post, feel free to explain stuff to me!

Preface

Greetings all and good tidings. I am addressing something that has probably been addressed, rehashed, debated and possibly ignored many times over. In fact, this topic has likely been done to death on this sub. So why am I writing this post at all? Well, I hope I can address the topic in a way that does not give you indigestion, and if I do cause you gastrointestinal distress from topics on embodied minds, diachronic universalism and theories on personal identity, then I apologise in advance. There have been some relatively "newish" ideas presented in the literature about FLO and I would like to explore them and discuss what they entail. I understand that this whole topic may be irrelevant to several (many) users of this subreddit, but there are users here that this topic is quite important to, and it is them that I primarily address. All in all though, my effort here would be worthwhile if someone got something out of this.

Introduction

The Future Like Ours (FLO) argument, what is it and what does it necessitate? In its simplest form, it can be written as follows:
​

• Premise 1: It is morally wrong to deprive a being of a FLO.
• Premise 2: Killing a fetus deprives it of a FLO.
• Conclusion: Therefore, killing a fetus is morally wrong.

​
This seemingly simple argument was presented by Don Marquis in 1989. In the literature, it is widely regarded as the strongest argument against the permissibility of abortion, unless you accept some other religious doctrine. The general arguments that are provided as to the strength of Don Marquis' objection to abortion are based on the grounding that it is established on a seemingly uncontroversial view of why it is wrong to kill someone. The above argument is however deceptively simple, and I believe it is worth some time in breaking it down to establish what it means exactly.
The intention of the FLO argument is not about determining a set of conditions that may occur at some time after conception that would make abortion impermissible, but rather, that it would be impermissible in general. To describe how this argument comes about, we have to establish what it is that we mean by a future like ours. Our futures, assuming we live into the future and are able to experience, are futures of experience. In order for a fetus to have a future that is like ours, the future of the fetus must too, be one of experience. This also means that our present experience, right now, is the FLO of the fetus that was once 'us'. To achieve this end, an additional requirement is generated, the very being of the fetus must be the same being as we are now in order for the FLO of the fetus to be our current experience. A concise definition is as follows, as provided by Vogelstein:
FLO Definition: X, at time t, has a FLO if and only if (1) X exists at t, and (2) X exists for some period of time after t, during which X has valuable experiences that make X’s life after t worth living, on the whole. (Where the subject of experience is X)
There is an important distinction that needs to be made here. The future like ours argument of Don Marquis is not about the potential of the fetus to experience a future, but rather, the fetus really does experience a future. This distinction is important, as without it, the argument is open to the obvious rebuttal that a potential something is not as valuable as an actual something. The FLO argument is that the fetus is the same actual something that has future experiences as we actual somethings have future experiences right now.

The Problem of Identity

The general subject of the theory of personal identity is to describe what it is that we refer to when we say "I" and other pronouns. Generally, theories of personal identity posit that it is the thing we refer to as "I" that has experience. As by the definition of FLO above, a fetus can only have a future of experience if the thing that "I" refers to is the same as the fetus: I was once a fetus. The most widely accepted theory of personal identity; the psychological theory of personal identity, corresponds to relating "I" to the psychological connections of continuity, connectedness, similarity and other related concepts. These features correspond to particular functions of the brain. The identity objection, to put it concisely, is that for a fetus to have a FLO and adhere to the definition above, it would need to exhibit psychological traits. Since the fetus has no psychology to speak of, it does not have a FLO.
For the defender of FLO not willing to concede to this point, they are presented with a controversial choice, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity! This theory presents a distinction between the biological organism, and what it is that we refer to when we say "I". Under this theory, after conception, the organism existed for a certain time before "we", or "I", came into being, and so the organism before this point in time had no FLO at all. This also implies that the statement, I am my organism is not exactly correct. This point may seem like a possible point of contention by supporters of FLO, but it seems to be uncontroversial to proponents of the psychological theory of personal identity: we are minds that receive stimuli from our bodies. It's this last point that has (supposedly) provided another way out for defenders of FLO, in that they do not necessarily need to reject the psychological theory of personal identity after all, or at least, a particular form of it.

The Embodied Mind

Eric Vogelstein (2016), in his paper titled: Metaphysics and the Future-Like-Ours Argument Against Abortion provided an argument as to how FLO can still survive under Jeff McMahon's view of the embodied mind account of personal identity. The embodied mind account can arguably be traced back to Friedrich Nietzsche's classic Thus Spoke Zarathustra (one of my favourites!). Friedrich Nietzche wrote:
But greater is that in which you do not wish to believe – our body with its great intelligence; it does not say ‘I’, but does ‘I’. What the sense feels, what the spirit knows, never has its end in itself. But sense and spirit would persuade you that they are the end of all things: that is how vain they are. Instruments and toys are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the self. The self also seeks with the eyes of the senses, it also listens with the ears of the spirit. Always the self listens and seeks; it compares, overpowers, conquers, and destroys. It rules, and is also the ruler of the ‘I’. Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage – it is called the subconscious self; it dwells in your body, it is your body*.*
Never can I hope to achieve the level and style of writing of one such as Nietzsche! It is important to point out the very different context that surrounds Nietzsche's writings here. Nietzsche is describing the reluctance of Europeans to fully relinquish concepts of the past after the death of God! One such concept is the idea of the will, more importantly the free will endowed with inherent knowledge of morality. The free will is the end in itself with respect to the spirt of experience. Nietzsche argues to abolish this idea entirely and proclaims that the master behind "I" is our very bodies. The will is therefore no longer free, and no more endowed with knowledge of moral value than the pangs of hunger from the gut, or the... throes of passion from the groin...
In this sense, provided by Nietzsche, a description of the embodied mind account can be presented. The embodied mind is not distinct from the body but integrated within and the subject of the stimuli generated by our bodies. Our thoughts are not free but can be traced back to physiological conditions in the body. Even thoughts seemingly inspired by external stimuli are still thoughts subjugated to the master, the body! External stimulus is nothing more than the reception of outside events by our senses, and so the body is still the real author of all experience. I believe in this description, there is no point delineating the brain from the body, the brain is still your body, and your mind is integrated in your brain, that is, your body. I believe that Friedrich Nietzsche's account of an 'embodied mind' is not the same as the one argued by Jeff McMahon, as Nietzsche's take seems to be purely feed forward (and not particularly helpful to FLO), but nonetheless it still looks like "an" embodied mind account, and possibly one of, if not the earliest such account there is.
Eric Vogelstein has argued that the organism can experience by virtue of one of its parts. The brain is a part of the organism, and so the organism experiences by virtue of having a brain. Vogelstein makes use of Jeff McMahon's example of a car horn. When the horn of a car makes a noise, it does not seem controversial to say that the car made a noise. Similarly, when the brain has an experience, it should be uncontroversial to say that the organism too has an experience. Vogelstein also presents a counter to the argument that the mind itself is the subject of experience and not the brain, through the words of Eric Olson (2003):
The reason for [believing that you think but your animal or organism does not] can only be that the animal can’t think…And if that animal can’t think…then no human animal can. And if no human animal can think, no animal of any sort could….The claim, then, is that animals, including human animals, are no more intelligent or sentient than trees…This is rather hard to believe. Anyone who denies that animals can think…needs to explain why. They can’t. What stops a typical human animal from using its brain to think? Isn’t that what that organ is for?
A personal objection of mine to Olson here (this is not necessary for the argument I build later, and so I present it here) is that thinking, and experience are not the same things. We have the content of experience of thinking, and it is possible that with lesions on particular parts of our brains, our subjective experience persists but our ability to think rationally is impeded. I do not think it makes any sense to replace the word thinking with experience in the quote from Olson, as whether or not an animal or organism can experience is the very thing Olson is trying to conclude here. For example, machine learning techniques can be thought of a process of thinking, but AI has no experience to speak of, yet! Is there really any significant different in the way we think from the methods applied in machine learning? This is however a digression.
In summary here, Eric Vogelstein has presented an argument as to how an organism itself can experience. This means that the fetus, before developing the constitutive part necessary for experience (the brain) can still experience by virtue of eventually having a brain. If the organism itself can experience, and that we, or "I" are organisms, and that the fetus is the same organism, then the fetus does have a FLO - that is, if you accept all of the required premises!

