I don´t doubt the contraptions got there, but these sharp, perfectly lit photos look a lot more like a studio photo shoot than something transmitted from Mars.
Sharp: high quality optical lenses were developed for telescopes and microscopes over 400 years ago, high resolution photography over 150 years ago.
Perfectly lit: sunlight, which is vastly more powerful than studio lighting. This has been well understood in photography for close to 2 centuries, and providing perfectly lit shots for just as long.
Transmitted: radiowaves, mastered by humans more than 100 years ago, and used in space-to-earth communication since the late 1950s.
Where are you seeing technological obstacles to simply taking a high-quality photograph of the Martian surface with 21st century equipment and returning that data to Earth?
7 ( +9 / -2 )
This criminal is afraid to leave his lair, if he was tried in another country he would surely be extradicted to Japan.
There are a few countries that do not extradite their citizens, and Ghosn holds nationality of three of them. So whatever his reasons for staying out of France now and in future may be, fear of extradition to Japan is not one of them. As a French national, he has solid legal protection against it.
He is therefore free to travel to France, and there are nonstop flights from Lebanon which would avoid the problem of transiting a third country. What he would not be free from in France is French law. As he is willing to speak to French investigators only if they travel to Lebanon, avoiding any risk to his liberty whether he tells the truth or not, this is something he is well aware of and does not intend to test.
13 ( +14 / -1 )
Hence why not eliminate income tax as an incentive for child raisers.
Because it sounds exactly like a self serving pipe dream of someone hostile to personal taxation who thinks he shouldn't have to pay income tax - and chooses not to mention that those with higher income would benefit disproportionately, from a benefit that they don't even need in the first place. And certainly aren't entitled to expect.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Are those governors plainly saying they would not treat a person who needs to be saved becaude they are foreign ?
The Olympic athletes aren't all foreign, the Japan squad has 400+ competitors. And certainly no one said athletes wouldn't be treated because they are foreign. Nor did they say they won't be treated.
Not allocating beds means that what beds and staff there are would still be available for all COVID patients, which means athletes may or may not have access to them. Like the rest of us then.
Pre-allocating beds to Olympic athletes with COVID means that they would take priority over others with COVID. Which could lead to unfortunate and highly unpopular consequences, such as the avoidable death of ordinary patients shunted aside in favour of athletes.
COVID beds are in very limited supply, so it sounds as if they'll just have to take the same unpredictable crap that the rest of us are living with. They might get the treatment they need, they might not. There isn't a queue as such, and they're not jumping it. Which is good, because we don't know where we'll be with COVID in two months, and we don't know what kind of strain the system will be under.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Some products from Japanese manufacturers are good quality but the main reason why japan is falling behind with consumer electronics is the lack of innovation. Other companies are having more innovation and prices are more competitive.
They are? They're welcome to try to break into the videogame console market then. At the moment, it's dominated by two Japanese companies and stale ol' Microsoft. To the point where most people would struggle to name a console or portable from the last thirty years that didn't come from Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony. It's actually Nintendo's slightly different (to put it in crude terms, childish) take on gaming that has fuelled their success from the early 1980s right up to today. That is innovation.
Earlier this year, What HiFi published a roundup entitled "Best AV receivers 2021". Seven models were on the list, the manufacturers were - in ascending or descending order, who cares - Denon, Sony, Denon, Denon, Denon, Sony, Yamaha. Not a single maker from another country.
Japan continues to do well in mass market audio and high end audio, Chinese manufacturers have come in and offer a lot of cheap and some expensive products, including true high end. That's a major challenge, but it is to all audio manufacturers worldwide, and the North American and European makers are also aware that they can't ignore Chinese audio any more. Audiophiles are buying it, and that's likely to increase, not die out.
Japanese manufacturers are crucially important in digital photography, having survived the transition from film photography where others didn't. They're still dominant in standalone (non-phone-based) cameras, which you can see if you drop in to DPreview.com.
And digital watches. Do I even need to mention who owns that market? It's one company, so far ahead of all the competitors that everyone knows who I mean.
There's nothing to stop other companies busting into consumer markets currently dominated by Japan - as you say, they can innovate or price-compete their way in.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Even if it's less damaging than alcohol or tobacco, it's no reason to legalize it.
Whatever. But it is a reason to consume it.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
...but he could only go to France if he feels safe from arrest and prosecution under French law.
