Decolonization and Independence
By the early 1950s, waves of decolonization and independence rippled across Africa. As early as 1947, the British Labour government had signaled a willingness to divest Britain of most of the empire. When the Conservatives returned to power in 1951, they initially slowed this process down. But, in 1960, prime minster Harold Macmillan delivered the famous “winds of change” speech in Cape Town signaling that the Conservatives would no longer oppose decolonization (recording of full speech; pdf of excerpts).
From a British perspective, the independence of its African colonies was a relatively painless affair. This is not to say it was painless for the people of Africa, just that Britain, in general, expended little blood and treasure in the process which led to the independence of almost twenty African states between 1951 and 1970. There were several factors which contributed to this. First, in many of the British colonies, white expats made up a very small part of the population. Most were state officials, teachers, missionaries, or the occasional businessman – rather than farmers. Second, in the handful of British possessions where there was some widespread British expat land-owning, almost all of these were colonies with little or no self-government. Thus, British citizens who lived on land which they or their parents or grandparents had claimed, while certainly of the ruling class, relied on the power of the British state to enforce British law.
So, when British colonies in Africa began to demand independence in the post-war years, for the most part British officials simply became mediators between different factions of locals. This mediation usually meant the British supervised elections and the local white/expat population had almost no say in the trajectory of independence. Regardless of which faction won, there was little immediate effect on the expat population.
In a handful of colonies, where there were extensive white land-holdings, many settlers had to choose between staying and facing a government run by those they had formally held dominion over, or leaving for pastures new (which did not always mean Britain. Many expats ended up in South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand). Those who left did not necessarily have to sell their land at fire sale prices. In Kenya, for example, during the brutal Mau mau rebellion and its—equally brutal—repression, many expats decided to leave the country. Most of these sold their landholdings to the new Kenyan government, under the auspices of the World Bank via a plan known as the million-acre scheme (documents released later showed that much of the money the World Bank used to purchase the land had been secretly channeled to it from the UK government).
The (southern) Rhodesian Distinctive
The “winds of change” had been much more tranquil in Southern Rhodesia, especially for the white/expat community. The 1920s triumph of the RGA movement meant they controlled far more of the political process than did white and/or expat communities in any other British African colony. As late as 1955, there was still strict segregation throughout the country – a policy that extended even to the parliamentary dining room. Around the same time, a factory manager told a visiting English lord:
I had a friend from Northern Rhodesia [Zambia] down here the other day who said what a relief it was to see a really good flogging again. He told me: “you know up in Northern Rhodesia, if you raise your hand against one of these chaps, he drags you off to the police station.”
Furthermore, expats—and their descendants—owned almost all of the prime farmland. These conditions led, beginning in 1946, to a fresh wave of European—mostly British (including RAF personnel)—immigrants to the country. Almost 90,000 arrived in a five-year period. Although the goal was to bring in skilled workers, their arrival also fueled a demand for land. This almost inevitably led to the displacement of African residents. For example a large ranch known as Rhodesdale, originally owned by a British conglomerate, was purchased by the Southern Rhodesian government after WWII, surveyed, and sold as farms to arriving Europeans. Most of the African farmers who lived on the ranch were forcibly resettled during the surveying process. Those black farmers not resettled during the survey process were usually forcibly resettled after Europeans arrived as the Europeans did not want to share the region with blacks. Keep your mental thumb here, because this is the crucial moment to which I want to return. This forcible resettlement of blacks was encouraged, and enabled, by the government of Southern Rhodesia.
As decolonization accelerated across Africa, the white government of southern Rhodesia first dug in their heels, then came up with their own solution. On November 11, 1965, under the leadership of Ian Smith, southern Rhodesia declared itself independent as the new sovereign state of Rhodesia. The ruling party–the Rhodesian Front–made it clear that it intended to govern along racial lines. Their policies also included maintaining laws which prevented blacks being allowed to purchase land outside strictly demarcated regions. You will not be surprised to learn that the land available to blacks was of marginal utility (Note: I’ve skipped over some policies and factors which ameliorated the racism which permeated southern Rhodesia. Although noteworthy, I’ve decided they weren’t germane to my main point).
Although the British Labour Party—and the Archbishop of Canterbury—suggested that Britain should use military force to bring Rhodesia to heel, the British government opted for economic sanctions. Initially, Rhodesia did OK as an independent state. Exports increased, although there was a decrease in the availability of luxury goods such as brandy and Scotch (which would have broken my resistance). Between 1967 and 1973, a further 39,000 white settlers arrived.