Reductio ad Absurdum, a Problem for Diachronic Universalism

There is yet another issue that arises from premise one of FLO that I would like to address. Premise one states that it is immoral to deprive a being of its FLO. The reductio of premise one would be that it is immoral to deprive a sperm and an ovum of its FLO through either contraception or abstinence. Don Marquis has responded to such a criticism and has argued that contraception does not deprive a being of a FLO. Eric Vogelstein (2016) has however acknowledged that in order for this claim to succeed, yet another controversial metaphysical stance needs to be adopted - the rejection of diachronic universalism.
In Don Marquis response to the reductio critique, he outlines possible candidates for harm: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm) (3) both the sperm and the ovum (4) the mereological fusion of the sperm and the ovum. Don Marquis argues that options (1) and (2) are both unlikely, as there is no reason to grant either of these candidates a privileged status as being the being with a FLO. Marquis argues that (3) is also unlikely as too many futures are lost, a problem of too many thinkers. Eric Vogelstein however dismisses this argument as both the sperm and the ovum can share the same future. The argument from Marquis that Vogelstein gives greater credit to is that the fusion of the sperm and the ovum does not preserve the existence of the things that have combined. Vogelstein acknowledges however that this argument too can be tricky on a four dimensionalist view of space and time. In such a view, it is not controversial to accept singular identities in a transitive temporal form. In the four dimensionalist view, all of the future, and all of the past exist and stretch out from our current present point in time. When tracing the organism through a four-dimensional space-time, the sperm and the ovum fuse to generate the zygote, it can be said that the sperm, or the ovum are temporal transients leading to the zygote, though it is not necessarily true that both the sperm and the ovum are temporal transients together. This is where a mereological dispute arises, and the success of the FLO argument depends on its resolution.
Diachronic universalism posits that for every set of objects that exists, there also exists an object with the members of the set as it parts. Additionally, the composition of an object comprised of members of a set can occur over time. The example that Vogelstein provides is that there is an object that is composed of both George Washington and Fenway Park, that is, an object that was George Washington and later Fenway Park. Similarly, under diachronic universalism, if there was once a sperm-ovum mereological fusion, and later, the human organism compromised of the components of the set of the sperm and the ovum; then contraception and abstinence would indeed deprive something of a FLO by premise one and would be morally wrong. If diachronic universalism is true, the defender of the FLO argument has a choice. The choice is to either accept that contraception and abstinence are as morally wrong as abortion, or accept that contraception and abstinence are not morally wrong, and so it is not immoral to deprive a fetus of its FLO. The alternative of this is to reject diachronic universalism.
The problem is that diachronic universalism has many strengths and many supporters. For example, at what point does a scattered object stop being a single object, but scattered objects? If one such component of a Macro sized object was to move by a nanometre, would it stop being an object composed of its parts? If it can move by a nanometre, why not 10 nanometres, or even a metre? There are other arguments for diachronic universalism associated with the functionality of the object for instance. The main point here is, and a point that Vogelstein acknowledges, is that success of FLO does indeed require the rejection of diachronic universalism, and this is itself a controversial stance to take. It is controversial, as for an argument to rely on an already contested premise, the argument itself is weakened.

Does the Embodied Mind Account Really Save FLO from the Identity Problem?

In 2018, Skott Brill provided, what I believe to be, a forceful rebuttal to Vogelstein's argument that the embodied mind account means defenders of FLO do not need to take the controversial stance of rejecting the psychological theory of personal identity. Skott Brill presented his arguments in a paper titled: the Identity Objection to the Future Like Ours Argument. In this paper, the embodied mind account of the psychological theory of personal identity is presented by an analogy to an orange fruit tree. The main reason for this analogy is in response to those that do make the controversial rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity in that they argue it resembles a cartesian dualism. Skott Brill demonstrates that there are dualisms, and then there are dualisms, and they can be completely uncontroversial. If we are to take a whip of a fruit tree, it slowly develops and grows branches and starts to produce fruit. The fruit may ripen, and would be juicy, sweet and orange in colour. Eventually the fruit will drop off, and what used to a whip, and now the tree will continue beyond the fruit.
In this analogy, we do not say that the tree is sweet and juicy because it produced ripened oranges. The tree grew a new entity by producing fruit, and the properties of juiciness, sweetness and orangeness are properties of the fruit and not the tree. The tree itself can exist before and after the arrival and demise of the fruit. Similarly, the human organism, as a fetus, can grow a new entity, the brain, which has distinct properties on its own like the fruit, consciousness. The organism can precede the development of consciousness, and just like the tree, in some cases, survive beyond the loss of consciousness. There is nothing particularly controversial here that necessitates an objection based on cartesian dualism.
Skott Brill continues further with a reference to the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a mistake that we make when we infer that something has an attribute or property based on the fact that one of its parts has a particular property. The simple example that is provided is to make an inference that a car is light in weight because one of its parts is light in weight. Sometimes we are justified in this inference, where for example if one of the parts of the car is heavy, we are justified in saying the car is heavy. Skott Brill does not press this matter further, as he does not need to. A concession is made, and the embodied mind account is taken to be true so that it is assumed Vogelstein has not made a fallacy of composition.
Skott Brill points out an important point that Vogelstein has completely overlooked, that it is possible to have experiences in the way that we have experiences, and it is also possible to have experiences in a way that we do not have them. The beings that we identify as when we say "I" have experiences directly, whereas the organism has experiences derivatively. Skott Brill makes use of Jeff McMahon here to illustrate this point, which is slightly ironic in that it was McMahon's version of the embodied mind that Vogelstein has employed in his own defence of FLO:
My organism is conscious [and has experiences] only in a derivative sense, only by virtue of having a conscious [experiencing] part. Similarly, when I blow the horn of my car, the car makes a noise only in the sense that one of its parts makes a noise. There is only one noise; and there is a clear sense in which there is only one noisemaker: the horn. But we attribute the making of the noise not just to the horn but also, in a de rivative way, to the larger whole that contains it. It is clear … that the car is not some additional occult presence that mysteriously joins the horn in producing the honking noise. Nor is the organism as a whole involved in the experience of consciousness except by containing that which is conscious.
Even if the embodied mind account is taken as correct, the experience of the organism is a derivative experience and is different from the direct experience that we have. This means that the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours in that it experiences derivatively and not directly. There is no basis that has been established anywhere, by Marquis or by Vogelstein that the transfer of experience from direct to derivative occurs without loss, and so is a highly dubious claim to make. This is not the type of experience that Marquis is referring to in premise one of FLO. The reason it is wrong to kill us is that it deprives us of a future of experience that is an experience that we have directly. This is exactly the kind of experience that the non-sentient fetus does not have, and so the fetus does not have a future like ours at all. Under the psychological theory of personal identity, the FLO argument demonstrates that it is morally permissible to abort a fetus, as it does not have the very thing that is considered to be of value in premise one, a future like ours!

Reductio ad Absurdum Once Again! The Ovum as the Primary Candidate for Harm

I am going to explore the reductio problem of FLO a little further as I believe, even if rejecting diachronic universalism, a case can be made for the ovum as a candidate for harm, and more so, the candidate for harm. Quite recently, in 2023, Tomer Jordi Chaffer published a paper titled: Future‐like ours as a metaphysical reductio ad absurdum argument of personal identity. In this paper, it is argued that the ovum is the non-arbitrary candidate for harm for three reasons:
(1) The ovum exclusively passes down mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to offspring.
(2) The ovum can turn on paternal gene expression through histone restructuring.
(3) The ovum can undergo parthenogenesis.
If we refer back to the previous reductio section, the first two possible candidates for harm were identified as: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm). Don Marquis argued that these two candidates were unlikely, as neither could be considered non-arbitrarily privileged over the other. It is this point that is contentious.
Chaffer refers to recent scientific findings from mitochondrial epigenetics corresponding to the heritable changes in gene expression of the mtDNA genome. These recent findings show increasing evidence that mitochondrial epigenetic regulators, such as mtDNA-encoded non-coded RNA (ncRNA) can translocate to the nucleus to regulate the expression of nuclear DNA (nDNA) encoded genes, which are the genes that affect identity. This mechanism can only be passed down from the mother, where sperm mitochondria are severely degraded. This establishes the ovum as having a non-arbitrary privileged position in that it has a greater role in identity formation than a sperm, corresponding to point (1) above.
There is a further point of difference between the nDNA carried by the sperm and the ovum. The nDNA carried in the head of a sperm is compacted to avoid damage as the sperm travels. In this compaction, histones are replaced with other nuclear proteins. Histones are complex proteins that regulate the gene expression and provide structural support to chromosomes. The ovum however does possess all of the necessary histones associated with gene expression and chromosome structure, but more than just this. The ovum also provides the sperm with the necessary materials, such as tripeptide antioxidant glutathione, so that the nDNA of the sperm can decondense and restructure. On this basis, epigenetically, the ovum provides the mechanisms necessary to regulate a sperms contribution to life, and so can be considered as the foundation for a new life. This corresponds to point (2) above and provides another case for the non-arbitrary privileged status of the ovum over the sperm.
A third differentiating aspect of the ovum from the sperm is that the ovum demonstrates a self-directing mechanism. The ovum has the capacity to initiate and activate embryo development without fertilization: parthenogenesis. Human parthenotes are not viable in nature, but the significance is that only the ovum can initiate this process and not the sperm, leading to yet another argument for the non-arbitrary privileged position of the ovum over the sperm, corresponding to point (3) above. If a counter to this is argued on the non-viable nature of the parthenote, that is exactly the point. The non-viable parthenote is robbed of a future by abstinence and contraception in that fertilisation did not occur before parthenogenesis was initiated.
The arguments presented above I believe provide a reasonably strong case that the ovum can be considered as a foundational structure of a new life, where a sperm merely deposits the necessary material for the foundation to become a fetus. There is a stronger line of continuity between the ovum and the zygote than there is between the zygote and the sperm. Additionally, the magnitude of the change between the ovum and the zygote is decidedly less than the magnitude of the change between the zygote and the child. I believe this is more than sufficient to argue that the ovum is a non-arbitrary candidate for harm, and possibly more than just this, the candidate for harm; the same candidate as the zygote!

