VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
not particularly vulnerable to drone and missile stikes
There have been several generations of armor and anti-armor development since WWII, and I wouldn't bet on the 12+ inch steel belts stopping modern weapons anywhere near as well as they used to. A modern, man-portable Javelin missile claims more armor penetrating power than the Iowa class was designed against, which at the time was something like a 16 inch shell that might have weighted well over a ton and left the barrel at 1700mph. Shaped charges had only started appearing during WWII.
I doubt anyone has ever tested it ("it belongs in a museum!") but I'd bet the latest AT weapons could penetrate a battleship turret. I believe this is part of why modern navy ships are armored only against much smaller shells and depend more on active protection systems.
If we decided that patriot is the only air defense system we will need
In classic US acquisition fashion, we actually have several systems, with the Navy maintaining Aegis and using different missiles with AFAIK similar capabilities.
But giving such tests directly is illegal.
Is it? The College Board lets kids take AP tests that are accepted as college credit at lots of colleges. I assume a university could allow testing out of most/all classes, but AFAIK this is limited because professors (who have sway over that decision), especially outside of hard sciences, want students to have to take their courses to justify their jobs. And administrators want to keep collecting rent tuition.
There might be Civil Rights Act concerns for something novel, but universities mostly skirt by those with Tradition and maintaining a positive reputation with the justice system.
I think it could probably be done, but it's less clear that it's actually what students want or that developing the tests and maintaining integrity (cheating, leaking test questions) would be economical. IIRC some states don't require law school to sit for the bar exam, but it's not a popular option even there.
It's not just the piece of paper: the school is also, in theory, certifying that you actually read the books, watched the lectures, and can answer questions about the material. Otherwise you get lots of "I slept through half the video and only have a facile understanding of a fraction of the material" cases. Good schools generally (in theory) require deeper understanding.
The work of actually learning things is hard, and shortcuts are tempting. But perhaps there could be a business model for something like AP tests without the rest of what colleges provide.
A lot of modern jobs could replicate this - the biggest problem letting white collar workers take their young children to work is that it might be distracting
I recall the topic of corporate-provided childcare coming up in a company-wide chat at a medium-sized tech company I once worked at that considered itself employee-friendly and kept a sponsored GP doctor on site to encourage annual physicals. At the time the executive response was largely centered around insurance costs and liability. To be fair, the response was similar when asked about a pool for the company gym, but it does seem a reasonable concern that a jury would find the company liable for incidents regardless of the internal structure in ways that a separate building next door with no legal ties.
Observation: as far as I know, there aren't any large corporate chain daycare (and many other large-scale child service providers), possibly because liability risk bounds the benefits of corporate mergers and acquisitions.
Although I did also once work at a startup where someone started bringing their dog to work daily. At least it was pretty well-behaved.
I suspect you're right on the ABM interceptors for now, but I remember people saying similar things about cruise missiles a few decades back. We've been able to intercept incoming mortar fire at least a decade at this point, which was probably incomprehensible back in, say, Vietnam.
I found the ending of Children of Time unsatisfying, despite liking the book overall, because it was played as a surprise deus ex machina without really grappling with IMO bigger questions about tolerance. It had the chance to philosophically defend Fully Automated Gay Space Communism neoliberal tolerance, but opted instead to choose tolerance-by-force. If I were being uncharitable, I'd compare it to the Bush Administration waltzing into Afghanistan and expecting one weird trick (schools for girls) to trigger a warm embrace of Western values.
Fancy defence missiles are expensive and limited while Iran's ballistic missiles and Shaheds are much cheaper.
This has historically been the case, but I have heard rumblings from Ukraine that mass production of drone interceptors for Shaheds has actually pushed the price of those to below that of the attack drones. On one hand, guidance for hitting a moving target is difficult, but the actual interceptors are pretty tiny compared to the bombs attack side, which is also more complex (decoys, maneuvering, hitting moving targets, non-GPS navigation). Modern manufacturing makes lots of small, complex electronics devices pretty cheaply and I can imagine materials cost starts dominating for moving bigger warheads longer distances at some point.
I would also be unsurprised if the quoted prices aren't quite even comparisons: are the attack side prices including R&D overhead, or just unit manufacturing costs? Most Western weapon costs I see quoted include overhead, but compare against per-unit costs. The "price" of interceptors, which we historically haven't bought huge numbers of, might have a lot of room to go down.
Or maybe that's an exercise in wish casting, but I think it's worth considering.
certainly rhymes with the Roman republic’s transition to empire
I see the reasons for this comparison, and it makes a lot of sense to me: Congress has continued to cede more and more of its authority to the Executive. I'm not going to say that the current Trump administration hasn't tried to use that in novel way at a rate matching or exceeding his predecessors. But I also only see push-back on this one from the conservative side of aisle: the Roberts court has a continuing theme in its jurisprudence of telling Congress that it actually has to govern (overturning Chevron, the Major Questions Doctrine), and some of its most prominent members were nominated by Trump himself and confirmed by a right-leaning Senate.