However, beginning in 1977, an increasingly brutal guerilla insurgency broke out. By 1978, health care had collapsed in many areas and most main roads were considered unsafe to travel after dark.
Whites began to leave the country, partly because of fear of the fighting, but also because of the taxes needed to fight the war and increasing efforts to conscript whites to serve in the Rhodesian military.
The war came to an end in 1980 (again, I’m short-changing a lot of stuff here). The peace deal almost fell apart because of bitter disagreements over land reform. But, elections were held in February, 1980, and won by Mugabe’s ZANU-PF. Mugabe’s pre-election rhetoric had suggested a willingness to compromise. In particular, Mugabe sought to mollify white commercial farmers (about 6,000 total) who controlled 40% of agricultural land and two-thirds of the best land. The rest, as they say, is history and need not concern us here.
The Resolution Restated: Specific
Again, I want to stress that I come not to praise Mugabe. His approach to land was violent, corrupt, against most economic principles and, dare I say, evil.
But, the fact that peace negotiations almost foundered over the land issue tells us how important it was to many Zimbabweans. Remove Mugabe and ZANU-PF from your mental framework, as you consider, dear Glibs, my resolution/question for you:
The Rhodesian Front under RGA, and the independent Rhodesian state through about 1973, used the power of the state apparatus to remove black farmers from arable land and sell it to white farmers, without compensating black farmers. If there had been a democratic transition to power in, say, 1974, would it have been permissible for a black-dominated government (sans Mugabe and ZANU-PF) to remove white farmers from arable land and give/sell it to black farmers without compensating the white farmers?
Importantly, in this hypothetical scenario most of the white farmers and the dispossessed blacks would have still been alive in 1974. In that situation, would you use the power of the state to take land from those who had been sold the land via the power of the state 20-25 years earlier?
Somewhat related music (don’t give up on it too early).
At what time does one draw the line?
Given that everyone lives on land stolen from someone somewhen, there has to be a statute of limitations where no corrective action will be even consitered before we can talk about what action, if any, is to be taken about more recent offenses.
there has to be a statute of limitations – yes. I would say 3 generations or so…
hmmm I take that back I think it depends on the context… I would not have considered boyar property in eastern europe legitimate even after 10 generations, traditional landed nobility is in general illegitimate.
This is Mises exact argument, and I agree with it.
The important thing is to draw a line SOMEWHERE and then enforce property rights in a just manner after it.
But it is totally reasonable that that line would be somewhere in the recent past, at least 25 years up to 99 years would be my range. Probably the exact line would depend on what you can accurately track.
Taking a break from laboring like a field n****r. Gotta love retirement. Repairing a spring box, looks like I’m going to be an Appalachian slum lord.
Anyway, for any white man in Africa that missed a good flogging, he deserved whatever he got. Even a necklace.
I wish you could have a chance to watch, hear and smell a necklacing and then come back and tell us how much fun you had.
It is horrible I know. So is the casual abuse of humans.
The arrogance of knowing what a white man in Africa missing a good flogging…says more about you than them.
As to the topic, there is no good solution, just painful compromises.
+1 Tom Sowell
Yes
Ultimately, it’s always going to be arbitrary. Trying to draw a line and say “property rights start here” always disenfranchises someone.
The corollary is usually going to be “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”
would it have been permissible for a black-dominated government (sans Mugabe and ZANU-PF) to remove white farmers from arable land and give/sell it to black farmers without compensating the white farmers?
The facile answer is, “Might makes right.”
Government is only on your side until it isn’t.
“Might makes right.”
Always has, always will. Government is just the final word in force.
Importantly, in this hypothetical scenario most of the white farmers and the dispossessed blacks would have still been alive in 1974. In that situation, would you use the power of the state to take land from those who had been sold the land via the power of the state 20-25 years earlier – in this particular case yes. we are not talking 5 generations ago.
But since the government sold it to the white farmers the government should have to buy it back.
that is a good point…
Ultimately this is where I land as well. Government should return the money to those who paid and the farms to those who lost their land without compensation.
If the black farmers had a rightful claim to the land than it should be returned to them as the sale to the white farmers was not legitimate, if the government it the same it should repay the money it fraudulently took from the white from them for the land, if the government is different (doesn’t hold the assets of the earlier government) then the whites are SOL.
