One. The proceedings were ex parte and the record was written by the only party in the room. True, and your own next sentence says why. Since October 2022 New Delhi declined to file, to plead, to nominate or to attend. A record is written by one party when the other chooses not to write. The Treaty gave India two seats on that bench and India left them empty, which is why five of seven chairs decided the matter. A litigant who does not appear and then complains that only one side was heard is describing his own decision, not a defect in the court. You concede it yourself. Four years declining to make the argument where it counted. That sentence is my Part Three, written by the other side. Two. India is not boycotting the machinery, only one of two parallel tracks. This is India’s one serious argument and I have said so in print. It has substance. The World Bank in October 2022 did appoint both a Neutral Expert and a Court on overlapping questions, and two forums on one set of facts can disagree. But three things follow that your column does not say. The place to argue that a court is wrongly seized is before that court, and India chose not to. The Neutral Expert, India’s own preferred forum, ruled in January 2025 in a way that limited the Court’s remit over the technical issues without abolishing the Court, and India welcomed that ruling. And the sequencing objection concerns Kishenganga and Ratle. It says nothing whatever about abeyance. A disagreement about who decides pondage does not create a right to suspend an international treaty, and no ladder in the text leads from the first to the second. iqballatif.substack.com/p/in……

A CHILD RUNNING FOR FREEDOM AND A NATION THAT MUST WAKE UP @CMShehbaz @betterpakistan Look at this child running for his life. According to the account accompanying this video, he is a 15-year-old orphan who was sent by his orphanage to learn electrical work. He was supposed to receive vocational training, acquire a skill and build an independent future. Instead, he was allegedly subjected to exhausting labour and exploitation. When he tried to escape, two contractors reportedly pursued him in a vehicle and assaulted him to prevent him from leaving. If these allegations are established, those responsible must face the full force of the law. This is not vocational training. This is exploitation of a vulnerable child. I remember Iqbal Masih, the Pakistani child who became an international symbol of resistance to bonded child labour. Decades have passed, yet children continue to suffer in brick kilns, workshops, factories and other workplaces. What sort of society allows an orphan, sent to learn a trade, to become a source of cheap labour? Pakistan has roughly 22 million children out of school, depending on the year and measurement. Think about that enormous reservoir of human potential. Millions of minds that could become electricians, engineers, technicians, programmers, scientists, entrepreneurs and productive members of society. We are not merely wasting labour. We are wasting human intelligence. I welcome the creation of Daanish Schools and centres of excellence. They have their place. But excellence cannot remain confined to a few magnificent institutions whose buildings are visible to everyone while millions of children remain invisible. Education must reach the street, the village, the brick kiln, the orphanage and the poorest neighbourhood. I was an ordinary student. I came from Sukkur, and I attended St. Mary’s High School. It was not some grand institution reserved for the privileged. Yet the education, encouragement and foundation I received there helped make my life possible. I have never forgotten that. What Pakistan needs is a revolution of knowledge at the grassroots. Imagine thousands of small vocational learning centres across Pakistan. Existing classrooms, community buildings and unused public facilities could become places of learning. Retired teachers could return as mentors. Qualified electricians, engineers, mechanics and technicians could train young people under properly supervised programmes. Universities could adopt neighbourhood learning centres. Every district should have access to computer laboratories, AI learning facilities and online courses. Children should learn mathematics, English, digital literacy, coding, electrical installation, electronics and practical skills that lead to real employment. We have something previous generations could scarcely imagine: extraordinary educational resources available online, often at little or no cost. The missing ingredient is not always money. It is organisation, commitment and the determination to reach the poorest child. And let us be clear: vocational training is not a licence to exploit children. Training must be age-appropriate, supervised, safe, genuinely educational and compliant with child-protection laws. An apprenticeship must never become bonded labour under another name. A nation does not become prosperous merely by building prestigious institutions for a fortunate few. It becomes prosperous when the poorest child receives the tools to escape poverty through knowledge, dignity and opportunity. I want Pakistan to build thousands of modest centres of learning, not merely a handful of monuments to educational ambition. I want a revolution in which a child from a brick kiln can become an engineer, an orphan can become an entrepreneur, and a girl from the poorest village can become a scientist. From @iqbal_masih to the Children of Today: Pakistan Needs a Revolution of Knowledge Iqbal Latif

