Is it really called landing when they come down on water? In Spanish there is aterrizaje (landing on firm ground) and amerizaje (landing, hu, on water). Some planes do it on purpose, they are designed for this. Others do it in an emergency (amerizaje de emergencia). And in German there is landen and wassern. Plus notwassern, for the emergencies. No difference in English?
“Watering” means something else in English. You can say stuff like “alighting”, but I believe aviators understand and use the term “water landing”? Now I am not sure, though… There is also “ditching”, but that refers to the emergency procedure.
The fun part is when you start adding landings in other celestial bodies:
alunizaje (landing on the Moon (Luna))
amartizaje (landing on Mars) (I thought this was mythical but it has it’s own wiki page and all!)
I’ve never heard of avenusizaje, amercurizaje and aplutonizaje but they must exist…
I believe if we kept the Latin grammar derivation it would be “avenerizaje”. But yeah the Moon and Mars were the popular kids who got their own words widely used. Venus was a hellworld only the commies were interested in landing on for some reason.
I would have thought that “ditching” was a more correct term for a non-amphibious plane.
Conversely and totally inconsistently, that you “land” an amphibious plane on water.
Moderating
Enough of the water landing hijack.
I’ll hide the off-topic but funny video.
I guess the war is back on. I’m sure we’ll have the 40th peace agreement rolled out super soon. This war is going swimmingly!
It’s like the old joke. “Quitting drinking his easy; I do it every night when I go to sleep.”
Fitting.
At this point, I’m not really sure the war was ever off at any point. It has to turn off for it to be back on… Sure the word “ceasefire” has been thrown around for the last three or four months, but I don’t really believe one can have a ceasefire with another country when they are still trading regular attacks here and there with them.
It’s kind of like me calling my aunt sort of pregnant.
There’s either a ceasefire or there isn’t. I think there’s simply been four or five days of no firing… Here and there, now and again…, in one long war.
Were some unusual patterns of futures trading perhaps observed in the oil market just prior to the attack again?
They’re clopened, of course.
Oh, I am fully aware of this. Trump got us into a war that he cannot get out of. At this point, I expect it will be a major 2028 POTUS campaign issue: How will I get us out of this pointless war.
And they will blame Democrats when the next president has the stones to stop the war.
Especially the botched withdrawal.
“Republican presidents… doing lousy foreign policy deals to make their Democratic successors look bad since 1960!”
His killing another nation’s leader made him a target. Go figure.
Also, it politically legitimizes assassinating leaders when you do so yourself.
I am so torn on how to feel about that. On the one hand, sometimes people get what they deserve.
On the more sensible hand, I’m against assassination for the reason just given. Also, I think the reaction of Americans wouldn’t be so much “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” but a 9/11-style “how DARE they!!” + disproportionate reaction.