So that ain't happening.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
About Ghosn, he has nowhere really to go
He could go to France, where as a French national, he is safe from extradition. France does not extradite its nationals to any country, which is a pretty high degree of protection, one that most of us do not have.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Virgin Hyperloop is looking to first develop passenger routes in India, where the transport system is overloaded, and in Saudi Arabia, which lacks an infrastructure.
"It starts off with two people riding a Hyperloop. It ends with hundreds of millions of people riding on a Hyperloop and that's what the 2020s, the roaring 20s will be," Giegel said.
We had similar emptyheaded hype from Elon Musk 10 years ago, until he lost interest. He was even issuing route and fare predictions, trying to convince people that he could establish a transport system that would be faster, cheaper and quicker to build than conventional rail systems. All based on a technology that hadn't even been developed yet.
Ignoring the social, political, financial, engineering, and technological obstacles involved in transport is a guarantee of failure. So is speeding up the timelines.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Even monkeys, as they say here, fall from trees. ; )
Not those monkeys, and not that tree. The usage is correct, as they and their editors knew.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
did the part timers shrink in size? Otherwise the correct English would be fewer part-timers, as they are countable.
Both "less" and "fewer" are acceptable. Good enough for these writers. English is a far richer language than pedants would have us believe.
Watson, if it should ever strike you that I am getting a little overconfident in my powers, or giving less pains to a case than it deserves, kindly whisper 'Norbury' in my ear, and I shall be infinitely obliged to you.
(Arthur Conan Doyle)
It is the first anniversary of the happy marriage of Mr and Mrs Lammle, and the celebration is a breakfast, because a dinner on the desired scale of sumptuosity cannot be achieved within less limits than those of the non-existent palatial residence of which so many people are madly envious.
For instead of saying that employers pay less wages, which might pin the employers to some moral responsibility...
The poor devils round the bridge spent much of the daytime cowering in the little man-holes they had scooped in the side of the trench. But there were less casualties than might have been expected, and the barricade rose steadily...
Who are we who dare lay this ban of terror on a people? Have we less vices than they have, that we bring them to the bar of judgment before us?
This modern traveller describes it all in less words than Marco Polo would have used paragraphs on such a striking occasion.
And for a deft combination of the two in one sentence:
We had succeeded in buying less clothes, less food, and fewer luxuries; in fact we had succeeded in everything except in saving money.
(F. Scott Fitzgerald)
-2 ( +3 / -5 )
And the "study" was funded by, guess who.
A lazy insinuation.
Guessing is unnecessary for anyone capable of locating the study. Do you think that's something you could manage?
So who funded it - the title under which it was published is a strong indicator: "Impact and effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths following a nationwide vaccination campaign in Israel: an observational study using national surveillance data"
That tells you that the data on which the study is based already existed, and implies that it came from a public source. It was in fact supplied by the Israel Ministry of Health.
So a single word on funding was supplied: "None". How to explain this...the data is already in government hands, the vaccinations under discussion are done, the authors are not performing a clinical trial, and so their costs are negligible.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Yep looks like some post processing of the image. According to Google maps Mt. Fuji is about 95km (60mi) away.
In clear air and clear weather, Fuji is easily visible from parts of Tokyo. The main obstacle to visibility from street level is buildings and other structures. You're more likely to see it from a train. In the right conditions, it is certainly visible from the Keikyu line to Haneda.
It doesn't require post-processing to make such a massive object 60 miles away appear close. Foreshortening occurs at any telephoto lens range, from around 85 mm. At the low end it may be barely noticeable.
There are fairly inexpensive cameras available now that have built-in lenses up to 1000mm+. Those are consumer models, and easily capable of taking a shot like the one above, even when handheld. It is simpler to take a snapshot at a high telephoto length than to postprocess to achieve the same effect. At the extreme range, the tradeoffs in terms of picture quality are increasingly noticeable because of atmospheric conditions, which can be seen in the photo above.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
According to VAERS, the Corona jabs have now caused more vaccination deaths than all other vaccines in the past 15 years combined.
No. VAERS doesn't do that and can't do that.