PAKISTAN IS LEARNING THE BEAUTY OF COEXISTENCE Look at these beautiful Navratri celebrations at a Hindu mandir in Karachi. Look at the atmosphere, the happiness, the freedom to celebrate one’s faith. An Indian lady has shared these scenes with admiration. And that, to me, is equally beautiful. Pakistan has travelled through tumultuous years. There have been tragedies, intolerance and injustices. I have never hesitated to raise my voice against them, and I never will. But we must also recognise what is good. For twenty or thirty years, I have witnessed aspects of this extraordinary coexistence in Pakistan. What has changed is that social media now allows millions of people to witness what was once hidden behind prejudice, propaganda and political hostility. An Indian appreciating a Hindu celebration in Pakistan. Pakistanis celebrating alongside their fellow citizens. Ordinary human beings discovering that they have far more in common than the politics of division would have them believe. This is how societies learn. This is how tolerance grows. We should never pretend that everything is perfect. It isn’t. But neither should we refuse to recognise progress when we see it. A nation must have the courage to acknowledge its failures and the generosity to celebrate its achievements. May every Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh and every other citizen of Pakistan enjoy the same dignity, security and freedom. That is the Pakistan I want to see. Coexistence is not a concession. It is civilisation. By Iqbal Latif Analyst. Writer. Student of the Universe.

You say flying cars stay level at all times. They do not. No multirotor stays level when it moves; to go forward, it must tilt and push air backwards. Alef goes further. Once it is airborne the whole body rolls 90 degrees onto its side; the two sides become the upper and lower wings of a biplane, and the cabin swings on a gimbal so the pilot stays upright. The cabin is gimballed precisely because the car does not stay level. You are defending a design you have not read. You tell me to wire a DC motor. Gladly. Alef flies on eight electric motors turning eight propellers. That is your DC motor, eight times over. The Roadster’s flight has no motor in it at all. It is a tank of compressed air, 10 nozzles and a set of valves. If the motor argument proves anything, it proves my case. You say I think everything is springs and gears. The Roadster’s flight system is simpler than springs and gears. It is a pressure vessel with a tap. And the engineering of a pressure vessel with a tap comes down to one question: how long does the air last? Here is the physics. Thrust is the mass of air you throw out each second multiplied by the speed you throw it. Cold compressed air leaves a nozzle at roughly 650 metres a second at best. A car of about 2 tonnes needs about 20 kN of thrust just to hang in the air. Divide the one by the other and you must throw out about 31 kg of air every second. Tesla says the tank holds about 250 kg. That is around 8 seconds of hovering. At the 80 kN Tesla quotes, it is about 2 seconds. And the push weakens as the tank pressure falls. That is not #flight. That is a jump with a soft landing. Now the propeller. It does the opposite. It does not carry its air in a bottle; it borrows the atmosphere for free and throws a great mass of it downwards slowly. For the same push, the power you spend rises with the speed at which you throw the air, so a big slow column of air is far cheaper than a small fast jet. That is why helicopters exist, why drones fly for minutes and not seconds, and why Alef lifted off flat ground and crossed the field with no ramp. Its time in the air is set by a battery, not by a bottle. Alef’s own video this month shows it flying over a Tesla #Roadster and a Cybertruck. That says it better than I can. So yes, Alef throws air out. It throws the sky’s air, with motors. The Roadster throws its own air out of a bottle, for seconds. The only endless supply of air in this story is the hot air from the stage. You say I do not know the first thing about engineering. I trained as an engineer. My professor taught me the first rule of design: it must be economical and it must have a purpose. With unlimited money, you can make anything jump. The question an engineer asks is what it does for the cost. And the FAA has already said the Tesla vehicle does not meet its definition of an aircraft. That is not my opinion. That is the regulator. I am not saying Alef has arrived. It is a single-seater, still under test, and it has yet to prove the full transition to winged cruise with a pilot aboard. But it is built on the physics of flight. The Roadster is built on the physics of a #jump, not #flying ✈️. The whole world of physics knows that.