Summary

I believe that the identity objection to FLO on the grounds of the psychological theory of personal identity carries significant force. Even if the embodied mind account is granted to be true, our organism, at best, can be considered to have a derivative experience only, and so the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours at all. On the psychological theory of personal identity, Don Marquis' argument does more to demonstrate why abortion is morally permissable rather than the reverse, because the fetus does not have the very thing which is valued, a future like ours.
The defenders of FLO are therefore faced with a controversial metaphysical stance, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity. Rejecting this however is not the end of the road, as yet another controversial metaphysical stance is necessary, the rejection of diachronic universalism. With the rejection of diachronic universalism, the reductio problem is still unresolved on the basis of the biology of the ovum: a strong case can be made for the ovum as a non-arbitrary candidate for harm. The defender of FLO then has yet another controversial stance to take, that it is morally impermissible to use contraceptives or abstain from sex!
Don Marquis arguments for FLO are considered to be the best secular argument as to why abortion is morally wrong, but this says nothing about the strength of the argument itself. As described above, if an argument requires two or three contested and controversial stances taken a priori, the argument itself is on more than perilous ground. If this really is the strongest case for the anti abortion argument, the anti-abortion movement itself is on extremely perilous ground! In short however, I believe FLO does achieve something quite valuable, it demonstrates that abortion is not morally wrong at all!
OK, here we are at the end... finally. That was a long post wasn't it. How is your intestinal tract by the way? Excellent! If you have made it this far, then you have my thanks, and I hope you got something out of this.
​
Thank you for your time and effort in getting through this.
​
Perse