In their FAQ, they make this statement:
"One of the main limitations of VAERS data is that it cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event. This limitation has caused confusion in the publicly available data from VAERS WONDER, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. There have been instances where people have misinterpreted reports of deaths following vaccination as deaths caused by the vaccines; that is not accurate. VAERS accepts all reports of adverse health events following vaccinations without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS represent true vaccine reactions and others are coincidental adverse health events and not related to vaccination. Overall, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS report alone."
This contradicts your claim, meaning that you misunderstand what VAERS is and what it does. Have another look at what they say:
[...] VAERS data [...] cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event.
This applies to all vaccines. Therefore:
VAERS cannot tell you if any specific vaccine caused any specific reported adverse event.
VAERS cannot provide numbers of adverse reactions for any vaccine.
VAERS cannot tell you if one vaccine caused more deaths than another vaccine, because it cannot tell you if either of those vaccines caused a death in the first place.
VAERS does not provide conclusions, and reminds all visitors to its website that because of the method of reporting, it is unable to. When you say "according to VAERS", that's based on your own unreliable interpretation of their reports.
By insisting that your source is VAERS, you are telling us that causality was never established.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
"The annual incidence of shingles for those aged 70 to 79 years is estimated to be around 790 to 880 cases per 100,000 people in England and Wales"
Those are far from trivial numbers, and they represent people who have "natural immunity" - that is, the immunity to chickenpox they got from actually contracting the disease, plus any boost to that immunity that may have occurred from further exposure to the virus - seeing as Britain still doesn't routinely vaccinate.
This is not particularly wonderful immunity to shingles in older people. Shingles also hits middle-aged people, has extremely unpleasant and painful symptoms, and can even be fatal.
Then there's chickenpox itself, one of the classic childhood diseases. The problem with those - in some imaginations benign - diseases is that while they may be fairly mild in most cases, it is certainly not always so. Chickenpox is far less of a worry than measles, but is still capable of being fatal in young children or of having serious and lasting outcomes. Another problem with childhood diseases is that some children in the unvaccinated populations don't get them at all in the first few years of life, but contract them later, either in their teenage years or as adults. They spend the first part of their life with no immunity at all to these diseases, then experience severe symptoms when they eventually catch them.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
(chicken pox vaccine works but causes painful nerve stinging Shingles during the later years - natural infection / immunity is an inconvenience but preferable
You've completely misunderstood both chickenpox and shingles. You've misunderstood vaccination as well, but that's a given.
After recovery from chickenpox (usually contracted in childhood), inactive virus remains in the body. Shingles occurs later (usually in middle age or older) and is caused by reactivation of the virus. This is what happens even with natural infection resulting in natural immunity to chickenpox, which is why it has been observed for centuries, and the link with the chickenpox virus has been known for over a century.
Chickenpox vaccination has only been routine since the mid-1990s, and almost everyone older than that remains unvaccinated and has natural immunity from contracting chickenpox in childhood. They do not have immunity from shingles, and nor do people vaccinated against chickenpox.
There is a vaccine for shingles, and the most recently approved has very high efficacy. In the US, it is recommended for people aged 50 or over.
With "natural" you don't get to pick and choose the bits you like. Most diseases are natural, so you can't choose an assumed natural immunity to shingles over the most distressing effects of the disease itself - and it can be fatal, by the way.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The many remaining studies show positive effects of HCQ.
On the contrary, this followed an entirely expected path: impressive claims from unreliable sources (anecdotal from China, maverick genius from Raoult) followed by instant failure at the first true test: scaled-up studies. And every one of those studies confirmed that HCQ provides no benefit in the treatment or prevention of COVID.
It's a classic demonstration of what the scientific method is and why it has been designed that way. Raoult's claimed successes have to be reproducible. The fact that they are not, and that controlled conditions and larger study groups confirmed and reconfirmed this, is the clearest demonstration possible that HCQ treatment is of no value.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Yahoo news, which is usually very liberal, posted that over 100 fully vaccinated people in Washington still got the covid, including some deaths
This is exactly as expected in the early days of a mass vaccination campaign for a widespread and highly contagious disease. There is no 100% effective vaccine for any disease.
Meanwhile, you can look at figures and graphs for the vaccine rollout in countries around the world. In January, Britain had both high transmission rates and high death rates. The peak positive test rate (68,000) was January 8 and the peak for reported daily deaths was January 20th (1,826). In both cases, this was Britain's highest in the pandemic so far, and came on the back of a very steep rise starting in October but really spinning out of control shortly before the Christmas period. With the winter coming on, this was a disastrous rise, and a looming catastrophe for the health service.