THE ARMIES HAVE GONE. FRANCE REMAINS. Avenue Foch, Paris 1940 to 2026 Iqbal Latif I came across this extraordinary photograph of German troops on Avenue Foch in Paris in 1940, with the Arc de Triomphe standing silently in the background. And here I am today, standing on the very same avenue, where I live, looking towards the same monument—visually amalgamated with the historical scene, as though the past and present meet in a single frame. What a poignant reminder of history. In 1940, Nazi Germany marched into Paris. Its soldiers occupied these magnificent avenues. France was humiliated, its freedom taken away, and Europe plunged into one of the darkest chapters of human civilisation. But look at France today. The soldiers are gone. The dictatorship is gone. The Nazi empire is gone. But France remains. The French Resistance fought, the Allies sacrificed enormously, and together they defeated the monstrous machinery of Nazism. Paris was liberated in August 1944. There is a lesson here that goes far beyond France. Tyranny may occupy a city. It may conquer territory, destroy buildings, imprison people and silence voices. But it cannot permanently extinguish the spirit of a nation determined to be free. Nations suffer. Civilisations endure. People rebuild. Today, I walk freely along Avenue Foch, where occupying armies once marched. The Arc de Triomphe still stands, not as a monument to the conquerors, but as a witness to their disappearance. And I celebrate that freedom. History does not belong to the armies that march through our streets. It belongs to the generations that reclaim them. Long live France. Vive la France! 🇫🇷

Mr Musk, nobody needs this. You are bringing an atom bomb to a problem that one bullet solves. A car has one job: to take a family safely from home to work and back, every day, for years. Why does a road car need the thrust of an F-16? Why does it need to jump? We all know physics. You did not invent it with rockets. A thruster fed from a tank of compressed gas pushes hard for a few seconds and then the tank is empty. That is not flight, it is a hop. A catapult takes a jet from standstill to about 150 mph in around 2 seconds. Show me the Roadster at 150 mph two seconds after the lights change. Then show me who allows it on an interstate with families in the next lane. This is drama, not engineering for people. It is the same pattern as SolarCity, the tunnel, Twitter. Mars city, Moon mining, data centres in orbit: years of promises and not one dollar of revenue from any of them. Now Starlink needs towers on the ground and spectrum it cannot fill in a city. Yes, you may buy a phone company. You need the cash flow. But buying earnings at 10 times does not justify a price of about 118 times last year’s revenue. Stunts move the stock. They do not move the arithmetic. I wish I am wrong. Publish the numbers and I will say so. substack.com/@iqballatif/not…

