Is this reader mode or some sort of adblock-style list? (if it's the latter, I'm looking for one that I can easily add without it breaking too many sites - in my experience, the "annoyance" lists for uBlock cause too much breakage to have them enabled by default).
I realized that we may soon live in a reality where that's not an option, but I bet the car he had still allowed him to turn off the radio with the ad.
(I'm sure there would have also been countless ways to make the thing play actual music, but turning it off is the most obvious course of action.)
One of these sets of risk is mostly theoretical (aside from the large scale stoplight outage), one of them is happening often enough that anyone who takes rideshare repeatedly will have a story.
If we limit ourselves to risks that have actually manifested, not hypothetical risks, I'd rather risk getting stuck at an intersection if there is a city wide power outage than deal with the weird conversations I've had on rideshares (not even counting the countless drivers who demonstrated that it is possible to drive a car without crashing for the duration of one rideshare ride without taking your eyes off the phone for more than a few seconds at a time).
> propulsion, warheads, arming and safety, QA, traceability, climate and shelf life stability.
The further down the list you go, the more optional the requirements get in a sufficiently dire scenario.
Shelf life doesn't matter if you are firing them as quickly as you can make them, especially if you actually can make them as quickly as you need them because they're so simple. QA and traceability may matter less if you just accept that you'll occasionally lose a launcher, and even occasionally have a stray missile land in someone's living room because that's better than having a non-stray Shahed in said living room.
In terms of safety, I bet it'll still beat "cutting open existing munitions and literally duct taping random other fuzes to them", which seems to be the bar for "good enough".
Shelf life doesn't matter if you are firing them as quickly as you can make them, especially if you actually can make them as quickly as you need them because they're so simple.
Right. High-volume users can skip the thermal batteries with decades-long shelf life, and just spot-weld a few AAA batteries inside the weapon. Just stencil the thing "Best if used by DATE". Good for a year or two at least. Skip the anti-corrosion stuff and ship it in consumer-grade shrink wrap. Ukraine ships drones to the field in lightweight cardboard boxes, not rugged weapons containers.
Many US weapons are really old designs. The Patriot went into production in 1980. The Stinger went into service in 1981. There's been progress since then. Consumer-grade parts can do most of what's needed.
AAA batteries don't have the current. Li-Ion is too fussy and has a pretty high self-discharge.
Ukraine can afford the cardboard boxes because they are fighting in their own country. The US has an ocean to cross.
Ukraine can get away with short shelf life because they are at war right now. The US has to stockpile because the supply chain has to run at some capacity in peace time to be able to ramp up quickly when needed, and discarding the produced ammunition after a year would be incredibly wasteful.
Neither Ukraine nor Russia can defeat each others' air defence networks. The US has a lot of experience doing just that, while successfully defending against ballistic missiles. High tier capabilities matter.
The Patriot in 1980 is a very different system from the Patriot that is fielded today. Between PAC-2 and PAC-3, AN/MPQ-65A and LTAMDS it's a cutting edge air defence system. The progress is constantly incorporated.
The Stinger is a bit old, but mostly because the US doctrine has few uses for it. Regardless, NGSRI is coming.
But this is exactly the point: This approach allows for insurgents or parties subject to overwhelming but expensive force to strain the logistics and budgets of their opponent. This is something that would be far more costly for the US to counter.
I don't understand your point. Sure, Ukraine can cut a few corners that western militaries are unwilling to cut. They still can't produce a domestic ballistic missile at scale, because it's genuinely hard, and simple terror weapons like Qassams are useless for militaries. "100 rockets for $10k" is off by orders of magnitude.
100 harmful rockets for $10k is off by orders of magnitude, but that was entirely not the point.
The point is that if you're in a asymmetric position where you can't do much damage directly, then whatever you can do to make the other side waste expensive resources while putting them on constant alert is a win.
You don't need a warhead, or a viable rocket, to do that. You need something that looks enough like a viable rocket to force a response, because the other side knows that x% are real.
If that thing is cheap enough for you to fire large numbers of them, you multiply the problem for your opponent. Cheap enough, and you have the potential to overwhelm the capacity of their countermeasures entirely, at which point you increase the chance that some of their real rockets will make it through.
To "look enough" like a missile that can hit something a hundred kilometres away with enough precision to not be ignored you need a missile that can fly a hundred kilometres. This is not cheap.
> They still can't produce a domestic ballistic missile at scale, because it's genuinely hard
Also, because it costs a lot and there are only two benefits of ballistic over cruise (if you exclude delivering nuclear payloads, which Ukraine doesn't have): it's very fast and hard to intercept. Both are needed sometimes, but often not a requirement.
Ukraine is comparatively small, so air defenses can be packed close, Russia is big and harder to cover with air defense systems, so drones and cruise missiles are a better investment for Ukraine, since they can overpower the AD locally and are much-much easier and cheaper to produce, meanwhile ballistic is a better investment for Russia, since anti-ballistic systems are even harder to build and cost a lot.
I think the point is to look at the US requirements compared to the cost and explore ways that a country could gain strategic advantages by building objectively worse products. (But cheaper/faster, gaining an asymmetric advantage in the offense/defense scaling)
I used to think the US dollars were well spent, because we felt it was morally important to deliver precision strikes which had higher cost requirements. Recent evidence demonstrates that is insufficient when the wetware making the targeting decisions is faulty.
