The finest budget spinning asphalt incline as both saltwater and freshwater fishing

[DanielTheld]

Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
kraken вход
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken тор
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

---

Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
kra28 cc
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken darknet onion
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

---

Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
kraken shop
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken зайти
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

---

Most plane crashes are ‘survivable’
кракен ссылка
First, the good news. “The vast majority of aircraft accidents are survivable, and the majority of people in accidents survive,” says Galea. Since 1988, aircraft — and the seats inside them — must be built to withstand an impact of up to 16G, or g-force up to 16 times the force of gravity. That means, he says, that in most incidents, “it’s possible to survive the trauma of the impact of the crash.”

For instance, he classes the initial Jeju Air incident as survivable — an assumed bird strike, engine loss and belly landing on the runway, without functioning landing gear. “Had it not smashed into the concrete reinforced obstacle at the end of the runway, it’s quite possible the majority, if not everyone, could have survived,” he says.

The Azerbaijan Airlines crash, on the other hand, he classes as a non-survivable accident, and calls it a “miracle” that anyone made it out alive.
https://kra26c.cc
Љракен даркнет
Most aircraft involved in accidents, however, are not — as suspicion is growing over the Azerbaijan crash — shot out of the sky.

And with modern planes built to withstand impacts and slow the spread of fire, Galea puts the chances of surviving a “survivable” accident at at least 90%.

Instead, he says, what makes the difference between life and death in most modern accidents is how fast passengers can evacuate.

Aircraft today must show that they can be evacuated in 90 seconds in order to gain certification. But a theoretical evacuation — practiced with volunteers at the manufacturers’ premises — is very different from the reality of a panicked public onboard a jet that has just crash-landed.
Galea, an evacuation expert, has conducted research for the UK’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) looking at the most “survivable” seats on a plane. His landmark research, conducted over several years in the early 2000s, looked at how passengers and crew behaved during a post-crash evacuation, rather than looking at the crashes themselves. By compiling data from 1,917 passengers and 155 crew involved in 105 accidents from 1977 to 1999, his team created a database of human behavior around plane crashes.

His analysis of which exits passengers actually used “shattered many myths about aircraft evacuation,” he says. “Prior to my study, it was believed that passengers tend to use their boarding exit because it was the most familiar, and that passengers tend to go forward. My analysis of the data demonstrated that none of these myths were supported by the evidence.”

[Danielpoons]

A year ago today, things went from bad to worse for Boeing
Љракен даркнет

At 5 p.m. PT on January 5, 2024, Boeing seemed like a company on the upswing. It didn’t last. Minutes later, a near-tragedy set off a full year of problems.

As Alaska Airlines flight 1282 climbed to 16,000 feet in its departure from Portland, Oregon, a door plug blew out near the rear of the plane, leaving a gaping hole in the fuselage. Phones and clothing were ripped away from passengers and sent hurtling into the night sky. Oxygen masks dropped, and the rush of air twisted seats next to the hole toward the opening.
https://kra26c.cc
кракен вход
Fortunately, those were among the few empty seats on the flight, and the crew got the plane on the ground without any serious injuries. The incident could have been far worse — even a fatal crash.

Not much has gone right for Boeing ever since. The company has had one misstep after another, ranging from embarrassing to horrifying. And many of the problems are poised to extend into 2025 and perhaps beyond.

The problems were capped by another Boeing crash in South Korea that killed 179 people on December 29 in what was in the year’s worst aviation disaster. The cause of the crash of a 15-year old Boeing jet flown by Korean discount carrier Jeju Air is still under investigation, and it is quite possible that Boeing will not be found liable for anything that led to the tragedy.
But unlike the Jeju crash, most of the problems of the last 12 months have clearly been Boeing’s fault.

And 2024 was the sixth straight year of serious problems for the once proud, now embattled company, starting with the 20-month grounding of its best selling plane, the 737 Max, following two fatal crashes in late 2018 and early 2019, which killed 346 people.

Still the outlook for 2024 right before the Alaska Air incident had been somewhat promising. The company had just achieved the best sales month in its history in December 2023, capping its strongest sales year since 2018.

