Which missile intercept systems do you refer to? Surely not the Patriot which has proven to be most effective in Ukraine. Due to poor planning, it sounds like the Patriot stocks have been blown thru so now things are exposed.
Iran copied oreshnik system, added decoys and other stuff, patriot is not effective against hypersonic, multiple vehicle missiles or decoys (which would require 1 patriot per vehicle) and is dependent on 2 radar systems functioning in the correct locations and the correct angle of attack from firing location. See Ted Postol's coverage https://www.youtube.com/live/Q2yQ3kBAQIk?si=JLvN2mVleKv64YDs. Even patriot is <5-10% effective in footage review from early Iran conflict before they started using hypersonic multiple vehicle missiles.
> patriot is not effective against hypersonic, multiple vehicle missiles or decoys (which would require 1 patriot per vehicle) and is dependent on 2 radar systems functioning in the correct locations and the correct angle of attack from firing location
This is mostly accurate. Patriot is effective against every "hypersonic" it's been fielded against, though that's mostly because Russia doesn't actually have a hypersonic missile. Iran, fortunately, doesn't have hypersonics–where did you get the idea they do?
Decoys are an issue. Two radar systems not really an issue.
> patriot is <5-10% effective in footage review from early Iran conflict before they started using hypersonic multiple vehicle missiles
Patriot has been about 33% effective. Becasue we fire 3 missiles at each target as standard course. Which means close to 100% intercept rate when targeted. "When targeted" may contain some bullshit, but it's a hell of a better bet than anything Postol is peddling without ample fact checking. (His record has been spotty for a while, particularly when it comes to OSINT.)
Put it another way: Iran has hit...tens of meaningful targets? In America and Israel? Do you think their missiles are just that terrible that they fire hundreds to thousands and a vanishing percentage go where they're meant to? (I'm ignoring that many of the high-value hits were with drones. Not missiles.)
We need to have realistic expectations though - air defense is an inherently asymmetric problem. The US broadly has the best air defense, but it's explicitly not focused on Russia or China, because it acknowledges that deterrence is the only plausible defense there.
While Iran isn't a superpower, they have hypersonic weapons that no system can intercept very reliably, and a sizeable assortment of ballistic missiles. Even if all other militaries joined forces, they probably couldn't intercept every single projectile coming out of Iran, at least not without depleting their interceptors to unacceptable levels.
“If we lived in a world where dictators and their flying monkeys get regularly shot or droned to death, we wouldn't have dictators”
While I agree with the sentiment, the groups who support dictators (oligarchs, religious extremists) would decide to also use violence. So both dictators and the leaders on the side of the people would be murdered and society would be destabilized.
We need reliable anonymous communication as yet another source of friction (drink!) which the state needs to overcome to subjugate the people. And that's why so many states, even western democracies, are trying to oppose it now using children or terrorists as an excuse. The authoritarians and wannabe-dictators (most of whom will never achieve their goal or even publicly state it) are already in government positions, always have been.
There are two upsides:
- There are more normal (good or neutral) people than there are authoritarians (bad people - who want to exercise unjustified control over other people's lives). If the leadership attributes are evenly distributed, then they need to kill more of us than we need to kill of them.
- I don't think people should need to be led. It's a symptom of submissivity many have been taught since childhood ("do what I say and don't talk back") and to some extent is it probably natural but hopefully it can be reduced through better upbringing. Teach your children to question everything and to guess people's incentives and motives. What we need need is enough independent thinkers who are able to communicate and self-organize.
Using violence against someone is the ultimate authoritarian act, so for one side this is business as usual while for the other this is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Your mention of anonymity reminds me of assasination politics [0], which is an idea I found enticing in the past. However I've since come to the opinion that such a system is neither optimal nor necessary, though I believe a similar outcome may be inevitable as we continue along the arc of the democratization of power through technical proliferation.
Only in single-step moral systems (one which judges actions as moral or immoral solely based on those actions in the moment and not what preceded them).
I have a multi-step moral system. Basically any unjustified intentional harm to a person justified proportional retaliation. Unjustified means it is not harm which is being caused as punishment to a previous offense. And proportional means that it shouldn't be too weak, neither too strong. IMO the optimum is causing something like 1.5-3x more suffering/"disadvantagement". However, it is important to signal to both the original aggressor and any potential witnesses why this is being done so that one is not mistaken for an original aggressor himself.
I am also a fan of judging others by their own moral principles. Basically, if someone thinks it is OK to, for example, limit my freedom or harm me (for various reasons or in various circumstances), I apply the same rules to him and it is therefore OK for me to limit his freedom or harm him (for similar reasons or in similar circumstances).
Either system leads to similar outcomes. (The first allows stronger response to offense, the second allows only mirroring).
Thanks for the link, it looks very interesting but it goes into my to-read list for today.
My theory is consistent repetition of messaging (Cialdini principles). The people aren’t stupid, they’ve been gradually brainwashed over years by propaganda like Fox News and “conservative” talk shows, or they have family/friends that repeat that messaging. It is at the point of groupthink where they all now openly celebrate bigots and extremists.