This is the reason for what is happening today

This is evil

وطن سے آنے والی کالیں اُس رات سے میرا فون بند نہیں ہوا۔ امریکہ، لندن اور دبئی سے سینکڑوں پاکستانی پوچھ رہے ہیں کہ پیرس میں کیا ہو رہا ہے، کیا جل رہا ہے۔ پاکستان کے صحافی بھی فون کر رہے ہیں، اور کچھ تو فیصلہ بھی سنا چکے ہیں: "فرانس ختم ہو گیا۔ پیرس ختم ہو گیا۔ کچھ بڑا ہونے والا ہے۔" پیرس میں آگ لگے تو: "فرانس ختم ہو گیا! تباہی آ گئی! حکومت کچھ کرے!" اسلام آباد میں آگ لگے تو: "یہ جمہوریت کی اعلیٰ ترین مثال ہے، عین آئینی طریقہ ہے۔" اور اگر پانچ، سات یا آٹھ سال بعد بھی کوئی کارروائی ہو تو: "جمہوریت پر حملہ ہو گیا!" آگ آگ ہوتی ہے، چاہے شانزے لیزے پر لگے یا شاہراہِ دستور پر۔ لوٹ مار جرم ہے، چاہے نعرہ کسی کا بھی ہو۔ پرامن احتجاج حق ہے، تباہی نہیں۔ جو معیار پیرس کے لیے ہے، وہی اسلام آباد کے لیے ہونا چاہیے۔ مجھے یہ بات حیران کن لگتی ہے۔ انہی میں سے بہت سی آوازیں برسوں سے اپنے ملک کے تشدد کو معمول کی بات بتاتی آئی ہیں۔ جب سرکاری اور فوجی عمارتوں پر حملے ہوئے، جب ہمارے اپنے دارالحکومت میں آگ لگائی گئی، جب ایک صوبائی حکومت بار بار اسلام آباد پر قافلے لے کر چڑھ دوڑی، تو ہمیں بتایا گیا کہ یہ آزادیٔ اظہار ہے، جمہوری مزاحمت ہے، عوام کا غصہ ہے۔ کسی نے نہیں کہا کہ پاکستان ختم ہو گیا۔ ہمیں بتایا گیا کہ سب مستحکم ہے۔ یعنی پیرس میں چند گھنٹوں کی لوٹ مار فرانس کا زوال ہے، اور ہمارے دارالحکومت کا بار بار محاصرہ معمول کی سیاست۔ یہ تجزیہ نہیں ہے۔ یہ اپنی برہمی کا انتخاب اس بنیاد پر کرنا ہے کہ ہجوم کس کی طرف کھڑا ہے۔ سب کے لیے ایک ہی اصول انصاف کی بات یہ ہے کہ پاکستانیوں کی جمہوری شکایات حقیقی ہیں: انتخابات، گرفتاریاں، فوجی عدالتیں اور اختلافِ رائے کا گلا گھونٹنا۔ یہ سوالات دیانت داری سے اٹھائے جا سکتے ہیں، اور ان کے جواب ملنے چاہییں۔ لیکن شکایت اور ہجوم میں فرق ہے۔ پرامن احتجاج حق ہے، پیرس میں بھی اور اسلام آباد میں بھی۔ لیکن پابندی والی جگہ پر جانا، املاک کو آگ لگانا اور دکانیں لوٹنا کہیں بھی حق نہیں، چاہے جھنڈا، لیڈر یا نعرہ کوئی بھی ہو۔ جب ریاست تشدد روکتی ہے تو وہ جمہوریت نہیں چھین رہی ہوتی۔ تشدد روکنا ریاست کا فرض ہے، اور ہفتے کی رات فرانس نے بالکل یہی کیا۔ فرانس پر بھاری قرض ہے، معاشی دباؤ ہے اور گہری سیاسی تقسیم ہے، اور اسے ان کا سامنا کرنا ہوگا۔ لیکن فرانس ختم نہیں ہوا، کیونکہ اس کے ادارے قائم رہے، اس کی پولیس نے ایک قانونی پابندی نافذ کی، اور پیر تک اس کی سڑکیں صاف ہو جائیں گی۔ زیادہ اہم سوال یہ ہے کہ کیا ہم اپنے ملک کو بھی اُسی معیار پر پرکھیں گے جو ہم اتنی آسانی سے دوسروں پر لاگو کرتے ہیں؟ ٹوٹی کھڑکی بدلی جا سکتی ہے، لُٹی ہوئی دکان دوبارہ کھل سکتی ہے۔ لیکن اُس معاشرے کا کیا ہوگا جہاں غصہ تباہی بن جائے، اور ہم آگ کو صرف تب آگ کہیں جب وہ کہیں اور لگی ہو؟ چہروں کو یاد رکھیے۔ ٹوٹا ہوا شیشہ تو صرف سطح ہے۔ اصل کہانی وہ ہے جو اس کے پیچھے ہے، پیرس میں بھی اور اپنے گھر میں بھی۔ میں وہاں تھا۔ میں نے یہی دیکھا۔ اقبال لطیف

