schnuersi said:

Out of context that indeed sounds bad. But I would ask why, what the trigger. Just the fact that she entered the room? Or did she do or say something? Was there an argument? Out of context a lot of things sound sexist, racist or whatever.

She had booked time in the lab, Guy was hogging the computer. She pointed out that she had booked the lab time.

graylion said:

She had booked time in the lab, Guy was hogging the computer. She pointed out that she had booked the lab time.

Yea that sound pretty much like the sterotypical IT guy.

Direct action and threats of violence usually work. Since these guys usually are not very physical most woman can use it against them as well.
Super effective and immediate solution... pull the pug out of the socket. An asshole needs and deserves to be treated as such. ;)

schnuersi said:

Direct action and threats of violence usually work. Since these guys usually are not very physical most woman can use it against them as well. Super effective and immediate solution... pull the pug out of the socket. An asshole needs and deserves to be treated as such. ;)

And women get conditioned very strongly against violence and confrontation. Ask me how I know? I have trained women in martial arts. 

graylion said:

And women get conditioned very strongly against violence and confrontation.

I would said most people get nowadays. But one needs when to confront and when to walk away. A case like the one you described IMHO is one where confronting the the ONLY option. If not you will get stepped on by people all the time. If you are not willing to stand up for your own rights and interests why should anybody else.

Or, to roughly translate a germay saying: if the smarter allways give in, the dumb will rule the world.

So, he was a dickhead who resorted to a weak sexist phrase because he completely lacked people skills.

I’ve heard of the same behaviour in education, of all places.

IT doesn’t have a sexist problem, it has an arsehole problem. Regrettably those people exist in many fields.

Of Germanys 100 Billion fund, majority of funds will go to the Air Force, with more money spent on the Navy then on the Army. Fitting for a mostly landlocked country with a massive land war going on next door....

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/air-force-get-largest-share-germanys-100-billion-euro-defence-bulk-up-2022-05-31/

To paraphrase a Dutch comedian: "It's good they've thought about it, but its a bit of a shame this is what they came up with." 

But all snarkiness aside, I suspect their reasoning for this allocation of funding has something to do with a) Ukraine's airforce having lasted about a single day (maybe a week, if you stretch the definition of the 'force' part of the word) since the start of hostilities, b) Germany being next to Russian shipping lanes out of the Baltic, and c) Sweden and Finland potentially joining NATO. Interoperability, to name a buzzword. 

Development of a succesor to the Marder? Isn' t  that already developed Puma?

VPMudde said:

But all snarkiness aside, I suspect their reasoning for this allocation of funding has something to do with a) Ukraine's airforce having lasted about a single day (maybe a week, if you stretch the definition of the 'force' part of the word) since the start of hostilities

I'm not sure how accurate that assessment is, or how much it would factor into NATO. 

At the start of hostilities Ukraine had a pretty small, dated airforce (talking strike aircraft):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force#Inventory_as_of_February_2022

And they were still flying combat sorties a month into the war:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/world/europe/ukraine-air-force-russia.html

Russia shot down a Mig 29 as late as May 24.

And months into the war, Bayraktar TB2 drones were still destroying Russian ground targets despite having the flight performance of a WW1 era biplane. 

...

Looking at the war in Ukraine, I'd say the enormous consumption of ground to ground weapons, and widespread destruction of ground based vehicles and weapons, would all put more of an emphasis on restocking a land based force.

Especially as 

-Germans land based forces have massively atrophied 

-NATO as a whole has a shitload of planes 

-German domestic industry specializes in the production of world class ground based weapons - not so much aircraft. 

gatnerd said:

Of Germanys 100 Billion fund, majority of funds will go to the Air Force, with more money spent on the Navy then on the Army. Fitting for a mostly landlocked country with a massive land war going on next door....

Several points:
The Reuters report is simply not correct or exact.
Of course there is a Marder replacement in the Puma. Some of the 100 billion will be used to purchase more Pumas. Because currently its not planned to replace all Marders... for lack of funding. A replacement for the Fuchs APC is going to be purchased. If this will be more Boxers we will see.
There are a lot more projects that are being funded. The munition stocks will be replenished. New clothing, boots, body armor and helmets for more than one billion will be purchased. Less spectacular than new aircraft and comparable cheap but vital never the less. ~20 billion will be invested in C3 (very simplified).
The larger chunks that are allocated to the branches are allocated by need. Since the air force needs new aircraft and these are hideously expensive they get the largest chunk. Ships are also expensive and are needed, second largest chunk. The army has more or less up to date equipment. What it really lacks is basics like clothing and communication. Which is allready adressed. All major army programms allready have resulted in new vehicles so they just have to buy more which is rather cheap.

It is also of extreme importance to be aware the the things that are purchased are NOT in the slighest way influenced by the Ukraine war. Its simply an attempt to get the back lock dissolved. All the stuff the money is spend on is on the list for conciderable time now. Its just a chance to compensate for three decades of underfunding.

From a strategical viewpoint Germany needs a navy more than an army. Its sourounded by allies. At the same time it has massive foreign trade and is dependent on resource imports. The freedom of shiping and access to all markets are vital intrests for Germany. This requires a strong navy.
The air force is expensive and the most technological critical. Yes the Tornados are not as old as Leopard 2 but they are conciderable less usefull in comparison. Its far easier to upgrade ground vehicles so they stay competative compared to aircraft. While Russia made lots of noise with Armata etc it currently seems its vapor ware. To take on T-90 and older Leopard 2 is perfectly adequate. A replacement is in development. Some of the 100 billion will fund this as well but we only talk about a couple of millions so its barely ever mentioned in the press. This replacement most likely will materialise in about 10 years. So its behond the scope of the current funding.
Before someone asks: Increasing the size of the military or army, for example reactivating of forming or tank battalions or more brigades is out of the question. Its not limited by funding but by available personell. Since the draft has been abolished the German military has been understafft. Concideably actually. The understaffing is not because there are no open positions or because there is no money for personell its because there are no people willing to join. It is simply unrealistic to expect this to change.

Furthermore most of these investments are long term. So the immediate situation has rather little relevance to the planing. A spread of the Ukraine war onto NATO territory is extremly unlikely. Also once the situation is resolved there will be a new status quo with a high chance of "back to busines as usual". Not 100 % as befor but close to it. The war in Ukraine is seen as a temporary problem by most of the decision makers in Germany.