The Airbus A300 is a wide-body airliner developed and manufactured by Airbus. In September 1967, aircraft manufacturers in the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a large airliner. West Germany and France reached an agreement on 29 May 1969 after the British withdrew from the project on 10 April 1969. European collaborative aerospace manufacturer Airbus Industrie was formally created on 18 December 1970 to develop and produce it. The prototype first flew on 28 October 1972.
The first twin-engine widebody airliner, the A300 typically seats 247 passengers in two classes over a range of 5,375 to 7,500 km (2,900 to 4,050 nmi). Initial variants are powered by General Electric CF6-50 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D turbofans and have a three-crew flight deck. The improved A300-600 has a two-crew cockpit and updated CF6-80C2 or PW4000 engines; it made its first flight on 8 July 1983 and entered service later that year. The A300 is the basis of the smaller A310 (first flown in 1982) and was adapted in a freighter version. Its cross section was retained for the larger four-engined A340 (1991) and the larger twin-engined A330 (1992). It is also the basis for the oversize Beluga transport (1994).
Launch customer Air France introduced the type on 23 May 1974. After limited demand initially, sales took off as the type was proven in early service, beginning three decades of steady orders. It has a similar capacity to the Boeing 767-300, introduced in 1986, but lacked the 767-300ER range. During the 1990s, the A300 became popular with cargo aircraft operators, as both passenger airliner conversions and as original builds. Production ceased in July 2007 after 561 deliveries. As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service.
Origins:
During the 1960s, European aircraft manufacturers such as Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation, based in the UK, and Sud Aviation of France, had ambitions to build a new 200-seat airliner for the growing civil aviation market. While studies were performed and considered, such as a stretched twin-engine variant of the Hawker Siddeley Trident and an expanded development of the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) One-Eleven, designated the BAC Two-Eleven, it was recognized that if each of the European manufacturers were to launch similar aircraft into the market at the same time, neither would achieve sales volume needed to make them viable.[2] In 1965, a British government study, known as the Plowden Report, had found British aircraft production costs to be between 10% and 20% higher than American counterparts due to shorter production runs, which was in part due to the fractured European market. To overcome this factor, the report recommended the pursuit of multinational collaborative projects between the region's leading aircraft manufacturers.[3]: 49 [4][5]: 2–13
European manufacturers were keen to explore prospective programs; the proposed 260-seat wide-body HBN 100 between Hawker Siddeley, Nord Aviation, and Breguet Aviation being one such example.[2][6]: 37–38 National governments were also keen to support such efforts amid a belief that American manufacturers could dominate the European Economic Community;[7] in particular, Germany had ambitions for a multinational airliner project to invigorate its aircraft industry, which had declined considerably following the Second World War.[3]: 49–50 During the mid-1960s, both Air France and American Airlines had expressed interest in a short-haul twin-engine wide-body aircraft, indicating a market demand for such an aircraft to be produced.[3][8] In July 1967, during a high-profile meeting between French, German, and British ministers, an agreement was made for greater cooperation between European nations in the field of aviation technology, and "for the joint development and production of an airbus".[2][9]: 34 The word airbus at this point was a generic aviation term for a larger commercial aircraft, and was considered acceptable in multiple languages, including French.[9]: 34
Shortly after the July 1967 meeting, French engineer Roger Béteille was appointed as the technical director of what would become the A300 program, while Henri Ziegler, chief operating office of Sud Aviation, was appointed as the general manager of the organization and German politician Franz Josef Strauss became the chairman of the supervisory board.[2] Béteille drew up an initial work share plan for the project, under which French firms would produce the aircraft's cockpit, the control systems, and lower-center portion of the fuselage, Hawker Siddeley would manufacture the wings, while German companies would produce the forward, rear and upper part of the center fuselage sections. Addition work included moving elements of the wings being produced in the Netherlands, and Spain producing the horizontal tail plane.[2][6]: 38
An early design goal for the A300 that Béteille had stressed the importance of was the incorporation of a high level of technology, which would serve as a decisive advantage over prospective competitors. As such, the A300 would feature the first use of composite materials of any passenger aircraft, the leading and trailing edges of the tail fin being composed of glass fibre reinforced plastic.[5]: 2–16 [10] Béteille opted for English as the working language for the developing aircraft, as well against using Metric instrumentation and measurements, as most airlines already had US-built aircraft.[10] These decisions were partially influenced by feedback from various airlines, such as Air France and Lufthansa, as an emphasis had been placed on determining the specifics of what kind of aircraft that potential operators were seeking. According to Airbus, this cultural approach to market research had been crucial to the company's long-term success.[10]
Workshare and redefinition:
On 26 September 1967, the British, French, and West German governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding to start development of the 300-seat Airbus A300.[6]: 38 [11]: 43 [12]: 57 At this point, the A300 was only the second major joint aircraft programme in Europe, the first being the Anglo-French Concorde.[9] Under the terms of the memorandum, Britain and France were each to receive a 37.5 per cent work share on the project, while Germany received a 25 per cent share. Sud Aviation was recognized as the lead company for A300, with Hawker Siddeley being selected as the British partner company.[2] At the time, the news of the announcement had been clouded by the British Government's support for the Airbus, which coincided with its refusal to back BAC's proposed competitor, the BAC 2–11, despite a preference for the latter expressed by British European Airways (BEA).[9]: 34 Another parameter was the requirement for a new engine to be developed by Rolls-Royce to power the proposed airliner; a derivative of the in-development Rolls-Royce RB211, the triple-spool RB207, capable of producing of 47,500 lbf (211 kN).[13] The program cost was US$4.6 billion (in 1993 Dollars).[14]
​
In December 1968, the French and British partner companies (Sud Aviation and Hawker Siddeley) proposed a revised configuration, the 250-seat Airbus A250. It had been feared that the original 300-seat proposal was too large for the market, thus it had been scaled down to produce the A250.[5]: 2–14 [8][15] The dimensional changes involved in the shrink reduced the length of the fuselage by 5.62 metres (18.4 ft) and the diameter by 0.8 metres (31 in), reducing the overall weight by 25 tonnes (55,000 lb).[10][16]: 16 For increased flexibility, the cabin floor was raised so that standard LD3 freight containers could be accommodated side-by-side, allowing more cargo to be carried. Refinements made by Hawker Siddeley to the wing's design provided for greater lift and overall performance; this gave the aircraft the ability to climb faster and attain a level cruising altitude sooner than any other passenger aircraft.[10] It was later renamed the A300B.[9]: 34 [15]
Perhaps the most significant change of the A300B was that it would not require new engines to be developed, being of a suitable size to be powered by Rolls-Royce's RB211, or alternatively the American Pratt & Whitney JT9D and General Electric CF6 powerplants; this switch was recognized as considerably reducing the project's development costs.[11]: 45 [15][16]: 16–17 To attract potential customers in the US market, it was decided that General Electric CF6-50 engines would power the A300 in place of the British RB207; these engines would be produced in co-operation with French firm Snecma.[8][10] By this time, Rolls-Royce had been concentrating their efforts upon developing their RB211 turbofan engine instead and progress on the RB207's development had been slow for some time, the firm having suffered due to funding limitations, both of which had been factors in the engine switch decision.[5]: 2–13 [15][16]: 17–18
On 10 April 1969, a few months after the decision to drop the RB207 had been announced, the British government announced that they would withdraw from the Airbus venture.[6]: 38–39 [15] In response, West Germany proposed to France that they would be willing to contribute up to 50% of the project's costs if France was prepared to do the same.[15] Additionally, the managing director of Hawker Siddeley, Sir Arnold Alexander Hall, decided that his company would remain in the project as a favoured sub-contractor, developing and manufacturing the wings for the A300, which would later become pivotal in later versions' impressive performance from short domestic to long intercontinental flights.[5]: 2–13 [9]: 34 [16]: 18 Hawker Siddeley spent £35 million of its own funds, along with a further £35 million loan from the West German government, on the machine tooling to design and produce the wings.[6]: 39 [15]
Programme launch:
On 29 May 1969, during the Paris Air Show, French transport minister Jean Chamant and German economics minister Karl Schiller signed an agreement officially launching the Airbus A300, the world's first twin-engine widebody airliner.[2] The intention of the project was to produce an aircraft that was smaller, lighter, and more economical than its three-engine American rivals, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[10] In order to meet Air France's demands for an aircraft larger than 250-seat A300B, it was decided to stretch the fuselage to create a new variant, designated as the A300B2, which would be offered alongside the original 250-seat A300B, henceforth referred to as the A300B1. On 3 September 1970, Air France signed a letter of intent for six A300s, marking the first order to be won for the new airliner.[6]: 39 [10][16]: 21
In the aftermath of the Paris Air Show agreement, it was decided that, in order to provide effective management of responsibilities, a Groupement d'intérêt économique would be established, allowing the various partners to work together on the project while remaining separate business entities.[2] On 18 December 1970, Airbus Industrie was formally established following an agreement between Aérospatiale (the newly merged Sud Aviation and Nord Aviation) of France and the antecedents to Deutsche Aerospace of Germany, each receiving a 50 per cent stake in the newly formed company.[3]: 50 [6]: 39 [10] In 1971, the consortium was joined by a third full partner, the Spanish firm CASA, who received a 4.2 per cent stake, the other two members reducing their stakes to 47.9 per cent each.[10][16]: 20 In 1979, Britain joined the Airbus consortium via British Aerospace, which Hawker Siddeley had merged into, which acquired a 20 per cent stake in Airbus Industrie with France and Germany each reducing their stakes to 37.9 per cent.[3]: 53 [5]: 2–14 [6]: 39
Prototype and flight testing:
Airbus Industrie was initially headquartered in Paris, which is where design, development, flight testing, sales, marketing, and customer support activities were centered; the headquarters was relocated to Toulouse in January 1974.[8][10] The final assembly line for the A300 was located adjacent to Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. The manufacturing process necessitated transporting each aircraft section being produced by the partner companies scattered across Europe to this one location. The combined use of ferries and roads were used for the assembly of the first A300, however this was time-consuming and not viewed as ideal by Felix Kracht, Airbus Industrie's production director.[10] Kracht's solution was to have the various A300 sections brought to Toulouse by a fleet of Boeing 377-derived Aero Spacelines Super Guppy aircraft, by which means none of the manufacturing sites were more than two hours away. Having the sections airlifted in this manner made the A300 the first airliner to use just-in-time manufacturing techniques, and allowed each company to manufacture its sections as fully equipped, ready-to-fly assemblies.[3]: 53 [10]
In September 1969, construction of the first prototype A300 began.[16]: 20 On 28 September 1972, this first prototype was unveiled to the public, it conducted its maiden flight from Toulouse–Blagnac International Airport on 28 October that year.[6]: 39 [9]: 34 [11]: 51–52 This maiden flight, which was performed a month ahead of schedule, lasted for one hour and 25 minutes; the captain was Max Fischl and the first officer was Bernard Ziegler, son of Henri Ziegler.[10] In 1972, unit cost was US$17.5M.[17] On 5 February 1973, the second prototype performed its maiden flight.[6]: 39 The flight test program, which involved a total of four aircraft, was relatively problem-free, accumulating 1,580 flight hours throughout.[16]: 22 In September 1973, as part of promotional efforts for the A300, the new aircraft was taken on a six-week tour around North America and South America, to demonstrate it to airline executives, pilots, and would-be customers.[10] Amongst the consequences of this expedition, it had allegedly brought the A300 to the attention of Frank Borman of Eastern Airlines, one of the "big four" U.S. airlines.[18]
Entry into service:
On 15 March 1974, type certificates were granted for the A300 from both German and French authorities, clearing the way for its entry into revenue service.[18] On 23 May 1974, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification was received.[16]: 22 The first production model, the A300B2, entered service in 1974, followed by the A300B4 one year later.[8] Initially, the success of the consortium was poor, in part due to the economic consequences of the 1973 oil crisis,[6]: 40 [8][9]: 34 but by 1979 there were 81 A300 passenger liners in service with 14 airlines, alongside 133 firm orders and 88 options.[18] Ten years after the official launch of the A300, the company had achieved a 26 per cent market share in terms of dollar value, enabling Airbus Industries to proceed with the development of its second aircraft, the Airbus A310.[18]
Design:
The Airbus A300 is a wide-body medium-to-long range airliner; it has the distinction of being the first twin-engine wide-body aircraft in the world.[8][9]: 34 [12]: 57, 60 [19] In 1977, the A300 became the first Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS)-compliant aircraft, due to its high performance and safety standards.[6]: 40 Another world-first of the A300 is the use of composite materials on a commercial aircraft, which were used on both secondary and later primary airframe structures, decreasing overall weight and improving cost-effectiveness.[19] Other firsts included the pioneering use of center-of-gravity control, achieved by transferring fuel between various locations across the aircraft, and electrically signaled secondary flight controls.[20]
The A300 is powered by a pair of underwing turbofan engines, either General Electric CF6 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines; the sole use of underwing engine pods allowed for any suitable turbofan engine to be more readily used.[12]: 57 The lack of a third tail-mounted engine, as per the trijet configuration used by some competing airliners, allowed for the wings to be located further forwards and to reduce the size of the vertical stabilizer and elevator, which had the effect of increasing the aircraft's flight performance and fuel efficiency.[3]: 50 [16]: 21