وطن سے آنے والی کالیں اُس رات سے میرا فون بند نہیں ہوا۔ امریکہ، لندن اور دبئی سے سینکڑوں پاکستانی پوچھ رہے ہیں کہ پیرس میں کیا ہو رہا ہے، کیا جل رہا ہے۔ پاکستان کے صحافی بھی فون کر رہے ہیں، اور کچھ تو فیصلہ بھی سنا چکے ہیں: "فرانس ختم ہو گیا۔ پیرس ختم ہو گیا۔ کچھ بڑا ہونے والا ہے۔" پیرس میں آگ لگے تو: "فرانس ختم ہو گیا! تباہی آ گئی! حکومت کچھ کرے!" اسلام آباد میں آگ لگے تو: "یہ جمہوریت کی اعلیٰ ترین مثال ہے، عین آئینی طریقہ ہے۔" اور اگر پانچ، سات یا آٹھ سال بعد بھی کوئی کارروائی ہو تو: "جمہوریت پر حملہ ہو گیا!" آگ آگ ہوتی ہے، چاہے شانزے لیزے پر لگے یا شاہراہِ دستور پر۔ لوٹ مار جرم ہے، چاہے نعرہ کسی کا بھی ہو۔ پرامن احتجاج حق ہے، تباہی نہیں۔ جو معیار پیرس کے لیے ہے، وہی اسلام آباد کے لیے ہونا چاہیے۔ مجھے یہ بات حیران کن لگتی ہے۔ انہی میں سے بہت سی آوازیں برسوں سے اپنے ملک کے تشدد کو معمول کی بات بتاتی آئی ہیں۔ جب سرکاری اور فوجی عمارتوں پر حملے ہوئے، جب ہمارے اپنے دارالحکومت میں آگ لگائی گئی، جب ایک صوبائی حکومت بار بار اسلام آباد پر قافلے لے کر چڑھ دوڑی، تو ہمیں بتایا گیا کہ یہ آزادیٔ اظہار ہے، جمہوری مزاحمت ہے، عوام کا غصہ ہے۔ کسی نے نہیں کہا کہ پاکستان ختم ہو گیا۔ ہمیں بتایا گیا کہ سب مستحکم ہے۔ یعنی پیرس میں چند گھنٹوں کی لوٹ مار فرانس کا زوال ہے، اور ہمارے دارالحکومت کا بار بار محاصرہ معمول کی سیاست۔ یہ تجزیہ نہیں ہے۔ یہ اپنی برہمی کا انتخاب اس بنیاد پر کرنا ہے کہ ہجوم کس کی طرف کھڑا ہے۔ سب کے لیے ایک ہی اصول انصاف کی بات یہ ہے کہ پاکستانیوں کی جمہوری شکایات حقیقی ہیں: انتخابات، گرفتاریاں، فوجی عدالتیں اور اختلافِ رائے کا گلا گھونٹنا۔ یہ سوالات دیانت داری سے اٹھائے جا سکتے ہیں، اور ان کے جواب ملنے چاہییں۔ لیکن شکایت اور ہجوم میں فرق ہے۔ پرامن احتجاج حق ہے، پیرس میں بھی اور اسلام آباد میں بھی۔ لیکن پابندی والی جگہ پر جانا، املاک کو آگ لگانا اور دکانیں لوٹنا کہیں بھی حق نہیں، چاہے جھنڈا، لیڈر یا نعرہ کوئی بھی ہو۔ جب ریاست تشدد روکتی ہے تو وہ جمہوریت نہیں چھین رہی ہوتی۔ تشدد روکنا ریاست کا فرض ہے، اور ہفتے کی رات فرانس نے بالکل یہی کیا۔ فرانس پر بھاری قرض ہے، معاشی دباؤ ہے اور گہری سیاسی تقسیم ہے، اور اسے ان کا سامنا کرنا ہوگا۔ لیکن فرانس ختم نہیں ہوا، کیونکہ اس کے ادارے قائم رہے، اس کی پولیس نے ایک قانونی پابندی نافذ کی، اور پیر تک اس کی سڑکیں صاف ہو جائیں گی۔ زیادہ اہم سوال یہ ہے کہ کیا ہم اپنے ملک کو بھی اُسی معیار پر پرکھیں گے جو ہم اتنی آسانی سے دوسروں پر لاگو کرتے ہیں؟ ٹوٹی کھڑکی بدلی جا سکتی ہے، لُٹی ہوئی دکان دوبارہ کھل سکتی ہے۔ لیکن اُس معاشرے کا کیا ہوگا جہاں غصہ تباہی بن جائے، اور ہم آگ کو صرف تب آگ کہیں جب وہ کہیں اور لگی ہو؟ چہروں کو یاد رکھیے۔ ٹوٹا ہوا شیشہ تو صرف سطح ہے۔ اصل کہانی وہ ہے جو اس کے پیچھے ہے، پیرس میں بھی اور اپنے گھر میں بھی۔ میں وہاں تھا۔ میں نے یہی دیکھا۔ اقبال لطیف