I was going to point out that thinking in terms of groups is where many people go wrong here, and then I realized I did just that, I should have said ‘If a black framer’ and “to the white farmer” Neither black or white farmers have a collective claim to land, only individuals do and for specific tracts of land.
From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, look at Zimbabwe now. Has anyone other than Mugabe and his cronies benefited from the ZANU-PF attempts to ‘fix the State’s mistakes?’
Hell, did they even really benefit? Corruption is a downward spiral.
Speaking of utilitarianism, I’m sure the “They (the native inhabitants) weren’t really doing anything especially worthwhile with that land” argument was (and is) quite popular.
Not only was it popular, it was probably correct in most cases.
Funny how they don’t have human rights if they don’t buy all the western bs.
Human rights can be really inconvenient when there’s real property up for grabs.
Considering “human rights” ARE Western BS*, that makes sense.
*unless you believe they derive from a Creator
Not sure about Zambia, but in South Africa the argument is that there were few if any inhabitants actually there when the Boers showed up. And the land itself wasn’t particularly useful or productive before a couple of generations of hard work.
In South Africa, local tribes moved in because the Boers were the only force that could stop the Zulus from slaughtering everyone.
I doubt we can get any real accurate info about this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River
Still a (renamed) holiday in SA. The Voortrekkers ended up (not by choice) helping out the Tlôkwa by defeating the Zulus.
The alternative to defeating the Zulus was probably worse for the Boers.
Somebody linked a video about the Spanish trying to protect Pueblos from Apache and Comanches – probably not as successfully.
Is it any different that what we are seeing in some big cities? Thieves steal enough to make a company unprofitable and they leave. The property reverts eventually to any one strong enough to hold it and gets run down and everyone abandons it. Detroit is a good example. Doesn’t matter who “owns” it, if it isn’t profitable it becomes a problem with very limited government oversight.
“The property reverts eventually to any one strong enough to hold it….”
This is the reality behind the entire discussion here.
As libertarians we aren’t allowed to acknowledge that.
Every political philosophy has a utopian streak of some kind.
That was like page 1 of “Socialism” by Mises. It was the foundation of his discussion of property rights.
That’s a great song.
Yeah, no easy answer here. I think 20 years is a pretty short time period, so repatriating the evicted blacks makes some sense. But where’s the line? 10 years? 50 years?
Thanks, RN. Great history lessons and tough questions.
Toto – Africa (metal cover by Leo Moracchioli feat. Rabea & Hannah)
https://youtu.be/MH9FyLsfDzw
*points to box*
2 minutes. Feel shame.
*chucks Tundra in the box*
As long as ownership can be proven the time span shouldn’t matter, If my ancestors stole your bicycle and it got past down the generations to me, if you can prove that you would have been the rightful owner sans the theft then I would be morally if not legally required to return it to you.
That’s fair. I suspect ownership records in Africa might be a challenge.
No, it sounds quite silly. A lawyer employment scheme at best.
I guess we see who wants to keep the ill gotten loot of their ancestors.
Nah. I come from a line of poor people. There are no spoils for me to inherit.
‘passed’ down. JTDC.
Sounds good in theory.
Dumb in practice.
But what if you purchase stolen property? Are you morally required to return it, no matter the time span from the theft? And does conquest count as theft or a different category of acquisition?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/d8/50/56d85055868c574ddfde45ea6da2739d.jpg
I don’t know about morally, but legally, yes.
Always get a bill of sale.
Legally that comes with a time limit, usually rather short. Where I live theft has a statute of limitations of around 5 years.
Good advice on the bill of sale as a practical matter.
Illegitimate transaction, so yes you are morally required to return it, time span doesn’t matter. now if the thief is still around he would be morally required to return your money, but he’s a thief so good luck with that. Conquest is theft, but as we’re now into might makes right the stolen from people are fucked anyway, Morally one shouldn’t conquer other people so once you’ve gone there we’re back to the thief being a thief so while they should return the ill-gotten goods they most likely wont. That’s doesn’t justify it though.
By that logic though all land ownership is immoral.
If you go down that road, you find yourself grovelling before people who don’t give a shit about you or your ancestors beyond how they can exploit your guilt over something you didn’t do.
You know, this sounds kinda familiar…
Ding ding ding.