But starting in December, Britain vaccinated far faster than most other countries, and the fastest of any country with such a large population and such high transmission numbers. The drop in infections and deaths since January has been dramatic: down to 10,000 positives by 25th February and 4,600 now (from 68,000, remember) and down to 345 deaths on February 26th, and just 51 on April 1.
You'll have to make your choice about what it is that has produced this precipitous drop in Britain, but seeing as antivaccine sentiment is so often against mask wearing, social distancing, or lockdowns, the other choices available may not appeal to you. And the vaccination rate in each country, combined with the varying transmission/death rate, does show that reduction closely tracks vaccination. Slower rollout, slower drop, but a drop nonetheless.
This shouldn't actually be a surprise though. It's how mass vaccination has been working since the beginning of the 20th century.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Based on the work of Prof. Didier Raoult, the fatality rate is around 0.07% when people are treated immediately.
No rational person is going to use the long-discredited findings of a bonkers French doctor to extrapolate COVID survivability rates to the global population.
Raoult is a bust. His only function is as a clownish cult leader for people who find science tiresome and inconvenient. HCQ is done with. It was done with more than six months ago. It ain't coming back.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
If you drink a product containing polyethylene glycol by accident you must seek medical attention immediately, yet apparently it's perfectly safe to inject directly into your bloodstream.
Out of interest, why do antivaxers believe that vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream?
Watch a video, learn a fact.
11 ( +18 / -7 )
Also, as I often mentioned, there are 100's of studies investigating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. If you take out all those that involve conflicts of interest (links to big pharma), you are essentially left with studies that all show a favorable effect.
Actually what kicked it off outside China was a completely rubbish study (of 24 patients) by Didier Raoult. All the talk of 'studies' showing dramatically effective results circled right back to him. Long before COVID he had an extensive track record of ethical violations, wacky science, bullying, and intimidation, so it should have been a surprise to no one that he claimed near perfect results for his treatment, produced data and conclusions that could be shot to bits without even trying, and angrily attacked anyone who dared to question him.
The science has left him behind, and HCQ has been found both ineffective and unreasonably risky as a COVID treatment. The book's closed on that one, but the Raoult cult is still open for anyone gullible enough.
3 ( +7 / -4 )
The vast majority of recyclables in my area are combined with regular rubbish and incinerated.
As always government statistics will include this "thermal recovery" as recycling. Boasting among the highest plastic recycling rates in the world at over 80 percent.
Are you saying rubbish is separated by households etc. for recycling (because of local requirements), then collected, combined with non-recyclable rubbish, and incinerated?
However you're trying to state it, it would be difficult to verify whether you're correct, partially correct, or you've got it all garbled. But that aside, incineration of separated plastics is recycling. Strictly speaking, recycling is simply the processing of waste into something else that can be used or that has value. It doesn't have to be in a form that you like.
There are two main advantages to thermal recycling (it goes under various names, but I'll settle for that). It provides energy. And it stops plastics from ending up in fields, forests, rivers, oceans. Or being exported. As a source of energy, it's productive - that is the recycling aspect. It would be far preferable for us, especially in Japan, to get through a lot less plastic destined for one-time use, but until that happens, which is clearly going to be no time soon, it's a pretty damn good way to get rid of it, and to get something from it at the same time. Japan is far from alone in using this method (e.g. Austria, Germany, Norway, and Sweden are all strong advocates of thermal recycling).
Even the NZ government does not sound as if it actively disapproves - well not in 1997, anyway: "Most plastic waste is not recyclable because of impurities, but tonne for tonne it has more energy than coal. Although it accounts for only 7 percent of landfill volume, it makes up 30 percent of a landfill's energy content. Even where the plastic is recyclable, the energy retrieval from burning is much higher than the materials retrieval from recycling. At present, plastics are not incinerated in New Zealand."
0 ( +0 / -0 )
So the covid vaccines appear to be 48X deadlier than the influenza vaccine.
Er no, it's not deadly at all, and neither is the flu vaccine. 48 x 0 is 0. So is any other number x 0.
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
A lot of the focus is on Mia Farrow, but it is Dylan Farrow who returned to make the accusation as an adult, seven years ago, at the age of twenty eight or so.
