thaiophilus

That table is potentially misleading. Last time I looked, Ireland, Italy, Germany and France were part of the EU, but here they are listed separately as well as being included in the total. Also, those figures are from 2018 and a lot has happened since then.

"you too big" is a complaint, but it's also a compliment, so there's less loss of face(for both parties) than naming the real reason for refusal, whatever it might be.

The Guardian doesn't write a word about the horrors of the health service? Really? https://www.google.com/search?q=nhs+queues+site:theguardian.com yields 32 pages of hits. I didn't read them all, but here are the headlines from the first page: Growing number of people face 18-month waits for NHS ... Revealed: NHS trusts tell patients to go private and jump ... Long NHS delays in England leading to thousands of ... Almost 10 million people in England could be on NHS ... Record 7.68m people waiting to start routine hospital ... NHS waiting lists falling but will stay above pre-Covid ... Private healthcare boom fuelled by NHS waiting lists 'It's going to be a terrible winter': ambulance queues warn ... The Guardian view on public service queues: a grim ... It's even funnier that you should consider the Guardian of all papers a government mouthpiece. Must be an April Fool joke.

Of course not. He just follows the working plans given to him by higher management. If he cuts corners, he gets the blame. But if those working drawings differ from the ones originally submitted for approval, they could be evidence that higher management, not the construction manager, were cutting corners, and that would be a sufficient reason to remove them. Note: I'm not saying any of this happened, just pointing out where the argument is incomplete. Actually I dislike conspiracy theories because they are not "theories" in the scientific sense. That's because they are unfalsifiable because you can't prove a negative. If the conspiracy is exposed, then obviously there was a conspiracy. If not, that's just "proof" that the conspirators have succeded in covering their tracks.

Possibly, but you seem to be assuming that the removed documents were identical to those submitted. If they were, why go to the trouble of removing them when other copies exist and you could so easily print another identical copy?

There seems to be some doubt about what Queensberry actually wrote on the famous card. Everyone agrees on his misspelling, but his handwriting is terrible. Was it "To Oscar Wilde" or "For Oscar Wilde", and was it "posing as somdomite", "posing as a somdomite", or even "ponce and somdomite", an interpretation I haven't seen before?

Depends how you define "major". In USA and Europe, yes. Elsewhere, not so many. I found this list of 228 worldwide (can't guarantee its accuracy but stackexchange is usually pretty good): https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/71602/is-there-a-list-of-airports-with-category-3-ils-systems LHR (or rather EGLL) is certainly in there, but there are no Thai airports listed. And, for example, neither Suvarnabhumi (VTBS) nor Don Mueang (VTBD) has Cat III approaches according to the official eAIP https://aip.caat.or.th/2025-03-20-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html

Yes, for full autoland the airport needs a Category III instrument landing system, but many airports are Cat II or less. Most approach procedures bring the aircraft down to a decision height, where if they can see the runway they land visually, otherwise they have to go around or divert. At some smaller airports because of terrain obstructions the ILS track isn't even in line with the runway, so the final phase of landing has to be visual/manual. Also, true autoland in zero visibility slows down all other airport traffic because it's not just a matter of having the right instruments on the aircraft and the right navaids on the ground (and trained pilots!). Ground vehicles and taxiing aircraft near the runway have to stop, so they don't introduce unexpected reflections of the radio signal.

And the worldwide price of hard disk drives increased by 50%. Three guesses where they were made...

Only two . Terminal 1 closed nearly a decade ago.

Set to vibrate?

I understand by "is not correct" what you wrote above: "amyl and pentyl aren't isomers to each other". Those are all alkyl groups (acyclic saturated hydrocarbons) with five carbon atoms and eleven hydrogen atoms. That makes them all isomers, regardless of how the carbons are connected.

As the wikipedia article indeed says. Which part of "The term "amyl nitrite" encompasses several isomers" did you not understand? Tl;dr: You: amyl and pentyl are different isomers of the C5 alkyl group. Wikipedia: "amyl" sometimes meant what we now call "pentyl." Me: caveat emptor. And I'd add, for a table of all the different names used for pentyl isomers, this (different) wikipedia article is helpful (and, AFAICS, correct): "In older literature, the common non-systematic name amyl was often used for the pentyl group. Conversely, the name pentyl was used for several five-carbon branched alkyl groups, distinguished by various prefixes. The nomenclature has now reversed, with "amyl" being more often used to refer to the terminally branched group also called isopentyl"

Just whern you thought you knew the answer: according to Wikipedia the terminology has changed over time: "In older literature, the common non-systematic name amyl was often used for the pentyl group".