Not even hot air, Marcin: cold air. Your line is witty; and the physics makes it even better. It isn't hot air at all. It's cold air: compressed air expands as it leaves the nozzle and cools, which is why the thrusters are called cold gas thrusters. The thrusters blow compressed air that cools as it expands, which is why they're called cold gas thrusters. And that is exactly the problem. The car doesn't fly. It drives up a five storey ramp on its own speed, hangs upside down by suction fans, then lets go and falls, cushioned by jets of air. Its tanks reportedly hold about 250 kg of air, enough for roughly 8 seconds of hover. One minute would need more air than the car weighs, because every second it must lift the air it hasn't used yet. That is a jump, not a journey. Compare Alef Aeronautics, which welcomed Tesla to "the flying car race" this week. Its Model A lifted straight off flat ground with no ramp and flew over a row of parked cars, because its electric propellers push on the air around it, as wings and rotors do. Pushing on the outside air can improve year after year. Carrying your own air gets worse with every second. Alef still has hard questions of its own, about certification, landing in cities and insurance, but at least it is running the right race. The real test is delivery. Tesla promised this car for 2020 and now promises 2028. @SpaceX made promises to investors about data stations in orbit. Those will be tested against physics: heat that can only leave by radiation, data squeezed through radio links, chips damaged by radiation. My own reckoning is that by the time such stations could come online, around 2028 to 2030, the power shortage on Earth that they are meant to solve will have eased. A brilliant engineering team, a spectacular show, and once again, no destination. My letter to Elon Musk, with the full physics: iqballatif.substack.com/p/th… Iqbal Latif

Thank you, Nagem. These are excellent points, and the Nagler-Rolz NR 54 is a lovely example. Its little engines sat on the rotor tips, so there was no torque to cancel. But I’d put it slightly differently: there aren’t two philosophies here. There is one law of physics and two ways of paying it. To hold anything up, you must push something down. The only question is what you push. Alef, like the NR 54, every helicopter and the Wright brothers’ wings, pushes on the outside air: a large mass of air, moved slowly. That is cheap, and the air is free; you never have to carry it. Tesla pushes its own stored air out through nozzles: a small mass, thrown very fast. That is the most expensive way there is, because you must carry everything you throw, and lift what you haven’t thrown yet. Hence about 250 kg of air for roughly 8 seconds, and more air than the car weighs for a single minute. Look at the shape of Alef’s car. The whole body is built around moving outside air. That is the tell. You could lift two tonnes with rockets, of course; SpaceX does it every week. But burning rocket fuel to hover a car a few metres up is like using a cannon to post a letter. On your energy-storage point, you’re right for Alef: better batteries mean longer flights, year after year. But no battery helps Tesla’s thrusters, because their limit isn’t energy, it’s the air itself. Room-temperature compressed air can only leave a nozzle so fast. Better tanks give you a second or two more, not a journey. So both are clever engineering. But only one can grow into transport. One is a small aircraft that can drive; the other is a car that can jump. I hope you enjoy the letter, and I’d welcome your challenges to the physics. Iqbal Latif substack.com/@iqballatif/not…