It was believed to be on the verge of getting Federal Aviation Administration approval for two new models, the 737 Max 7 and Max 10, with airline customers eager to take delivery. Approvals and deliveries of its next generation widebody, the 777X, were believed to be close behind. Its production rate had been climbing and there were hopes that it could be on the verge of returning to profitability for the first time since 2018.

[DavidCycle]

The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
kraken войти

Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kra cc
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?

According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

---

The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
kraken даркнет

Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
кракен
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?

According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

[Eugenebef]

The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
kraken войти

Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kraken сайт
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?

According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

---

The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
kraken onion

Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kra28 cc
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?

According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

---

The survivors of recent crashes were sitting at the back of the plane. What does that tell us about airplane safety?
кракен онион

Look at the photos of the two fatal air crashes of the last two weeks, and amid the horror and the anguish, one thought might come to mind for frequent flyers.

The old frequent-flyer adage is that sitting at the back of the plane is a safer place to be than at the front — and the wreckage of both Azerbaijan Airlines flight 8243 and Jeju Air flight 2216 seem to bear that out.
https://kra26c.cc
kra26 cc
The 29 survivors of the Azeri crash were all sitting at the back of the plane, which split into two, leaving the rear half largely intact. The sole survivors of the South Korean crash, meanwhile, were the two flight attendants in their jumpseats in the very tail of the plane.

So is that old adage — and the dark humor jokes about first and business class seats being good until there’s a problem with the plane — right after all?

In 2015, TIME Magazine reporters wrote that they had combed through the records of all US plane crashes with both fatalities and survivors from 1985 to 2000, and found in a meta-analysis that seats in the back third of the aircraft had a 32% fatality rate overall, compared with 38% in the front third and 39% in the middle third.

Even better, they found, were middle seats in that back third of the cabin, with a 28% fatality rate. The “worst” seats were aisles in the middle third of the aircraft, with a 44% fatality rate.
But does that still hold true in 2024?

According to aviation safety experts, it’s an old wives’ tale.

“There isn’t any data that shows a correlation of seating to survivability,” says Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. “Every accident is different.”

“If we’re talking about a fatal crash, then there is almost no difference where one sits,” says Cheng-Lung Wu, associate professor at the School of Aviation of the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Ed Galea, professor of fire safety engineering at London’s University of Greenwich, who has conducted landmark studies on plane crash evacuations, warns, “There is no magic safest seat.”

[JerryInill]

Chile’s President Boric leads journey to South Pole in historic trip
kraken darknet onion

Chile’s President Gabriel Boric travelled to Antarctica’s South Pole on Friday, a place where no other Latin American president has set foot, according to the Chilean government.

Boric led the historic two-day trip, named Operation Pole Star III, to extend the environmental monitoring of pollutants on Antarctica, Chile’s government said in a statement.

He travelled with scientists, armed forces commanders and government ministers from the Chilean capital of Santiago to Punta Arenas, a city in southern Chile, public broadcaster Television Nacional de Chile (TVN) reported. From there, they made several stops before finally reaching the US-run Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, according to TVN.
https://kra26s.cc
Кракен тор

Chile is one of seven countries that has a territorial claim in Antarctica, alongside Argentina, Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom.

It is also a signatory of the Antarctic Treaty, which dictates that the continent may only be used for peaceful and scientific purposes.

While Chile has historically carried out scientific activity in Antarctica’s northern sector, the country’s government is now hoping to expand research into the west of the continent, its statement said.
Boric called his trip to the South Pole an “honor” and a source of pride, TVN reported.

“This is a milestone for us. It is the first time a Chilean and Latin American President has visited the South Pole,” he said, according to TVN.

[Edwardtok]

New Glenn’s first flight
Blue Origin formally announced the development of New Glenn — which aims to outpower SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets and haul spacecraft up to 45 metric tons (99,200 pounds) to orbit — in 2016.
kraken тор браузер
The vehicle is long overdue, as the company previously targeted 2020 for its first launch.

Delays, however, are common in the aerospace industry. And the debut flight of a new vehicle is almost always significantly behind schedule.

Rocket companies also typically take a conservative approach to the first liftoff, launching dummy payloads such as hunks of metal or, as was the case with SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy debut in 2018, an old cherry red sports car.
https://kra26att.cc
kraken onion
Blue Origin has also branded itself as a company that aims to take a slow, diligent approach to rocket development that doesn’t “cut any corners,” according to Bezos, who founded Blue Origin and funds the company.