With the right software, ESP32 can be incredibly low power. Like "months on 3xAA batteries" for watching a pin with the ultra low power subsystem and then occasionally waking up and making a HTTPS call over WiFi.
That's not lower power, is it? E.g. RuuviTags can run 3 years or longer while sending sensor data 2.5 times per second, with a single CR2477 (3V 1000mAh). A single AA alkaline battery has 1.5V and 2100-2700 mAh (https://batteryskills.com/aa-battery-comparison-chart/ , somehow this data was difficult to find so I'll add this link :)).
Bluetooth is lower energy than WiFi, but in your scenario the energy used for the radio is quite low anyway.
There definitely are lower-powered options; I mostly meant that as an example that as an hobbyist, an ESP32 - possibly even on a standard dev board! - could easily be good enough for your use case.
I never did a formal study to see how much of that power use was standby vs. power-on usage, how much of the standby usage was the ESP32 vs. the board/voltage regulators/pulldowns, how much of the power on usage was radio vs. e.g. all the crypto (we're doing asymmetric crypto for the TLS handshakes on batteries here, that isn't going to be cheap!) etc.
I just slapped it together and found it good enough to not care further.
Actually I've read claims that ESP32 C6s are pretty decent battery-consumption-wise. So much so that I bought a few, hoping to make at least a doorbell out of it. Alas I don't have a device to measure microampers, so I guess I'll just see how long they're fare..
You can use ohms law - let it draw power through a 10k resistor, and put your multimeter across the resistor. Every .01 volt is 1 uA. This also means that if you're powering it with 3.3v and it browns out at 3.0v, you'll only be able to draw 30uA before browning out.
You can use a different resistor according to the power draw and how sensitive your volt meter is.
You'll probably need to power it up with the resistor shorted, and only remove the short once it's in sleep mode, to measure the current.
This is just kind-of low-power. Some microcontrollers (e.g. PICs) can have sleep consumptions measured in nanoamperes. Months to years on a coin cell... just, they would need an external wifi module, which is highly inconvenient.
No, it was an undocumented one-off using a random cheap devboard from Aliexpress (i.e. not some specifically optimized circuit!), built (IIRC) using the Arduino IDE - aside from spending the time to find and configure the low power mode properly, this was done in the dumbest, most naive way possible, and still worked.
Sometimes reviewers also look for whether the paper cites enough of their own papers, who is publishing it (regardless of whether the review is supposed to be anonymous or not), whether it clashes with a paper they're about to publish... science is just as full of politics and corruption (if not more) as any other field.
I almost added "place the research into the context of other relevant research" as another way of saying "cite enough of the peer reviewer's papers" but fair enough.
I'm not sure if science has as much corruption as other fields, but it definitely has politics. PIs get to their position without the typical selection process for leadership that happens in most larger orgs, so there's more fragile and explosive personalities than I find in other management/leadership positions.
They also don't seem to account for the reduction of sulfur emissions from ships, which is surprising given how widely this was reported even in mainstream media.
Is this an oversight (or "oversight") or something that is reasonable for some reason that would be so obvious to experts in the field that it's not worth mentioning?
I mean...they're just cherry-picking the sources of "noise" that prevent their preferred window from showing "significance". It's not like they did a thorough analysis of every uncontrolled factor and carefully tried to control them all. Even that would be crap, but at least it would be good-faith crap.
The paper doesn't seem to account for the reduction in sulfur emissions from ships, which was widely reported to be the cause for some of the recent warming?
The worst thing you can do when you're actively geoengineering is to abruptly stop doing it. So naturally we found a way we were already doing it and cut it immediately to make sure we fuck ourselves as much as possible :)
I'm almost convinced it's intentional at this point, the rich are busy building their offbrand vault tec bunkers and starting random wars for no real reason. Longtermism nonsense over the today.
Clearly worth the tradeoff of not making the worst catastrophe we've ever faced as a species exponentially worse?
I mean hell, piston engined airplanes use leaded fuel and crop dust it over everyone daily, but nobody cares as long as they get to fly them and that's a just minor money saving measure that causes a lot environmental consequences.
China has long surpassed most countries in per-capita emissions and is still on an upward trajectory. India is on an upward trajectory but still below the world average. The US and Canada are higher than China but on a downward trajectory. The EU is on a downward trajectory and below China.
You quickly start seeing people's root biases about when you bringing info like this up, "well but historically ...", "you know, the colonialism", "per capita ...", etc. I wish we could deal with the here and now and deal with this scientifically.
You're right. When I posted some facts about Chinese and Indian emissions, my post was actually flagged by someone who didn't want those facts to be known. When it comes to the climate, the Left are not interested in honest pursuit of science - they just cherry pick data that supports their neo-Marxist agenda of redistributing wealth and capabilities from the West to the East, driven by their hatred of the West and its success under capitalism.
"hostis humani generis" implies "subject to violence and execution by anyone" (Wikipedia). The label has historically been a term/label for pirates, with the penalty for those caught generally being death. So yeah, they did suggest death for those people.
Is this reader mode or some sort of adblock-style list? (if it's the latter, I'm looking for one that I can easily add without it breaking too many sites - in my experience, the "annoyance" lists for uBlock cause too much breakage to have them enabled by default).
reply