Which is strange given a lot of US airpower is flying out of UK airbases.

Given French companies' past activities, a sizeable under the table payment from CMA CGM wouldn't surprise me.

Be careful what you wish for.

The approach is fundamentally different: in Europe it's organized by where you want to go (or do), in the US it's organized by cardinal directions.

In the US, if you're on 89th Street and 5th Avenue, and you want to visit your friend on 10th and 1st Avenue, you'll know exactly which direction to drive. Need to go to another city? Take the highway following the direction the other city is. Americans are typically good at knowing where the sun rises, or are always getting lost.

In Europe, you know your friend lives by the main hospital, so you follow the signs indicating the hospital, and then (if you're lucky) signs to your friend's neighborhood. From there you need to know how to get to the street they live on. Need to get to another city? Follow the highway signs indicating that city, if it's close by, otherwise you'll need to know what cities are on the way to it.

When we lived in the US, I could easily find any address in most cities. My wife was always getting lost, sometimes going to the complete other side of town.

We've been in Europe for over a decade now. She has no problems getting around to most places she needs to. I'm always getting lost going someplace new.

I'm in Northern Europe and 100% of my many many taxi tours have used GPS for driving directions.

Taxi drivers don't use road signs anymore for figuring out which direction to take.

Not everywhere in the US. Boston for instance is a notable exception

I'm personally convinced that the road systems of New England were of some influence on Lovecraft in his conception of cosmic horror. A map of Boston roads does tend to evoke the concepts of non-Euclidean geometry and tentacle monsters

I'll never be able to not think of this whenever I'm in the maze of roads downtown Boston!

It's mainly about budget, the US and China spend more than Europe.

It looks like the next generation will be reusable though, there are a few programs to that effect, both from established players and "new space" startups.

Sure nebulus 'next generation' is going to be reusable. But it cost at least 5 billion $ to build Ariane 5. And it took 10 years. And as of yet, we are nowhere remotly close to even get the political process started for a next geneation rocket.

There are some research project and research, but it's not close.

As for startups, none of them have even a working small vehicle. And small launch is a horrible buissness model that basically every company runs away from as fast away as they can burn investor money. Most go bust.

Euroean startups are 10 years late and fight in a very small markets with lots of competition.

Ariane 6 started operations less than a year ago, and already development is under way for the next generation. Funding is partly coming from the EU, so the political process has very much started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_Next

I'm not disputing the fact that the EU is behind the US and China, but again the EU budget is way below. Given the financial limitations ESA is actually quite capable.

Before Ariane 6 there were also many already existing programs that were independent. Ariane 6 still needed a very specific coming together politically and vote for development.

So yes, there is research going on, and certain program to develop components.

But that is a very long way away from an actual concrete proposal to develop a real new rocket.

The Vinci engine for example started in the 90s and only flew first time with Ariane 6. So you could have said in 2002 'Ariane 6' is in development.

The question is when do the politicians get together and actually decide, lets spend 4+ billion$ (minimum) on a new rocket. And that is years away at best. And from that point on you would expect it to take minim 6 years, more likely 10 years.

Anybody that expect anything Ariane 7 like before 2035 is hopelessly optimistic. Not unless there is a major political shift.

> Given the financial limitations ESA is actually quite capable.

No its not. Ariane 6 development has cost more then the development of Falcon 9 + Falcon Heavy. And that's if you do not count development of Vinci, if you do not count most development of the static boosters and so on.

You can say 'we are so poor' and then spend 5-6 billion $ on a rocket that is not competitive with Falcon 9 as it existed in 2015 and then spend another couple billion $ on giving subsidies to all the users of Ariane 6.

Funding isn't the problem, efficiency and good choices is.

> looks like the next generation will be reusable

To the extent original Falcon 9 and earlier Chinese rockets were. It will be obsolete on release.

It hasn't started, although we could be in the precursor stage.

Given the current instability, political changes should be a high priority.

My last Windows install was XP, but I stopped using Steam a couple years back. I prefer to own what I buy, so now only purchase on GOG.

However I'm very thankful for the work Valve has done, as this has made Wine much much better.

I can now just download a game from GOG, set it up with a winetricks one-liner, and expect it to work. Even the latest games that just came out.

Although to be fair I usually wait a couple months to get a good discount. But, before, you had to wait years for support, if any at all.

I'm also seeing some studios releasing support for Vulkan either day one or in updates, which is great.

5 per cent is a significant number. In many elections for example, this is the minimum to have representatives and/or receive state funding.

Not just the US.

Rather strangely when choosing transportation options, people generally don't say "I'll take the subway it's safer", when it very much is.

On the other hand people accept things like "I have a fear of flying" much more easily than "I have a fear of cars".

I think OP's point is that certain government agencies have already transitioned or are in the process of transitioning. As such it would make sense for them to fund LibreOffice, given that they now depend on it.

In my country, the government would have to get something in return (support would be the most obvious channel).

LibreOffice has some obvious disadvantages: it does not have an office in my country, it does not offer support, and it does not lobby the government.

Previous efforts to push more OSS into government were obliterated by right-wing governments. You can guess why.