They probably don’t understand or care why tuna and others parts of our food chain are contaminated by mercury.
Maybe they just want to join a team and beat up on the other team. The fossil-funded GOP tells them each liberal position is evil, so the MAGAs reflexively go against it all, even if it means mutual destruction.
When I was a kid, it was common knowledge (IIRC) that you couldn’t trust lawyers or politicians. It’s crazy to me how people nowadays are putting so much trust in politicians.
Trolls get traced and fined in Germany. It ought to be done everywhere. The 1st Amendment is taken too literally in the U.S.. Insults, abuse, and blatant lies have no place in public discourse.
The First Amendment is not what grants you freedom of speech. You are born with it. It is your right, regardless of what any law, contract or person says. The First Amendment simply prohibits the government from infringing on it.
Fun fact, Weimar Germany back in the 1920s also had a lot of those types of laws (defamation lawsuits were very common, hate speech laws were also rather strict for their time, etc). The US on the other hand had more restrictions on speech (due to contemporary jurisprudence and interpretation of the 1st amendment) than it does now, but the law was still overall rather similar to what it is now.
So I sure know which model I prefer, and even though Germany today isn't Germany of the 1920s, the US still has had a much better track record when it comes to sensible free speech policy. Again, not saying that Germany is "worse" w.r.t free speech nowadays, just that the US has a system that has worked for centuries, and the fact that Germany has different laws don't make them better.
As an American who appreciates a strictly literal interpretation of the first amendment, it's very funny to me that a German not only takes pride in their government hunting down and suppressing inconvenient speech, but wants the rest of the world to fall in line.
The power of brainwashing. The results are somewhat unreal. Britons want Ukrainians to fight more than Ukrainians themselves. The explanation is Britons don't see hundreds of thousands deaths. Their media reprints reports from Zelinkiy office which state just a few thousands. This is called 'Support Ukraine' and they are proud of it. Till the last Ukrainian. Some politicians are more open and clearly say it's a cheap way to kill Russians. They want the war to continue. This is called 'strong position' or 'position of power'.
We are kind of in the middle of a speech war right now. The speech doesn't directly cause harm - but susceptible individuals cause harm via non-speech actions on the basis of that speech.
It's fine if your opinion on the best way to fight a war is to not fight, but that's just your opinion and not necessarily a good one.
I’m an American. I saw it on 60 Minutes last night. Any reason why you prefer the strictly literal interpretation? The difference between a personal insult and a criticism of something someone has done seems pretty clear cut to me. We could use more constructive discourse especially in the US.
Every amendment should be taken literally. How else should your rights be interpreted? Figuratively?
I agree with you that people are much better off using constructive dialogue, and communities like HN are much better off because of moderation, but the idea of some government agency tracking down and fining trolls is to me a laughable suggestion.
Stretching and bending can go long way. Did you know there are zillons of sexes now? It's not the brain, it's the wrong body. For each psychological disorder.
I'm curious how often others have experienced this. There have been so many times on many different projects where I've struggled with something hard and had the breakthrough only right before the deadline (self-imposed or actual deadline).
Congrats, sounds like an awesome project. I'll have to try it out.
If they're still rolling out new manufacturing lines, they are clearly still kicking and have investors who believe they have a viable product.
Did they have to move on from one technology? I mean I've never heard of them before but if you say so, that's not really that surprising with how fast with battery technology is evolving.
Amen. When I read the OP's post, I thought it could have been my manager. I am reserved, not outgoing, but I'm a team player. I prefer to take tasks, especially larger ones and bunker down exactly as you said.
I'm pretty useless in sprint refinements with asking questions in a group setting, but if I'm given a set of requirements or mockups, I'll knock it out of the park every time. Been doing it this way for almost decades now. I didn't snap quit when a previous employer started trying to get me more sociable but I was gone within a few months.
OP would be well-served to take your suggestions if they want the developer to stay.
If I won a contest and the prize was the choice between 100 BTC and 1 small vial of "Thieves" essential oil, I'd take the Thieves. Why? Because it has value (excellent in my homemade mouthwash). Also I can't support something that vampires countries' worth of electricity.
Correct, I value doing the right thing over money. By transacting in something like that, even if for a moment, I would be accomplice to a major environmental destroyer.
I've had an electric lawn mower for about 10 years now and I can tell you that it has reduced my maintenance costs. For the ICE mower, I had to take it in every spring or every other spring to get it tuned up so it would start (from memory those bills were ~$75 each tune up).
Same with the ICE snowblower that I bought back when I was young and dumb seeing all my neighbors with one, so I bought one - what a maintenance nightmare. I use snow shovels now which are way better for the environment and my health.
My neighbor has one, but I think he often uses more time working on it than with it. I've considered one, but honestly, it's just my driveway and I'm (still) relatively young so I can shovel for now.
Mosquitos are part of the food chain and a LOT of animals (reptiles, birds, spiders, bats, etc) depend on them. Eradication is an extreme solution with extreme consequences.
reply