The company’s mascot is a tortoise, paying homage to “The Tortoise and the Hare” fable that made the “slow and steady wins the race” mantra a childhood staple.

“We believe slow is smooth and smooth is fast,” Bezos said in 2016. Those comments could be seen as an attempt to position Blue Origin as the anti-SpaceX, which is known to embrace speed and trial-and-error over slow, meticulous development processes.
But SpaceX has certainly won the race to orbit. The company’s first orbital rocket, the Falcon 1, made a successful launch in September 2008. The company has deployed hundreds of missions to orbit since then.

And while SpaceX routinely destroys rockets during test flights as it begins developing a new rocket, the company has a solid track record for operational missions. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, for example, has experienced two in-flight failures and one launchpad explosion but no catastrophic events during human missions.

[VictorHIZ]

Welcome to Extra Finance
At Extra Finance, we believe in empowering individuals and businesses with the tools they need to manage their finances more effectively. Whether you are looking to save smarter, invest wisely, or simply manage your expenses better, Extra Finance offers a range of solutions to help you achieve your goals.
extra fi
Why Choose Extra Finance?
Extra Finance stands out for its commitment to customer satisfaction and cutting-edge financial tools. Here are a few reasons why you should consider us:

Comprehensive Financial Solutions: From personal savings plans to business investment opportunities, we cover a wide spectrum of financial needs.
User-Friendly Platform: Navigate through your financial options with ease thanks to our intuitive and straightforward interface.
Expert Guidance: Our team of experienced financial advisors is always ready to assist you in making the best financial decisions.
Services Offered by Extra Finance
Extra Finance is committed to providing a diverse range of services that cater to different financial needs:

Personal Finance Management: Tools and advice to help individuals manage their personal finances, set budgets, and save for the future.
Investment Solutions: Personalized investment portfolios to help you grow your wealth according to your financial objectives.
Loan Products: Flexible and competitive loans tailored to meet your needs.
Retirement Planning: Strategic planning services to ensure your retirement is financially secure and comfortable.
Getting Started with Extra Finance
To join Extra Finance, simply create an account on our platform and begin exploring the numerous financial opportunities available to you. With just a few clicks, you can take control of your financial future.

Remember, financial success is not just about making the right decisions today but about planning for tomorrow. Let Extra Finance be your partner on this journey to financial freedom!

[BarryOdoft]

Carrie Underwood slated to perform at Trump’s inauguration
kraken darknet onion
Country music star Carrie Underwood is slated to perform “America the Beautiful” at President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, according to a copy of the program obtained by CNN and confirmed by a spokesperson for the inaugural committee.

“I love our country and am honored to have been asked to sing at the Inauguration and to be a small part of this historic event,” Underwood said in a statement to CNN. “I am humbled to answer the call at a time when we must all come together in the spirit of unity and looking to the future.”

The presidential oath of office will be administered by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts with Justice Brett Kavanaugh expected to administer the oath of office to Vice President-elect JD Vance.

Trump’s inauguration as the 47th president of the United States will take place on January 20 at the US Capitol.

Underwood is a big get for Trump’s inauguration, considering Hollywood’s Trump blackout over the course of his political career.

In his first term and throughout the past three elections, Trump has struggled to garner support from major Hollywood stars. At the Republican National Convention last year, the two biggest stars onstage with Trump were musician Kid Rock and retired WWE wrestler Hulk Hogan – a far cry from a superstar at the height of their career, like Underwood.

The Grammy-winning artist is as high-profile as you can get in country music, not only with numerous platinum hits, but also with public-facing, mainstream business associations. Underwood is the face of Sunday Night Football and is set to make her debut this March as a judge on ABC’s “American Idol” – the singing competition show that catapulted her to fame when she won in 2005.

While many NFL fans will likely applaud Underwood for singing at the inauguration, any time a celebrity aligns themselves with Trump, they run the risk of alienating left-leaning fans and Hollywood allies.

Underwood has kept her politics under wraps over the course of her career. In her statement, she did not mention Trump by name and kept her focus on unifying the country – still, Underwood’s decision to publicly align with Trump is a big statement for any star, particularly one as private as the singer.