How so, You can legitimately claim ownership of up to that point un-owned land. Not all land was stolen, just because some asshat plunks a flag in the ground and declares the entire continent in the name of some government or king or himself, it doesn’t make it so. and as I say below land can and has been abandoned and left to revert back to unowned status, thus anyone could stake
I really can’t think of a circumstance in which someone didn’t claim to own a piece of land, usually a gummint, Antarctica excepted.
It does if they’re prepared to kill to keep their flag on it.
We’re getting back to might makes right, though, which is my argument. Warlords gonna warlord.
If land can revert to an unowned status that implies that there is a time limit on ownership and so the time span from your opening statement does matter. If one has been dispossessed of one’s property and takes no action to retrieve it for a certain period of time, is that not the same as abandoning it?
Except that you rarely have a single claimants but multiple descendant claimants all but one of which would not have possessed said bicycle. Or completely none because gr-gr-bicycle holder would have pawned it for the tracks and skirts.
What if you “stole your bicycle” from the people that were there before you?
Are my ancestors responsible for that theft if they were not involved?
This tit for tat morality is childish. Humans are evil at times. Wailing about it is not very libertarian.
Hey, @milo, welcome. Come to the new thread. The threads die about 1/2 hour after the new one is posted.
Also, we moderate brand new commenters, so that’s why yours didn’t show up right away.
Thanks Mojo. It’s all good.
The Rhodesian Front under RGA, and the independent Rhodesian state through about 1973, used the power of the state apparatus to remove black farmers from arable land and sell it to white farmers, without compensating black farmers. If there had been a democratic transition to power in, say, 1974, would it have been permissible for a black-dominated government (sans Mugabe and ZANU-PF) to remove white farmers from arable land and give/sell it to black farmers without compensating the white farmers?
Didn’t your momma teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?
And morality aside, the inevitable outcome of such a policy is that the land ends up in the hands of grifters and cronies, not farmers.
I think the best way to handle this would be to have victims of takings compensated by the government, like they would have been through eminent domain takings. And obviously, to also strengthen property right laws for everybody so it doesn’t happen again.
Oh hail no.
Storms crossing Arkansas on Wednesday night brought hail as large as baseballs to parts of the state, according to a tweet from the National Weather Service’s Little Rock account. Around 5:55 p.m. Wednesday, people in the community of Royal in Garland County reported baseball-sized hail from a storm complex that was moving toward downtown Hot Springs, the tweet states.
In that situation, would you use the power of the state to take land from those who had been sold the land via the power of the state 20-25 years earlier?
Are the people whose land was stolen still alive? If no, then nothing. The people that were harmed are gone. It’s analogous to the modern slavery reparations bit.
If yes, then, yes, something needs to be done. Now, what is the right thing to do? Anything the government does will involve more stealing.
Likely a whole sequence of owners who had deeds and titles to the land, probably banks holding liens, etc. Which of those gets the bill? Or is like musical chairs where the last guy with the deed gets robbed to compensate the first guy robbed?
Neither black or white farmers have a collective claim to land, only individuals do and for specific tracts of land.
In the American context, a case could more easily be made for tribal ownership than for individual ownership. As for the “nobody was there” argument, this may at any given point in time have been true, but there were established migratory paths. Was that true in southern Africa? I can’t recall.
I don’t consider passing through an area, even repeatedly, or living in the general area as a legitimate claim to ownership of an entire region. Also land can be abandoned “my forefathers once had a camp here” doesn’t cut it, if it’s been wilderness/uninhabited for years and years then it reverts to an unowned state.
How many years and years?
That depends, did you manage to overpower the new claimants and their allies in battle?
Two at most possibly less. If you only put up a cardboard box to sleep in and then left for 3 months the box would most likely be destroyed by weather and the land would revert.
What if I built a concrete fortification, after construction was complete I slept in it one night, and then left with plans to return “one day”.
If those plans include setting up a caretaker then you can be away as long as you want, or until the old coot that scares off the nosy local tenagers dies or gets tired of waiting for you to come back and drifts off somewhere else himself.
I’ll allow for a system where when some one makes a claim on apparently abandoned property, they must alert the media about it and the absent owner would have two more years to come back and reclaim it. Like when you find a lost wallet.
Revert? It was never yours to begin with just because you slept on it for a couple of nights. Track down the owner, kill him, take his land, and then it’s yours until somebody tracks you down for murder and finds the guy you killed’s family.
There are squatter’s rights for a reason, and that’s because your logic path can keep going back and back and back into the dinosaur age.