Airbus partners had employed the latest technology, some of which having been derived from Concorde, on the A300. According to Airbus, new technologies adopted for the airliner were selected principally for increased safety, operational capability, and profitability.[19] Upon entry into service in 1974, the A300 was a very advanced plane, which went on to influence later airliner designs. The technological highlights include advanced wings by de Havilland (later BAE Systems) with supercritical airfoil sections for economical performance and advanced aerodynamically efficient flight control surfaces. The 5.64 m (222 in) diameter circular fuselage section allows an eight-abreast passenger seating and is wide enough for 2 LD3 cargo containers side by side. Structures are made from metal billets, reducing weight. It is the first airliner to be fitted with wind shear protection. Its advanced autopilots are capable of flying the aircraft from climb-out to landing, and it has an electrically controlled braking system.
Later A300s incorporated other advanced features such as the Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit (FFCC), which enabled a two-pilot flight crew to fly the aircraft alone without the need for a flight engineer, the functions of which were automated; this two-man cockpit concept was a world-first for a wide-body aircraft.[8][16]: 23–24 [20] Glass cockpit flight instrumentation, which used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to display flight, navigation, and warning information, along with fully digital dual autopilots and digital flight control computers for controlling the spoilers, flaps, and leading-edge slats, were also adopted upon later-built models.[19][21] Additional composites were also made use of, such as carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), as well as their presence in an increasing proportion of the aircraft's components, including the spoilers, rudder, air brakes, and landing gear doors.[22] Another feature of later aircraft was the addition of wingtip fences, which improved aerodynamic performance and thus reduced cruise fuel consumption by about 1.5% for the A300-600.[23]
In addition to passenger duties, the A300 became widely used by air freight operators; according to Airbus, it is the best selling freight aircraft of all time.[20] Various variants of the A300 were built to meet customer demands, often for diverse roles such as aerial refueling tankers, freighter models (new-build and conversions), combi aircraft, military airlifter, and VIP transport. Perhaps the most visually unique of the variants is the A300-600ST Beluga, an oversize cargo-carrying model operated by Airbus to carry aircraft sections between their manufacturing facilities.[20] The A300 was the basis for, and retained a high level of commonality with, the second airliner produced by Airbus, the smaller Airbus A310.[19]
Operational history:
On 23 May 1974, the first A300 to enter service performed the first commercial flight of the type, flying from Paris to London, for Air France.[6]: 39 [18]
Immediately after the launch, sales of the A300 were weak for some years, with most orders going to airlines that had an obligation to favor the domestically made product – notably Air France and Lufthansa, the first two airlines to place orders for the type.[3]: 50–52 [18] Following the appointment of Bernard Lathière as Henri Ziegler's replacement, an aggressive sales approach was adopted. Indian Airlines was the world's first domestic airline to purchase the A300, ordering three aircraft with three options. However, between December 1975 and May 1977, there were no sales for the type. During this period a number of "whitetail" A300s – completed but unsold aircraft – were completed and stored at Toulouse, and production fell to half an aircraft per month amid calls to pause production completely.[18]
During the flight testing of the A300B2, Airbus held a series of talks with Korean Air on the topic of developing a longer-range version of the A300, which would become the A300B4. In September 1974, Korean Air placed an order for four A300B4s with options for two further aircraft; this sale was viewed as significant as it was the first non-European international airline to order Airbus aircraft. Airbus had viewed South-East Asia as a vital market that was ready to be opened up and believed Korean Air to be the 'key'.[8][16]: 23 [18]
Airlines operating the A300 on short haul routes were forced to reduce frequencies to try and fill the aircraft. As a result, they lost passengers to airlines operating more frequent narrow body flights. Eventually, Airbus had to build its own narrowbody aircraft (the A320) to compete with the Boeing 737 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80. The savior of the A300 was the advent of ETOPS, a revised FAA rule which allows twin-engine jets to fly long-distance routes that were previously off-limits to them. This enabled Airbus to develop the aircraft as a medium/long range airliner.
In 1977, US carrier Eastern Air Lines leased four A300s as an in-service trial.[18] CEO Frank Borman was impressed that the A300 consumed 30% less fuel, even less than expected, than his fleet of L-1011s. Borman proceeded to order 23 A300s, becoming the first U.S. customer for the type. This order is often cited as the point at which Airbus came to be seen as a serious competitor to the large American aircraft-manufacturers Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.[6]: 40 [8][18] Aviation author John Bowen alleged that various concessions, such as loan guarantees from European governments and compensation payments, were a factor in the decision as well.[3]: 52 The Eastern Air Lines breakthrough was shortly followed by an order from Pan Am. From then on, the A300 family sold well, eventually reaching a total of 561 delivered aircraft.[1]
In December 1977, Aerocondor Colombia became the first Airbus operator in Latin America, leasing one Airbus A300B4-2C, named Ciudad de Barranquilla.
During the late 1970s, Airbus adopted a so-called 'Silk Road' strategy, targeting airlines in the Far East.[3]: 52 [18] As a result, The aircraft found particular favor with Asian airlines, being bought by Japan Air System, Korean Air, China Eastern Airlines, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines, Indian Airlines, Trans Australia Airlines and many others. As Asia did not have restrictions similar to the FAA 60-minutes rule for twin-engine airliners which existed at the time, Asian airlines used A300s for routes across the Bay of Bengal and South China Sea.
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft,[24] qualifying for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. In 1982 Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly the A300B4-200FFCC.[25] By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 400 aircraft sold to over forty airlines.[26]
In 1989, Chinese operator China Eastern Airlines received its first A300; by 2006, the airline operated around 18 A300s, making it the largest operator of both the A300 and the A310 at that time. On 31 May 2014, China Eastern officially retired the last A300-600 in its fleet, having begun drawing down the type in 2010.[27]
From 1997 to 2014, a single A300, designated A300 Zero-G, was operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as a reduced-gravity aircraft for conducting research into microgravity; the A300 is the largest aircraft to ever have been used in this capacity. A typical flight would last for two and a half hours, enabling up to 30 parabolas to be performed per flight.[28][29]
By the 1990s, the A300 was being heavily promoted as a cargo freighter.[16]: 24 The largest freight operator of the A300 is FedEx Express, which has 65 A300 aircraft in service as of May 2022.[30] UPS Airlines also operates 52 freighter versions of the A300.[31]
The final version was the A300-600R and is rated for 180-minute ETOPS. The A300 has enjoyed renewed interest in the secondhand market for conversion to freighters; large numbers were being converted during the late 1990s.[16]: 24–25 The freighter versions – either new-build A300-600s or converted ex-passenger A300-600s, A300B2s and B4s – account for most of the world's freighter fleet after the Boeing 747 freighter.[32]
The A300 provided Airbus the experience of manufacturing and selling airliners competitively. The basic fuselage of the A300 was later stretched (A330 and A340), shortened (A310), or modified into derivatives (A300-600ST Beluga Super Transporter). In 2006, unit cost of an −600F was $105 million.[14] In March 2006, Airbus announced the impending closure of the A300/A310 final assembly line,[33] making them the first Airbus aircraft to be discontinued. The final production A300, an A300F freighter, performed its initial flight on 18 April 2007,[34] and was delivered to FedEx Express on 12 July 2007.[35] Airbus has announced a support package to keep A300s flying commercially. Airbus offers the A330-200F freighter as a replacement for the A300 cargo variants.[36]
The life of UPS's fleet of 52 A300s, delivered from 2000 to 2006, will be extended to 2035 by a flight deck upgrade based around Honeywell Primus Epic avionics; new displays and flight management system (FMS), improved weather radar, a central maintenance system, and a new version of the current enhanced ground proximity warning system. With a light usage of only two to three cycles per day, it will not reach the maximum number of cycles by then. The first modification will be made at Airbus Toulouse in 2019 and certified in 2020.[37] As of July 2017, there are 211 A300s in service with 22 operators, with the largest operator being FedEx Express with 68 A300-600F aircraft.[38]
Variants:
A300B1 - The A300B1 was the first variant to take flight. It had a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 132 t (291,000 lb), was 51 m (167 ft) long and was powered by two General Electric CF6-50A engines.[16]: 21 [39]: 41 Only two prototypes of the variant were built before it was adapted into the A300B2, the first production variant of the airliner.[6]: 39 The second prototype was leased to Trans European Airways in 1974.[39]: 54
A300B2 -
A300B2-100:
Responding to a need for more seats from Air France, Airbus decided that the first production variant should be larger than the original prototype A300B1. The CF6-50A powered A300B2-100 was 2.6 m (8.5 ft) longer than the A300B1 and had an increased MTOW of 137 t (302,000 lb), allowing for 30 additional seats and bringing the typical passenger count up to 281, with capacity for 20 LD3 containers.[40]: 10 [41][39]: 17 Two prototypes were built and the variant made its maiden flight on 28 June 1973, became certified on 15 March 1974 and entered service with Air France on 23 May 1974.[39]: 27, 53 [40]: 10
A300B2-200:
For the A300B2-200, originally designated as the A300B2K, Krueger flaps were introduced at the leading-edge root, the slat angles were reduced from 20 degrees to 16 degrees, and other lift related changes were made in order to introduce a high-lift system. This was done to improve performance when operating at high-altitude airports, where the air is less dense and lift generation is reduced.[42]: 52, 53 [43] The variant had an increased MTOW of 142 t (313,000 lb) and was powered by CF6-50C engines, was certified on 23 June 1976, and entered service with South African Airways in November 1976.[39]: 40 [40]: 12 CF6-50C1 and CF6-50C2 models were also later fitted depending on customer requirements, these became certified on 22 February 1978 and 21 February 1980 respectively.[39]: 41 [40]: 12
A300B2-320:
The A300B2-320 introduced the Pratt & Whitney JT9D powerplant and was powered by JT9D-59A engines. It retained the 142 t (313,000 lb) MTOW of the B2-200, was certified on 4 January 1980, and entered service with Scandinavian Airlines on 18 February 1980, with only four being produced.[39]: 99, 112 [40]: 14
A300B4 -
A300B4-100:
The initial A300B4 variant, later named the A300B4-100, included a centre fuel tank for an increased fuel capacity of 47.5 tonnes (105,000 lb), and had an increased MTOW of 157.5 tonnes (347,000 lb).[44][42]: 38 It also featured Krueger flaps and had a similar high-lift system to what was later fitted to the A300B2-200.[42]: 74 The variant made its maiden flight on 26 December 1974, was certified on 26 March 1975, and entered service with Germanair in May 1975.[39]: 32, 54 [40]: 16
A300B4-200:
The A300B4-200 had an increased MTOW of 165 tonnes (364,000 lb) and featured an additional optional fuel tank in the rear cargo hold, which would reduce the cargo capacity by two LD3 containers.[40]: 19 [42]: 69 The variant was certified on 26 April 1979.[40]: 19
A300-600 - The A300-600, officially designated as the A300B4-600, was slightly longer than the A300B2 and A300B4 variants and had an increased interior space from using a similar rear fuselage to the Airbus A310, this allowed it to have two additional rows of seats.[42]: 79 It was initially powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4H1 engines, but was later fitted with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines, with Pratt & Whitney PW4156 or PW4158 engines being introduced in 1986.[42]: 82 Other changes include an improved wing featuring a recambered trailing edge, the incorporation of simpler single-slotted Fowler flaps, the deletion of slat fences, and the removal of the outboard ailerons after they were deemed unnecessary on the A310.[45] The variant made its first flight on 8 July 1983, was certified on 9 March 1984, and entered service in June 1984 with Saudi Arabian Airlines.[40]: 42 [39]: 58 A total of 313 A300-600s (all versions) have been sold. The A300-600 uses the A310 cockpits, featuring digital technology and electronic displays, eliminating the need for a flight engineer. The FAA issues a single type rating which allows operation of both the A310 and A300-600. A300-600: (Official designation: A300B4-600) The baseline model of the −600 series. A300-620C: (Official designation: A300C4-620) A convertible-freighter version. Four delivered between 1984 and 1985. A300-600F: (Official designation: A300F4-600) The freighter version of the baseline −600. A300-600R: (Official designation: A300B4-600R) The increased-range −600, achieved by an additional trim fuel tank in the tail. First delivery in 1988 to American Airlines; all A300s built since 1989 (freighters included) are −600Rs. Japan Air System (later merged into Japan Airlines) took delivery of the last new-built passenger A300, an A300-622R, in November 2002. A300-600RC: (Official designation: A300C4-600R) The convertible-freighter version of the −600R. Two were delivered in 1999. A300-600RF: (Official designation: A300F4-600R) The freighter version of the −600R. All A300s delivered between November 2002 and 12 July 2007 (last ever A300 delivery) were A300-600RFs.
A310 (A300B10)-
Airbus had demand for an aircraft smaller than the A300. On 7 July 1978, the A310 (initially the A300B10) was launched with orders from Swissair and Lufthansa. On 3 April 1982, the first prototype conducted its maiden flight and it received its type certification on 11 March 1983.
Keeping the same eight-abreast cross-section, the A310 is 6.95 m (22.8 ft) shorter than the initial A300 variants, and has a smaller 219 m2 (2,360 sq ft) wing, down from 260 m2 (2,800 sq ft). The A310 introduced a two-crew glass cockpit, later adopted for the A300-600 with a common type rating. It was powered by the same GE CF6-80 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D then PW4000 turbofans. It can seat 220 passengers in two classes, or 240 in all-economy, and can fly up to 5,150 nmi (9,540 km). It has overwing exits between the two main front and rear door pairs.
In April 1983, the aircraft entered revenue service with Swissair and competed with the Boeing 767–200, introduced six months before. Its longer range and ETOPS regulations allowed it to be operated on transatlantic flights. Until the last delivery in June 1998, 255 aircraft were produced, as it was succeeded by the larger Airbus A330-200. It has cargo aircraft versions, and was derived into the Airbus A310 MRTT military tanketransport.
Airbus A300-ST (Beluga)
Commonly referred to as the Airbus Beluga or "Airbus Super Transporter," these five airframes are used by Airbus to ferry parts between the company's disparate manufacturing facilities, thus enabling workshare distribution. They replaced the four Aero Spacelines Super Guppys previously used by Airbus.
ICAO code: A3ST
Operators:
As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service. The five largest operators were FedEx Express (70), UPS Airlines (52), European Air Transport Leipzig (23), Iran Air (11), and Mahan Air (11).[46]

