5 ms·

I love the position of the Swedish flag in that photo. Given that the accident happened in Germany and the ship is Taiwanese. It is just freaky, I don't know

I love the position of the Swedish flag in that photo. Given that the accident happened in Germany and the ship is Taiwanese. It is just freaky, I don't know if it is good or bad to be associated with such an incident. In a plane crash they are usually quick to paint over the name of the airline company to not be associated. I don't think this is the same though.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> It is just freaky, I don't know if it is good or bad to be associated with such an incident. I think it's not good because of the potential to become politicly charged. Add some "cyber" and it has NatSec types reeling. There is a scenario in Ghost Fleet[1] where a vessel sailing under a Chinese flag blocks the Panama canal in a theater of war with the West. Not going to issue any spoilers but it's a brilliant (fiction) novel for hypothetical future war scenario's. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet_(novel)
- AniseAbyss 6y ago
  I believe the US military was worried about a German or Japanese strike on the Panama canal in WW2. And the Suez Canal was literally blocked by scuttling ships when Egypt took control in the Suez crisis.
  - overscore 6y ago
    The Panama Canal has always been much more vulnerable than Suez, as the latter is sea-level for it's entire length and has no locks. Destroying or blocking as few as three locks could semi-permanently block all traffic in Panama, or worse, drain Gatun.
lovelyviking 6y ago
Can't see the flag, because the whole page is blocked by some BS (presumably in german). Blocking own content or creating obstacles to see it ... what can be more ridiculous. I just close such web pages and never come back.
- ben_w 6y ago
  I saw a cookies consent popover followed by a “oh no ad block” popover. I can’t get worked up against them for wanting to get paid, even though I regard adverts as parasites of time, energy, and bandwidth and won’t disable my ad blocker for them — I don’t have solutions, just the aphorism about two wrongs.
  - Symbiote 6y ago
    It's a GDPR consent banner. I didn't tolerate it either — I can often figure out which button is "Necessary cookies only", but not in this case. However, Firefox's reader mode retains the main image: https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d8c89a0b5deaf8e830b5/as/ever-given.jpg https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d...
- Draken93 6y ago
  The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient. The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.
  - sildur 6y ago
    The law doesn't say that the cookie banner has to cover the entire page. It doesn't say either that the button to reject the cookies must be hidden at the end of the form.
    - Draken93 6y ago
      "But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient."
  - jlokier 6y ago
    > You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists. The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing. If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to notify you of this tracking and obtain consent. You have a right to know, after all, and you might prefer to exercise your rights by declining consent. But nothing requires it to be a large banner, and nothing requires the "reject all" button to be difficult to find.
pilsetnieks 6y ago
Not the first time the Swedes have had experience with tall ships causing problems.
- _Microft 6y ago
  Ha, you refer to the Vasa, I guess? ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

> It is just freaky, I don't know if it is good or bad to be associated with such an incident. I think it's not good because of the potential to become politicly charged. Add some "cyber" and it has NatSec types reeling. There is a scenario in Ghost Fleet[1] where a vessel sailing under a Chinese flag blocks the Panama canal in a theater of war with the West. Not going to issue any spoilers but it's a brilliant (fiction) novel for hypothetical future war scenario's. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Fleet_(novel)

AniseAbyss 6y ago
I believe the US military was worried about a German or Japanese strike on the Panama canal in WW2. And the Suez Canal was literally blocked by scuttling ships when Egypt took control in the Suez crisis.
- overscore 6y ago
  The Panama Canal has always been much more vulnerable than Suez, as the latter is sea-level for it's entire length and has no locks. Destroying or blocking as few as three locks could semi-permanently block all traffic in Panama, or worse, drain Gatun.

lovelyviking 6y ago

Can't see the flag, because the whole page is blocked by some BS (presumably in german). Blocking own content or creating obstacles to see it ... what can be more ridiculous. I just close such web pages and never come back.

ben_w 6y ago
I saw a cookies consent popover followed by a “oh no ad block” popover. I can’t get worked up against them for wanting to get paid, even though I regard adverts as parasites of time, energy, and bandwidth and won’t disable my ad blocker for them — I don’t have solutions, just the aphorism about two wrongs.
- Symbiote 6y ago
  It's a GDPR consent banner. I didn't tolerate it either — I can often figure out which button is "Necessary cookies only", but not in this case. However, Firefox's reader mode retains the main image: https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d8c89a0b5deaf8e830b5/as/ever-given.jpg https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d...
Draken93 6y ago
The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient. The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.
- sildur 6y ago
  The law doesn't say that the cookie banner has to cover the entire page. It doesn't say either that the button to reject the cookies must be hidden at the end of the form.
  - Draken93 6y ago
    "But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient."
- jlokier 6y ago
  > You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists. The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing. If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to notify you of this tracking and obtain consent. You have a right to know, after all, and you might prefer to exercise your rights by declining consent. But nothing requires it to be a large banner, and nothing requires the "reject all" button to be difficult to find.

pilsetnieks 6y ago

Not the first time the Swedes have had experience with tall ships causing problems.

_Microft 6y ago
Ha, you refer to the Vasa, I guess? ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)