At some point, there has to be some definitive decisionmaking as to who owns what, and that’s gonna happen by force. Period. Either someone takes it by force and manages it by force (see: IRS), or the conqueror’s management of said land gets lax, and someone else will take it by force once the conqueror is weak enough.
Did the Indians OWN the land they were inhabiting? Their lore says no. It was the gods’ land and they were just using it. Did the US gummint boot the Indians off the land they did not claim to own? Yes, because the gummint was stronger than the Indians and conquered them. If, say, the New Soviet Man comes along and nukes North America to hell and gone and we can’t defend the land, they have conquered the land and now it’s theirs to parcel off if they want.
That is really what it comes down to. As much as it may make me uncomfortable, property ownership is supported by either tradition or force, and only one of those is actually effective in the face of disagreement.
The Babylon 5 animated movie trailer is out. So you fans of that can start hyping or complaining now. As there can never be a middle ground.
Please, please, please let it include gender and race swapped characters and a few new woke ones to boot, I want to see Bro’s head explode.
*braces for disappointment*
oy, not another multiverse/alternate realities plotline…
still gonna watch it though
Fuck… really? Alternate realities in B5?
/sigh
I’m very likely to watch it, but I’ve got very low expectations after recasting voice actors to replace the late cast members.
To be fair, nobody does listen to Zathras.
Middle ground?! This is ‘Merica buddy, there is no middle ground. Well, there’s Fly-Over country, but there’s no middle ground there either!
Meh.
I’m expecting guest appearances from Scott Bakula and Jerry O’Connell.
They got G’kar’s eye wrong.
*flips table*
What do you call “a good start” or a bit over 9lbs?
Governor Newsom Announces SF Operation Update: Fentanyl Seized by CHP Enough to Kill Entire Population of San Francisco Nearly 3 Times Over
Hmmm…does that account for the high tolerance level of many of it’s residents?
Coming soon at a theater near you:
Fentanyl Pigeon. A one-bird rampage through San Fransisco.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DQfcTY4viyXsIXQ89NXvg?si=N_mh4hKbSAuywLJq_uFo_Q
RFK2 on Rogan
‘You weren’t riding that horse, so I threw my saddle on it and now it’s mine. Finders keepers, losers weepers.”
That’s quite a train.
BIDEN: “We have plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean”
With this “we” talk I expect this is US taxpayer funded. Figures.
We no longer pretend there are limits on government.
BIDEN: “I signed an executive order to make ‘environmental justice’ the responsibility of every single federal department”
And ponies. Ponies for everyone!
I can’t believe I’m still reacting with WTF, but WTF?
“I could go on but I won’t. I’m going off script and I’ll get in trouble.”
Blink twice, Joe, if you’re being held hostage.
Cut his pudding rations!
Wait, you think he’s eating his OWN BRAINS?
We’re the ones being held hostage.
Ouch.
Truth.
*bemused smile slowly fades to resigned frown*
Thanks for the thought provoking article, RN. These are questions we see every day with the government owning land, zoning laws, government building inspections, etc. Example, new septic rules require upgrades (if necessary) whenever a building permit is begged for or property is sold. So last year’s rules aren’t any good.
I might have a piece of property that might need an upgrade. If I were to sell it either I or the new owner would have to upgrade. That has to be figured into the price.
“Justice”
Fuck you.
I live all by myself in a three bedroom abode. I guess if somebody moved their family into the ‘spare” bedrooms it would just be tough titty for me.
If you’ve abandoned the spare bedroom sure. If you never went in there and the family somehow managed to enter and exit without trespassing on land you haven’t abandoned, but why would you do that.
Listen, bub, I need that room empty or the acoustics of my house are all screwed up.
BIDEN: “We have plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean”
*guffaws, slaps knee*
Wait- that’s not a joke?
Submarine choo choos! And probably “high speed” too.
You can put tunnels in pipelines and run them above the seabed.
Nevermind how much it costs, or that we have no reason to build a transoceanic train, it’s a trans-train!
*throws glitter*
You son of a bitch!
You know how Impossible it is to clean that shit up?!
True story: Independence Day 2020, my nephew had a firework that was a pop gun that shot glitter. He fired a a couple rounds in my shop. I still occasionally find a piece of the glitter.
Glitter is craft herpes.
Yes. It is.
haha. I like that. Accurate
My fraternity threw a beach party in our front room one year.