It's easy (and sometimes tempting) to compare Trump to Caesar, but the right itself seems split on the direction to go there, not even forming Trump contra Roberts factions. And the left, which also occasionally makes these comparisons, doesn't seem to, at least from where I sit, have a coherent idea of what to do about it at all, not even something like wholesale backing the Roberts court on those principles.
Nonetheless, every single person I know who is worth more than $10 million reached that position through inheritance or marriage.
I guess I know a different crowd (American, here), but I know a few folks in that scale, all of whom are retired, married professionals (doctors, medium-tier business executives, engineers) that spent within their means and lived comparatively modestly and drive Toyotas. Maybe they inherited some of it, but it wasn't the majority of their income. But you also probably wouldn't know those details unless you were close to them: the millionaire-next-door types don't tend to talk much about money.
SpaceX exists because Elon Musk willed it into existence through what can only be described as an unreasonable application of personal capital, obsession, and tolerance for failure.
I think it owes a big part to a whole generation of engineers that wanted to build spaceships, but previously had to settle for either pushing paperwork on mundane siloed details at BigGovCo contracting for NASA or the DOD, or settling for work outside of aerospace. I know some of them. The stream of smart college graduates willing to work long hours for peanuts just because the work was cool was there before, but not the money to pay for peanuts and materials. I'll give credit for the funding and risk-taking, but I have more mixed feelings on building an empire on burning out smart early-career engineers.
I would observe that Lloyd's doesn't have the power to shoot back at and neutralize hazards to navigation or threaten Iranian oil infrastructure (Kharg Island, perhaps) in return, and has to additionally assume the risk that the US might choose not to protect ships, not just that it would fail in doing so.
IMO the most egregious detail there is that Proposition 8 passed. A majority of California voters were effectively deemed to be too far-right to be acceptable leadership. Perhaps uncharitably, this policy is also vaguely racist, given the demographics on that proposition's supporters included disproportionate numbers of minorities.
Most serious proposals (NERVA et al, IIRC a few reactors have even been flown) launch fueled but never turned on until safely in orbit, such that if you atomized it on reentry you'd only end up with an enriched uranium scattered all over, but not all the random decay products with shorter half-lives you'd expect in an operational reactor. AFAIK a sub critical mass of U235 isn't amazingly hazardous. Still not great, but nowhere near as bad.
IMO it'd still be stupid to use something like a nuclear saltwater rocket or Project Orion on Earth. I could maybe be convinced that it's "safe enough" out of the local area, though.
Conceivably, if the price of gold were to crash drastically (sorry, gold bugs) it would open lots of industrial/consumer uses for a corrosion-resistant metal that is a good conductor.
Asides from a crazy YouTuber, I'm not sure who is doing self-sustaining small-scale biosphere research these days. Which is a pity because if Elon (not personally a fan) were ever serious about colonization he could have thrown some money at it. And there are a few potential earth-side uses too (fallout bunkers, seasteading, submarines). It seems like the minimal project isn't that large, maybe the size of a garage, and IMO Biosphere 2 went a completely wrong direction in trying to build a diverse zoo, rather than a simple [1] nutritionally-optimized yeast/algae closed loop.
- Note that this is not at all simple, but it's presumably easier than a biosphere with dozens of plant species and other animals.
Related: a few (former?) forum regulars have gone on to national-level profiles via Substack or Twitter.
Poorly-organized mobs can still engage in ethnic cleansing: see Rwanda. International law, to the extent it exists, found no trouble finding and convicting people for it.
An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land
We had that: international parties Sykes and Picot (with the assent of a few other powers) decided the land was properly British. Surely everyone there will agree to abide by this arrangement.
Sarcasm, if unclear, but I doubt you could get the parties involved to agree to binding international mediation for much the same reasons that fell apart to begin with.
I generally agree with you, I'm just observing it's a huge ask and probably a hard sell.
"Anytime anywhere" inspections is a pretty big ask. I can see why the West would want it, but I can't see any major power agreeing to it. I doubt the Russian inspectors in the US were ever allowed into Area 51, for example.
That presumes the US would be willing to fight and defeat the IDF (and also the other relevant parties) to enforce an outcome there, which seems laughable. It'd make invading Greenland (which by all accounts polled terribly) seem like a good idea, and isn't something a democratically-elected US government is likely to do.
How is America the victor in the 1948 (or choose a more recent one if you want) war between the current state of Israel and various Arab powers (including the Palestinians) in the former British Mandate of Palestine to legislate the outcome? It wasn't a party there.
Notably, the Nuremberg court never bothered to try Soviet officers for similar Red Army war crimes. Katayn, for example. Has "international law" ever been much more than vae victis?
- Prev
- Next

Is that ratio before or after San Francisco's historical reputation that many of its men aren't looking for women? I'm not familiar with the dating market anywhere, just curious.
More options
Context Copy link