Yeah, but it was Mia Farrow who busted out the allegation in the first place. Dylan was not old enough at the time to put that in the public sphere.
From the start, there were aspects to the claim that made the whole thing appear a bit fishy. While any father might have sexually abused their child - in the eyes of others, we can all be suspects in that regard, once such a claim is made - there is nothing in particular to indicate that Woody Allen would have abused his child. He had a spotless record where women (and children) were concerned. But for this single allegation, he has maintained it in the thirty years that followed.
Somehow the fact that so many people (not me, as it happens) are creeped out by his affair with Previn has been used to leverage the concept that he is a full-blown pedophile. That's a major red flag, because it's so logically flawed. Previn was 20 or 21 at the time the affair was discovered (her date of birth is unknown but is given as 1970 - accepting that and the timing of the affair makes her 21). However people try to cut it, she was an adult and old enough by a matter of years to make her own decisions on who she slept with. She has also, as far as anyone knows, lived a life that is consistent with that decision.
Very much in Allen's favour is the fact that he has been able to state his case, when he talks about it at all, without being caught out in lies, falsehoods, or inconsistencies. So has Soon Yi Previn. And there has been nothing so far to indicate that Moses Farrow is given to lying or getting his facts wrong.
Therefore, to dribble this sex-abuse story all the way up the field and belt it into the goal, there would need to be a lot more information and evidence against Allen, but it simply wasn't available then and it is never going to be available.
Further problems are that at least three of the family who are accusing Allen may be lying outright or deliberately playing fast and loose with the truth: credibility issues have been demonstrated for all of them. We can take Dylan first: her story about a train set and the room where the assault is said to have taken place has been dismissed as impossible by her brother. You yourself credit her memory as accurate, so you either buy into this story and its emotional detail, or you cut her a big pass and say she can't be expected to remember such things perfectly, so give her a break. The problem is that if that important detail is false, the assault itself may also be false, while the allegation of coaching would be strengthened. And there are no other sex abuse claims against Allen to fall back on.
Ronan Farrow is a huge problem. The drawback of being a journalist is that you can't erase what you've written from the record. He's made the choice to write about his family, and that's been looked at in great detail. His writing is riddled with claims that are based on exaggeration, bad research, and bad reporting, and he's had to row back from some of his positions. It never looks good when a journalist starts doing that, as wonder-boy Johann Hari also discovered.
Mia Farrow is the biggest problem of all. There are multiple allegations against her, and they are certainly plausible. They go well beyond "nightmare mother" - not in any way illegal - to physical abuse, which is. The conditions under which this could happen are certainly there: a seemingly pathological devotion to acquiring vulnerable children through international adoption. It's only the extremely naive who think that's a heartwarming story because some kid from some awful country lucked into getting adopted by a beautiful rich lady. Out of 10 adopted children, three died well before middle age, one by suicide, one by suspected suicide, and one after a miserable adulthood that amounted to a slow suicide. We have no way to know where they would have stood on Dylan's story as an adult, or what they would have said about themselves, but there are certainly stories that they were abused by Farrow. Two more of her adopted children, Previn and Moses Farrow, have cut themselves off from her, and neither of them have good things to say.
This can't just be dismissed as too much focus on Farrow. She provides the entire context by which Allen was placed under suspicion in the first place. It's interesting that the people who have broken away from Farrow (Allen, Soon-Yi Previn, Moses Farrow), seem able to speak with some relief at being free and do not seem to have anything they are anxious to hide.
While the response to Moses Farrow was a joint statement from the children who stayed on the team. A joint statement. That hostagey approach fits exactly the picture that Moses Farrow put out there in the first place.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Dylan Farrow was seven years old, which is certainly old enough to remember what is done to you.
It is, but it doesn't follow that everything someone says happened when they were seven is true. Dylan Farrow gave details that have been disputed as impossible by her own brother, who is familiar with their living space. That creates a problem, because it makes her story harder to substantiate. What should have served as persuasive, disturbing detail makes the central claim much less plausible.
So the wider context, which also throws up considerable doubts, remains important. Specifically, Mia Farrow has been described as abusive (both psychologically and physically), manipulative, and dishonest. Some of her own children have made these claims about her, and that coaching was part of her modus operandi. Those are no less plausible than claims that Allen abused Dylan Farrow. Potentially they are far more so.