Congratulations, @AlefAeronautics Your clip shows exactly the difference I wrote about this week. Your car lifts off flat ground with no ramp and crosses the field, because its propellers push on the air around it. Tesla’s Roadster carries its own compressed air, about 8 seconds’ worth, and needed a five-storey ramp to get its height. Pushing on the air can improve year after year. Carrying your own air gets worse with every second. One is a small aircraft that can drive; the other is a car that can jump. But since you’ve welcomed Tesla to the race, I’ll ask you the same questions I asked Elon. Where does a Model A take off and land in a city? Who flies it, and with what licence? When will it be certified for everyday use beyond exhibition and research? And who will insure it? Eleven years in the race is impressive. The finish line is the answer to those four questions. My letter to Elon Musk, with the full physics: iqballatif.substack.com/p/th… Iqbal Latif

"Flying cars may be closer than we think." Not this way. I asked the simple question Fox didn't: what is it for? Is it flying? No. It drives up a vertical ramp on its own speed, hangs upside down by suction fans, then lets go and falls, cushioned by puffs of compressed air. The "kickflip" over the cars is a jump, not a flight. A jump is airborne, but it is not a journey. "This will be an actual car on the roads." Perhaps. But there is no ramp on a road. Without the wall, all the jets can manage is a short hop. On a highway at 70 mph, 8 seconds in the air carries you about 250 metres. You land wherever the air runs out, on whoever is below. How long can it stay up? Its tanks reportedly hold about 250 kg of air, enough for roughly 8 seconds. One minute would need about 2,700 kg of air, more than the car weighs. Refilling takes about a full charge of a big electric car, for 8 seconds of show. Can it get better? The Wright brothers flew 12 seconds in 1903, but they had wings, and two years later they flew 39 minutes. Stored air works the other way: every extra second needs more air to lift the air it hasn't used yet. Who allows it? Which aviation authority will certify it? Which insurer will cover it? Which driver will hold a pilot's licence? Roads and the sky are two different worlds, and this car belongs to neither. Brilliant engineering. Real utility: extra grip from the fans, perhaps. Flying cars have not arrived. A stunt has. My letter to Elon Musk, with the full physics: iqballatif.substack.com/p/th… Iqbal Latif

The Sword and the Book: How History Inflated Its Conquerors, and Why Only Ideas Remained History measures conquerors by the land they took and the people they killed. I measure them by what remained in the minds of people after the army left. It began with a number I never believed. Juvayni says 1.3 million people were killed at Merv in 1221, counted by a cleric over 13 days. That is 100,000 bodies a day, 70 a minute, day and night. The walls of Merv enclosed about 550 hectares. To hold 1.3 million, every hectare would have held 2,360 people, 8 times the density of Manhattan, in houses of mud brick. A mud city cannot give up more dead than it held. So I put 2,500 years of conquest to four tests: the people a city's walls could hold, the people alive on Earth, the grain an army must eat, and the years between an event and the man who wrote it down. The dead were inflated. Babur's men reckoned 15,000 dead at Panipat; a few days later Agra said 40,000 to 50,000. The armies were inflated. Xerxes' 2.6 million never marched, because no road could feed them, and the Gedrosian desert killed more of Alexander's men than all his battles. The maps were inflated. Conquerors took the hinge, the capital and the treasury, and the rest paid. At Plassey, Bengal changed hands for 22 dead. Then the real question. Attila, Timur and Nadir Shah were brilliant soldiers, and they left graves. Those who carried a book, a law, a language or a school left something that outlived them by a thousand years. The Mongols prove it twice. With only the sword they left ruins. When their grandsons took the book of the people they had conquered, they built observatories, and in the end the Taj Mahal. Across the line in Korea, one people of one blood took two ideas; 70 years later one half is lit at night, the other dark. In Ho Chi Minh City I watched young Vietnamese dance to Michael Jackson in front of the statue of Ho Chi Minh. The Viet Cong won the war; America won the young. The sword can carry an idea or kill an idea, but it cannot create one, and it cannot build anything that lasts on its own. The book is free, as all my work is. Read it here: iqballatif.substack.com/p/th…