The following events happened on this day in history!

• 06/04/1983 - Mid-South Wrestling - Mid-South Wrestling S1983E23
  
• 06/04/1983 - Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling - Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling S1983E155
  
• 06/04/1983 - WCCW - WCCW S1983E155
  
• 06/04/1986 - Tuesday Night Titans - Jake Roberts shows his reptilian collection S1986E23
  
• 06/04/1988 - WCCW - World Class Championship Wrestling S1988E156
  
• 06/04/1988 - World Championship Wrestling - WCW World Championship Wrestling S1988E156
  
• 06/04/1988 - WCCW - WCCW S1988E156
  
• 06/04/1988 - World Championship Wrestling - World Championship Wrestling S1988E156
  
• 06/04/1994 - Superstars - Superstars S1994E23
  
• 06/04/1996 - ECW Hardcore TV - ECW Hardcore TV S1996E23
  
• 06/04/1998 - WCW Thunder - WCW Thunder S1998E22
  
• 06/04/2001 - Raw - Raw S2001E23
  
• 06/04/2007 - Raw - Raw S2007E23
  
• 06/04/2010 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2010E23
  
• 06/04/2012 - Raw - Raw S2012E23
  
• 06/04/2014 - WWE.coms 5 Things - Five Incredible Money in the Bank Ladder Matches S2014E18
  
• 06/04/2015 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2015E23
  
• 06/04/2015 - Too Hot for TV Presented by Jerry Springer - Bloopers & Blunders S1E6
  
• 06/04/2015 - SmackDown - Dwight Is Amped to Be at SmackDown: 06-04-15
  
• 06/04/2015 - SmackDown - Adam Rose and Rosa Against the World: 06-04-15
  
• 06/04/2016 - This Week in WWE - This Week in WWE S2016E23
  
• 06/04/2016 - This Week in WWE - June 4, 2016 S2016E23
  
• 06/04/2016 - WWE Top 10 - Incredible Superstar Reunions S2016E67
  
• 06/04/2017 - Raw Talk - Raw Talk: WWE Extreme Rules 2017 S2017E1
  
• 06/04/2017 - WWE Extreme Rules - WWE Extreme Rules 2017 Kickoff Show
  
• 06/04/2017 - WWE Extreme Rules - WWE Extreme Rules 2017 S2017E1
  
• 06/04/2017 - WWE Extreme Rules - Sheamus & Cesaro dont just set the bar, they are
  
• 06/04/2017 - WWE Extreme Rules - Sasha Banks and Rich Swann celebrate their victory
  
• 06/04/2017 - WWE Extreme Rules - The Mizs Intercontinental Championship comeback t
  
• 06/04/2017 - WWE Extreme Rules - Check out the classy Alicia Fox and Noam Dar: WWE.
  
• 06/04/2017 - WWE Extreme Rules - Seth Rollins talks about the magnitude of his Extr
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - Raw S2018E23
  
• 06/04/2018 - WWE Photo Shoot! - Godfather S1E8
  
• 06/04/2018 - 205 Live - Drake Maverick announces two huge 205 Live matches
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - The B-Team celebrate their Tag Team Battle Royal w
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - Drew McIntyre & Dolph Ziggler refuse to back down:
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - Finn B lor shares a Too Sweet experience with S
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - Curt Hawkins vows to end his losing streak by defe
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - The Revival are still Raws best tag team: WWE.com
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - Natalya prepares to face Nia Jax for the first tim
  
• 06/04/2018 - Raw - Kevin Owens will bring out the best in Finn B lor
  
• 06/04/2018 - WWE Top 10 - Superstars Thrown Into the Crowd S2018E88
  
• 06/04/2018 - WWE Now - 4 Things To Know Before Tonights Raw: 06-04-18 S2018E123
  
• 06/04/2018 - WWE Now - 4 Things to Know Before SmackDown LIVE: 06-05-18 S2018E124
  
• 06/04/2019 - 205 Live - 205 Live S2019E23
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2019E23
  
• 06/04/2019 - 205 Live - Dar feels unsafe after being attacked by Gulak
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Could Bliss take the SD Women s Title to Raw?
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Mahal vows to take back the 24/7 Championship
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Aiden English on why Undertaker has the edge
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Bruce Prichard dishes on Undertaker vs. Goldberg
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Hayes on how Goldberg can defeat The Undertaker
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Kofi Kingston never bets against The Undertaker
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Roman Reigns predicts Undertaker vs. Goldberg
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Titus thinks Goldberg is ready for Undertaker
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Daniel Bryan & Rowan argue with Heavy Machinery
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Elias sings a Super ShowDown ballad
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Sarah Schreiber tests the WWE Universe s knowledge
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - R-Truth and Elias battle under the ring
  
• 06/04/2019 - Raw - A WWE fan channels Carmella during commercial
  
• 06/04/2019 - WWE Top 10 - Top 10 Raw Moments: June 03, 2019 S2019E88
  
• 06/04/2019 - WWE Now - 4 things to know before SmackDown LIVE: 06-04-19 2019
  
• 06/04/2019 - SmackDown - Ember Moon rips up Mandy Rose s magazine cover
  
• 06/04/2020 - NXT UK - WWE NXT UK S2020E23
  
• 06/04/2020 - WWE Top 10 - Top 10 NXT Moments: June 3, 2020 2020
  
• 06/04/2020 - This Week in WWE - June 4, 2020 S2020E23
  
• 06/04/2020 - WWE Now - What s Lee s Condition Heading Into In Your House? S2020E94
  
• 06/04/2020 - WWE NXT - Lumis foreboding drawing for The Undisputed ERA
  
• 06/04/2020 - WWE Main Event - WWE Main Event S2020E23
  
• 06/04/2020 - Total Bellas - The Proposal S5E10
  
• 06/04/2021 - WWE Now - Mysterios & Usos set for title match: June 4, 2021 2021
  
• 06/04/2021 - 205 Live - 205 Live S2021E23
  
• 06/04/2021 - SmackDown - SmackDown S2021E23
  
• 06/04/2021 - SmackDown - Exclusive: Carmella has no time for incompetence
  
• 06/04/2021 - SmackDown - Exclusive: Nakamura is the king with the crown
  
• 06/04/2021 - SmackDown - Exclusive: Apollo Crews played by the rules to win
  
• 06/04/2021 - wXw We Love Wrestling - wXw We Love Wrestling #14 S2021E12
  
• 06/04/2022 - wXw We Love Wrestling - wXw We Love Wrestling #30 S2022E4
  
• 06/04/2022 - ICW Fight Club - Fight Club S2022E20
  
• 06/04/2022 - WWE Talking Smack - June 4, 2022 S2022E21
  
• 06/04/2022 - WWE Top 10 - Top 10 SmackDown Moments: June 3, 2022 2022
  
• 06/04/2022 - WWE NXT - NXT In Your House 2022 S2022E24
  

What event was your favorite in this list?