AFAIK, they were still finding sand when the house was finally razed.
Relevant.
Just don’t burn your bridges, especially if the railroad or commuter train runs there.
Speaking of Abandoned property… Sword in the mud. I guess the archeologist is now King of Bavaria?
I was worried about ruining the temper when the article mentioned casting a handle around the blade, then I remembered it was bronze and not steel.
You should have been worrying about linking properly.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/06/15/extraordinarily-well-preserved-3000-year-old-sword-unearthed-in-germany/
Sweet Jesus
Tried using Text-to-Video AI to generate a @BlueJays commercial and it…um…did not go well….
The stuff of nightmares.
Great exchange in the comments:
Every one of those AI videos I have seen degenerates into food nightmare and flame. AI is trying to tell us something.
You meatbags are only fit to be processed into fuel.
And body horror.
Hilarious.
Also all the Asian kids.
Given the huge baseball popularity in Japan I’m wondering if the image and baseball concepts from there were also merged.
Just needed more tentacles!
It just kept getting better and better.
Thanks for the article. This and the previous were informative and thought-provoking.
ditto!
You’re welcome.
Your
My what?
Sharona?
I don’t want her. You’re welcome to her.
Your
My what?
Drug buddy?
She’s too fat for you?
(RN: You’re right.)
Pssst.
OK, I must have missed an inside joke.
Nah, just interweb retardation. Michael Malice has a show called Your Welcome. People constantly try to correct him.
Thanks. I know of MM, but I listen to very few (almost no) podcasts, so I’m not hip to their recurring…themes? I appreciate the clarification.
I enjoyed it too. I will concentrate on it later after work.
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1669420430707310594
Ooof.
*sensible chuckle*
Weaponized Food
Really good article on the fuckery in the food industry. The Chinese involvement in fake meat is particularly frightening.
Archive link
It is more likely they do know, and either don’t give a shit or actively support it.
I am 95% finished with my medical coding course. Not only do I suck at it, I don’t like it anyway, and I have no idea how different the course is from real life. Tuesday I was in such a dither I was ugly crying all day long. I woke up the next morning with salt caking my eyelashes. Not only that, but you have to pay $200 in dues annually and acquire 12 CEUs annually. If I had known there was a yearly cost in time and money to do this, I would not have. But now I’m $6,000 and 15 months into this thing, so I feel a need to a) finish and b) get a coding job where I can earn that money back and then go do something else.
You need to finish. Make that money back. Real world isn’t as irritating as the class.
Not finishing isn’t an option, so I will. How gracefully I will do that, though, is the question.
Here’s the kicker: I have a 96.3%, which is not at all reflective of how well I’m actually doing.
Probably a metric-ton different in the real world. We learn silly equations on how to calculate radar cross sections of an aircraft at 35000ft and 30nmi from the point of the radar, with a power blah blah blah.
We don’t ever use that knowledge or equations in the real world, at least what I do. Sometimes, the class is the gatekeeper to the industry.
Like my scuba instructor when we were working on dive tables, “look, I’m not supposed to tell you this because you have to work the tables to pass the test, BUT, just buy a dive computer.”
Back in the day, before the availability of laptops or programmable calculators (I still have and HP-32 and HP-41CX), isokinetic sampling rates for particulate emissions measurements were determined with a slide rule. I still have one because it was beaten into my head by my boss at the time- “fine, you have a calculator. Now you just dropped it. Or it got rained on and wont work. Your slide rule doesnt care if it gets wet or dropped. Always have a backup.”
I owned one of these many decades ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRC_Handbook_of_Chemistry_and_Physics
This is correct.
Ask anyone who’s gone through a Cisco network certification about subnetting.
Go ahead, ask them.
There is a reason they tape a steam table to the side of every boiler.
No one remembers that shit. It is there, do the calcs by hand or with your phone, and the temps will be the same, and the boiler won’t care either.
Ive just been given my assignment with NewCompany™- a week (or more) managing a project in the Bay Area of Cali.
Pray that I dont fuck this up. Also, if there are any Glibs in the area HMU for advice or how to best use a stun gun on homeless people.
Dude, get some military surplus clothing, rattier the better, and a balloon jacket.
Then piss your pants and mumble to yourself a lot.
You’ll be fine.
You’d be better off using it on a departing passenger at SFO and using their ticket.
I snickered.
https://twitter.com/11BrahmAstra11/status/1669411753782853637