Mia Farrow's allegation of sexual abuse was made only after Allen's affair was discovered and they were engaged in a bitter custody battle. Not completely unusual, by any means, and certainly not automatically true. Around the same time, she also made claims about Soon-Yi Previn that she had never come out with before - that she was several years younger than stated on her official birth document (completely unprovable) and that she was mentally incompetent - in the language of the time, retarded (not particularly evident from Previn's own account of herself, either then or at any time since). This doesn't do much for Farrow's credibility.
So does that mean Dylan Farrow definitely wasn't abused? No.
Does it mean that Dylan Farrow wasn't abuse and could have been coached since the age of 7 in repeating a story that isn't true? Completely possible.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Bob Dylan, I'm not so sure, but the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis, Duke Ellington will definitely be timeless classics.
You needn't worry about Dylan, his place in music history is secure. The public gets it, musicians get it.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
it should not be a shame to hold more than one, since your lifestyle may dictate it, though only one should be used for travel under
At the moment, many countries (and Japan is one of them) prefer that you enter and leave their territory on their passport if you have their nationality. They accept that you may have left a country on one passport and are using another to arrive in theirs, and have no problem at all with that.
Dual nationals when travelling with two passports are advised to have the 2nd available to show if requested, but not to show it unless requested - in other words, keep it to hand but preferably out of sight until needed. Sounds sensible enough. Immigration officers are trying to process you in and out on one passport; they can also do it quicker, and you tend to have stronger rights, if you're a "home national". It's also good practice not to give them more information than they need or want.
But obviously there's no perfect solution that will work with all officials in all territories.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
My business demands probity in even sphere, no ducking and diving. I had to make a decision it is as simple as that. I have given my word, when starting the business, a word of honor to investors that there considerable investment capital for the outset would be safe in my hands. To obey the rules, not only in business, buy personally in life.
Fine words, but the renunciation procedure is voluntary, and legally, all you did (if you ever did submit an RN) was make a voluntary choice to end one of your nationalities.
That is a right. It's also a legal right not to end either of them - hardly ducking and diving. No country grants nationality with the expectation of future renunciation. They simply provide a legal mechanism for it to happen if the nationality-holder requests it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What in the heck are you talking about? She was required to affirm Japanese citizenship by renouncing any other citizenship or she would no longer be a Japanese national.
It doesn't work that way. Officially the procedure is branched into the submission of either of two forms: the carefully named "choice of nationality" (国籍選択届) (kokuseki sentaku todoke), which is exclusively a declaration that the applicant chooses Japanese nationality. Failing to make this declaration does not now or later make a person "no longer a Japanese national", because it does not alter their existing Japanese nationality status.
The other form is an actual application to renounce Japanese nationality (国籍離脱届) (kokuseki ridatsu todoke). This leads to the termination of Japanese nationality.
The first form does not require "renouncing any other citizenship", it contains some wording that mentions "abandonment" of other nationalities (notably it does not use the term 離脱). And regardless of the wording used, Japan has no jursidiction over that: you can and do submit the 国籍選択届 without renouncing the other nationality.
You have a fighting chance of understanding this better if you read this. It's long but informative.
Frankly you'd find it more productive than making unfounded accusations about Naomi Osaka lying.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
As a half and half, English/Japanese, I choose to relinquish my UK passport. I did not renounce my British culture, when a push comes to a shove, I had to make a choice. One day in the future, times will chance, they always do, and I might be able to obtain duel nationally.
For people who have had UK nationality from birth, the only way to relinquish it is to do the required paperwork on the British side (submission of an RN form plus supporting documents) and pay the fee. That's currently £372 (about 50,000 yen). Someone who was British from birth and hasn't done that is still British. This is why the distinction between passport and nationality is crucial: no longer possessing a passport is not the same as no longer possessing nationality. For a whole range of obvious reasons, you can be a national without a passport. This is very common. You can also be a national without knowing it. This is not particularly unusual, especially among people who believe that nationality can lapse.
A child born today in Japan to a British and a Japanese parent is British by default (the birth doesn't even have to be registered with the British). Subsequently, at any age, nothing on the Japanese side, up to and including filing a 国籍選択届 (choice of [Japanese] nationality) has the slightest effect on their British nationality.
2 ( +2 / -0 )