This is long, sorry.
I’m 30 and I’m finally finding myself able to admit certain things to myself. Namely that my attraction to femininity and androgyny isn’t only limited to females, and maybe actually skews the other way quite a bit. Maybe always has.
I’ve known for a long time that I’m “not straight”, but I guess I had always kind of filed the extent of that away. Now I’m reconsidering. I’d like to branch out and make a friend to explore my attractions with but so far I’m finding it all quite intimidating. The people I’ve talked to so far seem to want me to play a role that isn’t really native to me. Basically I keep getting called “daddy.”
I think it might have to do with the nature of my attractions/desires and the “type” I’m into (basically highly-effeminate, petite people)… and the fact that physically I might come across as more or less masculine? But being called this just sorta makes me sad because I’m not like that. Due to complicated stuff from childhood I’ve never felt comfortable with power. It just makes me feel very uneasy to “wear that jacket”, if that makes any sense. I need to feel more of a “peer” thing or else I kinda shut down.
In my past love life I’ve really only had relationships with women who kinda worked their own ways into my life. And other than those I’ve never been one for anything other than extended “friendships.” Beyond that it’s just too intimidating and just I’m too sensitive, I need to have a certain connection before anything.
I haven’t tried apps yet because I’m worried I’ll get scared off from the whole thing. People’s confidence. I’m happy for them but I am just a million miles somewhere else. A tortured soul lol.
I’ve tried a couple personal ads on here but that’s how I keep running into what I’ve mentioned. I’m not sure what else I can try. I feel like other people might’ve felt my posts were tiresome or needlessly complicated? Maybe they were but I had hoped to try to avoid being hurt or hurting anyone’s feelings that way; I have a pretty comprehensive sense who I am and what I like.
Just like for example, previously in dating, when I’d omit the complexity, I’d repeatedly run into non-starters on like second and third dates. Stuff that doesn’t come up right away but, when it does, makes me realize “oh, nope, neither of us are gonna be good for each other.” But maybe that’s just dating? It’s just been the overwhelming majority of my experiences. And it’s so far from enjoyable as to just not be worth it. Hurts, basically. Like playing out a game when you know the ending isn’t going to be what you’re looking for.
When I was trying to “date” none of that ever actually translated into anything; my relationships have only ever evolved out of knowing people. But meeting my “type” with the stuff I’m talking about here is not exactly common, especially since I’m quite a homebody, in a remote area.
Does anyone have suggestions how I could approach this stuff in a way that’s more fulfilling and effective? Should I just numbers-game it? Chews me up inside.
Thank you

Hi, we had a party tonight and our one friend (19F) left to go home, and she noticed a Black Explorer patrolling slowly up and down Central Ave. She was walking to her car and the Explorer pulled up and slowly, parked and left the car running. She got in her car and a Male got out, dressed in a white hat, white windbreaker, and black pant. He got something out of his backseat and started to approach.
She speed off and he got back in his car and looked like he was going to follow her. Luckily she’s home safe now (I got her permission to post this).
But just a heads up to everyone in the neighbourhood to keep an eye out! We never had a problem like this before, but definitely will be more vigilant and cautious.

I recently picked up a bunch of large branches and sticks for my King Snakes enclosure. I got them outside near one of my nature parks, the only issue is…they’re very large. My king snakes tank is 4lx4wx3h so they’ll fit in his tank well, but they wont be able to fit in my bathtub to bleach sanitize, or in my oven to cook them. Does anyone know any alternative ways I can use to clean them? I rather not cut any of them down so they’ll be able to span over his entire tank.

This happened may 31st 2023, so just a few days ago but it was my boyfriends birthday and he has this field behind his house with a clearing so the stars are really pretty out there at night so we got a blow up mattress some pillows and blankets and parked his truck in the field to look at the stars, it all started when I had to pee so I made my bf walk back to his house to get me toilet paper so I could just pee outside and use the toilet paper but when he was gone I was on the passenger side of the truck standing outside it and I heard something messing with the driver side door handle and I just tried to ignore it and pretend I didn’t hear it because I don’t handle things like that well I just pretend it isn’t happening and waited for him to get back, when he got back a few minutes later he brought his cat with him and when the cat got out there with him the cat was absolutely terrified and you could see it in his face and he never acts like that and he jumped down and me and my bf were back in the back bed of the truck laying on the air Mattress looking at the stars and he heard his cat sneeze and started looking around and something just came over me and I begged him not to get out because he wanted to get out to find the cat, so he didn’t get out and we laid back down and I was honestly about to fall asleep and so was he and my bf just kept mumbling “can’t fall asleep I have to protect you, I need to protect you” and not even 30 seconds later we heard what sounded like a 4 year old girl laugh in the edge of the field near the woods and he just said we need to leave right now I’ll explain when we get back to the house, so we left and as soon as we got back all he was said was “ it was a sk*****ker, it was mimicking noises to get us to separate out of the truck” and ever since that night really weird things have been happening to us and we always feel really uneasy, the next night we were talking about it and afterwards we drove around and we drove by an abandoned house and every light in that house flickered on and off when we drove by, and we’ve drove by a lot of street lamps that randomly go out and come back on as we pass them driving, and honestly I don’t feel safe anywhere I go. I’m definitely lucky to be alive since he left me alone in that field once that night but my mom told me they can follow you and attach themselves to you so all we can do is pray, if anyone has any advice please don’t hesitate to give it because honestly I’m scared for my life and usually I don’t strongly believe in this stuff, but earlier that night he mentioned one and said the word so we think that’s why we encountered one and honestly I just want it to go away.

My school elevator is old and rickety, it stops randomly from the years of abuse it has felt courtesy of kids stealing the keys and jumping up and down tempting it to rocket to the ground floor. I never understood what they got out of it, though it could just be my way of ignoring the fact I was never invited to tempt its ancient cables. I’m more of a loner. I like walking around listening to my metal music at lunch rather than slamming my least favourite teacher’s door or vaping. Nevertheless the other kids don’t pay me any attention, something I am actually grateful for. My five foot two stature at a mere one hundred pounds keeps me fast and nimble should anyone care enough to make me their punching bag for the day.
On Wednesday, my final block is English with Mr.Steeves, this class is an easy A for me as all he does is sit there and ask us to read the two hundred-fifty page book he assigned us five months ago and then do the questions pertaining to the chapter we just read. Mr.Steeves has a strict no phone policy and makes us park our phones in a box when we walk into the classroom.
This rule makes accessing the questions for our novel impossible so he has two random students go and fetch the computer cart from the library and bring them up to the class on the elevator. This is great for me as the large screen of the prehistoric laptops hides my head while I sleep.
This Wednesday Mr.Steeves chose Hunter, the most popular boy in my grade, and I to go get the computer cart. I never really liked Hunter due in part to his name and reckless behaviour that often ended up with someone else being seriously injured. Not deterred, angry, but ready to get this over with and get to my scheduled nap I begrudgingly stood up and shambled out of the classroom Hunter following behind me while still laughing at a joke his friend made no doubt at my expense.
As we make our way down the stairs and then through the hallway over to the library Hunter and I have our faces buried in our phones pretending not to notice one another. As we approach the library Hunter puts his phone away and speedwalks ahead of me to get his interaction with our more than socially awkward librarian over and done with.
I am mere feet away from the door to the library when Hunter comes barreling out of the library practically surfing the cart and nearly hitting me. I feel butterflies soaring in my stomach from the freight Hunter has given me yet I act unphased and carry on with my emotionless demeanour. We walk back through the hallway past the staircase and over to the elevator, Hunter grabs the key off of the top of the cart and puts it into the elevator and waits for it to come down then open its rusted doors revealing the withered once futuristic interior. I step inside and am followed by Hunter. I go to press the button for the second floor but Hunter grabs my hand.
“Dude look” He says “What I don’t see it”
Hunter's long finger points to a third button, ajar from the rest. It’s not quite a perfect circle, more of an oval, its milky interior seems to be polished, carrying an otherworldly glow to it I’ve never seen before. I look at Hunter and ask.
“What is it?”
He shrugs his shoulders and before I can stop him he pushes the button and a loud ding pierces my eardrums. A sense of dread washes over me as this ringing in my ears subsides and is slowly replaced by an eerie quiet that sets my teeth on edge.
I shoot Hunter a glance and am met with a childish grin of someone who knows they just did something bad but is too stupid to know what it actually is. I resume my normal composure and press the button for the second floor and for what felt like an eternity there was nothing it felt as if time had stopped, I was waiting, begging for that button to ding and for these cables to spark to life and tow us to the second floor and bring me away from this dreadful feeling of unease. I wait and wait and wait until finally my ears are pierced once more by that harsh ding and the elevator begins to move.
I was so relieved I failed to notice the direction in which we were moving until I felt the same butterflies in my stomach which were soon replaced by a cinder block of pure lead and there I was again being drowned by this sense of dread but this time I wasn’t alone Hunter had gone white as a ghost we shared a glance as the beads of sweat began to roll down our faces.
We were descending below ground level, my mind ached as I tried to wrap my head around what could possibly be happening, how we could be moving below the very foundation of our school that held this elevator together.
We descended further and further in utter silence, fear having an almost physical grasp on our vocal chords. My legs were like jelly quaking at nearly buckling at the smallest jerk the elevator made. The elevator screeched to a halt making my knees give out and nearly making me fall over.
We sat there for only a minute before it began. Constant tapping and pawing plagued the outside of the elevator. Whatever it was it wanted to get in badly I could hear its laboured breathing, yearning for what was in here, yearning for us.
After another hour or so of this routine Hunter and I were broken, hope only shone on us when we heard footsteps trailing off right in front of us until it was nothing but silence.
I begged and pleaded to the God I thought I never believed in for the elevator to ding once more and carry us back up to the safety of the school I had forsaken and blamed for all my troubles and now would do anything to be back there.
“ I need to calm down, think rationally, I need to figure out what’s going on, I have to survive this, I can't die here.” I thought to myself.
I look over at Hunter, he is utterly paralysed, seemingly frozen in time, I know he will be of no help in solving this situation. “It, whatever it is, is marinating us in our own fear, just waiting for the opportune moment to come crashing through the door when we have our backs turned.” I thought to myself.
Slowly the cinder block of fear in my guts dissipates and is replaced with an undying power to do whatever it takes to get out of here and back to my boring life. As this surge of what can only be described as pure strength surges through my body, the doors glide open and I am beaten back by a gust of frigid air that drains me of my strength, and there we are again, just Hunter and I staring out into the dimly lit, concrete space out in front of us.
We stare and stare and stare until finally our eyes adjust to the dark and we make out something roughly one hundred metres away it stood. A body of a buffalo, but five feet taller, with three legs of a wolf, the fourth leg was easily triple the length of the other three and was covered in a black ooze that dripped from the long nails at the front of its limb, it had no head only a mouth, similar to a crocodile but painted pitch black, the mouth extended out in front of it with a jaw that hung detached from the top of the mouth, slack and ready to close on any unfortunate prey and hold it there while it was torn to shreds. I stood there for seconds attempting to comprehend what I was actually seeing but before I could rationalise anything it charged, galloping towards us, we had nowhere to go. All we could do was wait for it to get to us and for this all to be over. It stopped mere inches from the door, Hunter and I huddled in the corner, he weaselled his way behind me so that only half of his body was showing. Its long ooze-covered leg extended out in front of it into the elevator dripping its viscous liquid onto the floor. The long fingers extended pointing at us and pinning us into the corner. We shuddered and closed our eyes fearing that the worst was yet to come and then I heard it. Flesh squelching right next to me as the long nails on the end of the fingers embedded themselves into Hunter and sprayed blood on to me, the sound of the flesh is quickly succeeded by Hunters screams as the monster twists its claws in him and flings him out of the elevator on to the concrete where it begins to devour him. The sounds of Hunter’s screams stop and all that is left is the squishing and occasional crack of bone as the monster eats him. I slump to the floor knowing that what is happening to Hunter will surely happen to me in just moments, I whimper and cry until my eyes can cry no more.
A sharp ding cuts the tension and the rusted doors slam shut. The button for the second floor glows and the elevator begins to ascend, the blood on my clothes vanishes and in only seconds the doors open once more. A blinding light sears my eyes and the hum of an active school fills my ears. I sit there for minutes until a student on their way to the bathroom notices me crying in the elevator and grabs a teacher. Quickly I am hurried off to the office and the computer cart was taken to my English class. I tell the Principal and school officer everything that happened, what happened to Hunter and what I saw down there and how it wasn’t me who killed him. Everyone is very sympathetic to me and my parents are called. I recant my story over and over, every time I tell it I am met with the same question, who is Hunter?
I, after hours of telling the story and trying to explain it to them and who Hunter is, am told to go home, get some rest, and in no time will be able to talk to a professional about my “incident” as they are calling it. My appointment is tomorrow and I am currently in the midst of flipping through yearbooks attempting to find any trace of Hunter though it appears he along with everything that could possibly prove his existence have simply vanished along with the third button on My school elevator.