Historically, Hollywood has always been closely associated with the Democratic Party, but country stars have always been an outlier, leaning more conservative. In recent years, as new singers join the genre, country music has gotten to be more progressive. This past election cycle, country stars like Mickey Guyton and Maren Morris stood with Vice President Kamala Harris.

[RickySloda]

Getting Started with Quickswap
Quickswap is revolutionizing the way we trade cryptocurrencies by offering a decentralized platform for seamless crypto trading. As a user-friendly decentralized exchange (DEX), Quickswap allows users to swap tokens effortlessly without the need for intermediaries. Here's a detailed guide to getting started with Quickswap.
quickswap polygon
What is Quickswap?
Quickswap is a layer-2 decentralized exchange built on the Polygon network, which is known for its high-speed and low-cost transactions. This platform provides an efficient and secure way to trade a wide range of cryptocurrencies without enduring hefty fees typical of Ethereum-based DEXes.

Why Use Quickswap?
Low Fees: Thanks to the Polygon network, trading on Quickswap is significantly cheaper than on Ethereum-based platforms.
High Speed: Experience fast transaction speeds that enhance user experience and trading efficiency.
User-Friendly Interface: Quickswap's interface is designed to be intuitive, even for beginners, making it easy to trade cryptocurrencies.
How to Use Quickswap
Set Up a Crypto Wallet: You'll need a compatible wallet like MetaMask or Trust Wallet. Ensure it's connected to the Polygon network.
Fund Your Wallet: Purchase or transfer tokens into your wallet for trading.
Visit Quickswap Platform: Navigate to the Quickswap website and connect your wallet. This step is essential to access all features of the platform.
Start Trading: Select the tokens you want to swap. With its simple interface, you can execute trades in just a few clicks.
Tips for Effective Trading on Quickswap
To make the most out of your trading experience on Quickswap, consider these tips:

Keep an eye on the market trends and choose the right time for your trades.
Understand the token pairs and their liquidity status to avoid high slippage.
Regularly update your wallet and security settings to protect your assets.
Conclusion
Quickswap offers a robust platform for trading a wide range of cryptocurrencies efficiently. By leveraging the benefits of the Polygon network, it minimizes delays and costs associated with traditional crypto trading. Whether you're a beginner or a seasoned trader, Quickswap empowers you to navigate the DeFi space with ease and confidence.

[RaymondSew]

Pendle Finance: Unlocking New Opportunities in DeFi
As the world of decentralized finance (DeFi) continues to evolve, Pendle Finance is at the forefront, offering innovative solutions for yield and trading. This platform has quickly become a go-to resource for individuals looking to maximize their crypto investments.
pendle fi
What is Pendle Finance?
Pendle Finance is a DeFi protocol designed to provide enhanced yield management opportunities by leveraging tokenization of future yield. It allows users to trade tokenized yield, offering flexibility and potential for optimized earnings.

Key Features
Yield Tokenization: Convert future yield into tradable assets, enhancing liquidity.
Yield Trading: Enter and exit yield positions at strategic times to capitalize on market conditions.
Multi-Chain Support: Access a wide range of DeFi ecosystems through cross-chain functionality.
Benefits of Using Pendle Finance
Pendle Finance provides numerous benefits to its users, making it a compelling choice for DeFi enthusiasts and investors:

Diversified Investment Options: By tokenizing future yields, Pendle offers a variety of strategies to enhance your investment portfolio.
Market Flexibility: Trade yield tokens freely, allowing for strategic entry and exit points.
Enhanced Liquidity: Tokenization increases the liquidity of yields, offering more opportunities for dynamic financial strategies.
How to Get Started with Pendle
Embarking on your Pendle Finance journey is straightforward. Follow these steps to unlock the potential of yield trading:

Create an Account: Set up a user account on the Pendle Finance platform.
Link Your Wallet: Connect your cryptocurrency wallet to seamlessly manage transactions.
Start Trading: Explore the available yield tokens and start trading to optimize your returns.
Conclusion
In a rapidly changing financial landscape, Pendle Finance stands out by offering innovative solutions aimed at enhancing investment opportunities. Whether you are a seasoned DeFi user or a newcomer, Pendle provides tools and resources to empower your financial growth. Join the community and start unlocking the potential of your investments today!