There's really no way around the possibility that whatever you've written down in your constitution will be ignored in the heat of the moment, or become degraded over time.
But you don't need to put the military under the direct command of the civilian president like US does, if parliament can take military action against the civilian president and civilian action against the military leader then they have ways to deal with both.
American president is too powerful to deal with since he controls both the civilian and the military side.
This is the one argument left for monarchy; that the military in the UK (and technically Australia) swear loyatly to the monarch, not the Prime Minister. In the event of an obviously-lunatic elected official ordering the troops into civilian areas to "pacify" civilian populations, the monarch could (in theory) countermand that order.
The monarch being Commander in Chief is ceremonial. Everything is done on the advice of the Prime Minister and their cabinet.
The chance of the monarch overriding said request is less than 1%.
Even then, parliament is sovereign. Whilst the logistics are complicated due to how things are introduced to the house, if parliament says no to a prime ministers decision, it overrides anything the prime minister who has no absolute power like a president does.
Monarchists can't have it both ways, though. Making him a ceremonial CiC isn't going to provide you with much of a bulwark against abuse of power by parliament. Or he isn't ceremonial and he could become a threat himself.
The government, unilaterally, against the country's prevalent feelings towards this illegal war of aggression, permitted USA to use British bases, and if I'm not mistaken, without as much as the parliament vote.
But it's not that the duopoly is disappearing. It's just that the previous two parties are being eclipsed by two different parities. That's occurred previously in both the UK and US.
The last time it happened in the US was 1856 and its only happened 2x in US history. The US democratic party is the oldest existing political party in the world. For reference, the UK is actually only about 90 years older than the Democratic party.
I'm retired now, but if I were looking for a job I'd try to find a company not using Atlassian products. In theory you're not supposed to use them as a (micro-) management tool, but companies like to do just that.
I’ve written on this. Jira is a code smell. The only people I’ve ever known who liked it were the people I don’t want to deal with. It’s a dream tool for someone who wants to make a career out of looking busy and inventing process, and a nightmare to everyone else. Its presence in an org tells me, in italic capitals, that this is going to hurt.
It makes quite a bit of sense if the size of your market doesn't expand along with the new technology and you don't have a competitive advantage. Just because you have the capability to deliver more packages doesn't necessarily mean you'll have customers willing to pay you to deliver more packages.
Are you sure that availability of resources was a limiting factor during a large part of human evolution?
ie what has driven human population growth - a fundamental change in availability of natural resources or a fundamental change in how humans exploited them?
I'd argue it's the latter, and that's driven by accumulated knowledge - and before writing - the key repository of that was - old people.
Humans have selective adaptations to reduce resource competition between older and younger members of populations - examples are menopause and testosterone levels.
Part of the reason it benefited us that some but not all people become old is because people require more attention during two phases of their lives. Our biological evolution has prioritized care for the very young over the very old, with respect to a limit on resources (like attention), effectively until the modern age. In some cultures, for instance, those with teeth must pre-chew food for those without, or expected members to engage in ritual suicide at a certain age.
I think it's a mistake ( common ) to view any organism at a point in time as perfectly adapted.
It's like saying cars pistons are designed to wear out - because they do and as the car is perfectly designed ( the mistake ) then it must be for a reason.
Also take menopause - it happens a female has all the oocytes ( eggs ) they will ever have already at birth. Menopause happens when they run out.
What you are arguing is that the number at birth is optimised with a very indirect feedback loop - as oppose to a very direct one of how much resources do you put aside for eggs in terms of maximising number of direct children versus resources used. Occams razor suggests the latter is going to be stronger.
If what you say is true - think about it - old people wouldn't gradually crumble due to wear and tear, they would have evolved some much more efficient death switch. ie Women don't suddenly die post menopause.
Sure - though the tuned behaviour around turning the innate immune system up and down is probably dominated by the more recent part of that long history.
Normally these kinds of press releases come out to generate public support for funding. I remember when the B-2 was super, super secret. No photos, "we don't know what you're talking about" answers from the military.
But when it looked like it might get cancelled pictures and exhibitions of it were suddenly everywhere.
reply