Missile strikes are like those pictures that take the sides off things so you can see how they work underneath. Zeus Ceramica is-was-a-factory as big as several blocks of apartments, and the corrugated metal walls look more like cardboard now, all curled up, flapping or missing, exposing the factory beneath. Factories it turns out are just several giant bits of connected processes wrapped up in one big cardboard box – this box was broken, of course, so you could clearly see the bucket in it the size of one of the apartment blocks – I guess that’s where they mixed the earth and the water to make the mud – what? the clay? oh – and perhaps if another missile hit, we might get to see a giant spoon. And look there on the other side, an oven perhaps? And that part is straight out of a mid 20th century cartoon, with its dandy little conveyor belts taking the ceramics in soldier-like lines diagonally up and across. And it sounds almost funny talking about it, and there was a part of me that was genuinely learning, like my walk past was not one of open-mouthed horror but a field trip I would occasionally remember I was on while engaged in experiments on the compounds of laughter with my fellow schoolmate scientists Professor Rib and Doctor Fool.
Two hundred metres away is another factory, that has also been turned into a flappy cardboard box, and there is a reason I am talking about this all as if I were ten again, because within the same square kilometre a third building was hit, and this one was made of bricks that crumbled, and just outside in the grass stood coloured climbing frames: another monumentally broken school. And just before then I passed a boy about the age I was when feeding my farm animal survey into the rotating maw of a farm animal goat – that compound sparked some laughs – and this kid lived somewhere round here in a neighbourhood of intact residential buildings, and I don’t know what he tells himself about why the one building in the whole area apart from the factories that got hit was the little one built for him to experiment in with his own Ukrainian Professor Rib and Doctor Fool.
And I tried to be sympathetic, I tried, when my Russian friend took the risk of talking to me to say that their town had been blighted by poverty since the Norwegians who owned the factory shut it down because of the war. But it’s one thing not having a job to go to, and another the whole damn place getting ripped apart by a missile strike, after which they rubble your kids’ primary school next door.
And the scorched earth a whole hundred metres away from where the missile hit Zeus – burnt reeds by the water’s edge, and a plastic sack of some ceramica-related stuff – clay? – flapping like the factory’s entrance flags weren’t able to from its mast of a nearby tree. It wasn’t just the Ukrainian flag that was low in the wind outside that workplace no more – there was the Italian flag, and the ring of stars that needs to really mean something now on the flag of the EU.

This might be a long one, please bare with me.
I work at Walmart in small-ish town in British Columbia. I have been there since November, 2022. My availability is all day everyday. When I started I was getting 37 hours a week. I know it was busy season, so that was probably why. But After the holidays I was still getting 35-37 a week. Which was great! The last couple months, my hours started going down from the 35-37 a week, to where this week I have 17 hours and next week I have 16.50. For context I am a cashiesco attendant and also work on the Customer Service Desk. In the last few months seems almost every shift I come in, there are 1 or 2 new people (I am not over exaggerating) I asked if I could get more shifts and the response I got was “ there aren’t any extra ones” if you don’t have shifts available for the people who have been here longer and have open availability why keep hiring? If they need to hire (which we don’t need any new front end staff) simply say these are the hours I have available. I don’t think it’s fair to take hours away from the people who have been there longer.
On the customer service desk, when I started aside from the CSMs there are 3 full time staff members. In January myself and another coworker got asked if we would like to work on the desk as well. We have 1 full time who lady who has a set schedule Monday- Friday 7am-3. Another lady who worked 4 times a week and another lady who does the rest of the shifts as well as she is a CSM. Now the ASM for the front end has asked ME to train 4 others on the desk(who are fairly new) I had to bite my tongue because what I wanted to say and probably should of was “why should I train them when mine and the the 3 other ladies on the desk hours are being cut?” I have absolutely no problem training people, but now I’m starting to get fed up with it, because each person I train is basically taking a shift away from me and others.
I guess my question is, should I talk to the store manager because I honestly don’t think she knows or understands how bad it is getting up front. I tried talking to my ASM and it was basically attitude I got from her and in one ear and out the other. I really like working at my store. But it’s starting to get ridiculous. My ASM micro manages so bad to the point where she either stands at the front, or at the back of the tils and watches all of us for hours on end. She won’t answer Parked calls for ASMS or deal with customer inquiries or complaints. She also only cares about the Mastercards, and if we get to the goal or not. Doesn’t care about the customers just as long as we hit the goal, if we hit the goal, she wants double the goal etc… doesn’t matter if we are good with the customers, get donations or recovery. Hiring every person who comes thru the door, and Mastercards is the most important to her. I will also add I am not the only person who’s fed up and hours are being cut substantially.
Any advice would be helpful. Thank you for taking the time to read this!

Hey all! I was wondering if anyone here has taken both Outdoor Emergency Care (OEC) and EMT classes?
I've been volunteering with the ski patrol at Winter Park Resort for about 2 years now, which requires OEC certification. I've just started and am now almost halfway through an online EMT class. The vast majority of the content so far is shared between them, and I've been able to skip most sections via testing out. I'm conflicted about this however, as this is a field wherein incompetence is very very bad. Would anyone know what I should slow down on? I spent a while reviewing medical emergencies, as naturally most of the on hill incidents I've seen are trauma related.
Working as an EMT will be much different, and I suppose I'm looking for advice on what to look out for. Primarily, I'm worried about ambulance operations. Driving protocols such as when to use sirens, etc. I've done a cursory look through the remaining material, and I haven't seen anything about it. Will this be taught in my practicals?
Thanks!

Hey guys,
I'm just about to buy my first car, it's a small Ford Focus that's around 20 years old. I'm considering adding either a rear view camera, or a 360 camera in order to help with safety. The rear view camera would be good for parking and backing out of spots etc, whereas the 360 camera would be able to do all that + other stuff like driving through tight spaces (as it provides a top down view). A big factor I guess is cost: the rear view camera would run me maybe 100-150, whereas the 360 camera could set me back 400-800.
I've driven an SUV (parent's) with a 360 camera before and I found it was quite useful, and I've also driven a sedan with just a rear view camera and didn't really have any issues. I feel like just a rear-view camera would suffice for a smaller car like the Focus, but I'm just a little wary/anxious about safety and preventing collisions. What do you guys think?

Hey guys,
I'm just about to buy my first car, it's a small Ford Focus that's around 20 years old. I'm considering adding either a rear view camera, or a 360 camera in order to help with safety. The rear view camera would be good for parking and backing out of spots etc, whereas the 360 camera would be able to do all that + other stuff like driving through tight spaces (as it provides a top down view). A big factor I guess is cost: the rear view camera would run me maybe 100-150, whereas the 360 camera could set me back 400-800.
I've driven an SUV (parent's) with a 360 camera before and I found it was quite useful, and I've also driven a sedan with just a rear view camera and didn't really have any issues. I feel like just a rear-view camera would suffice for a smaller car like the Focus, but I'm just a little wary/anxious about safety and preventing collisions. What do you guys think?