VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
Also it will be interesting to see if how cutting off shipping through Hormuz impacts China: in a hot war, it seems pretty easy for Taiwan and its allies (some combination of the US, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines) to cut off shipping to every Chinese port in much the same capacity, which is presumably far more painful.
There is no big technical hurdle they cannot quickly overcome.
At the moment, it seems likely they lack effective delivery mechanisms if nothing else: ballistic missiles aren't as reliable as they used to be, and I'd bet many of their avenues of sneaking something into Israel aren't what they were a few years back. Launching an unprovoked nuclear attack and failing is something that I don't have much precedent to go on, but I doubt enamors one with any existing nuclear powers.
Given the current state of Israeli diplomacy with literally every other relevant state in the region, why would attacking a third nation make any sense there? They've mostly put out generally supportive statements and countered attacks. Kuwait also shot down some US fighters in a friendly fire incident, but was presumably thinking them Iranian.
Iran has done some of that recently: what did the Azeris do to them? At best they are either flailing around --- it'd be hilarious if Israel, Ukraine, or US intelligence caused them to inadvertently strike Chechnya --- or trying to appeal to the negative sum game of a more regional war.
It isn't 1991 and the other Gulf states demonstrably won't reflexively refuse to be on the same side of a conflict as Israel, and that gambit didn't even work then.
Even worse, they might go all in and start bombing gulf desalination plants, at which point you guarantee a humanitarian crisis.
There were headlines about strikes on desalination plants a few days ago. We might already be here.
Iranian mine laying speedboats and other platforms are still operational. These are very hard to target from the air, they’re small, easily hidden, widely dispersed along the coast.
I've seen this claim a lot recently, often from the same people complaining a few weeks ago about (frequent) recent US strikes on similar accused drug-running speedboats in the Western Hemisphere. I'm not going to say it couldn't be a problem with sufficient numbers, but with air superiority it seems something a couple dozen drones with modern sensors could deter pretty effectively over a lengthy coastline.
I think we're slowly (re?)discovering the value of shared culture. A couple generations back technology didn't really allow highly-individualized culture, although it did allow regional variation. Broadcast media has nibbled away at the regional variation for a century at this point, but the niche individuality is much newer, driven by point-to-point technology. It's never needed to be an explicit choice before because we were content-limited, but I think we're starting to see people choose explicitly to watch what their friends are watching.
Those who pay the surcharge reduce the cost of labor to the employer...
Heh, I recently got to answer a tip prompt on a credit card reader from a sole proprietor.
From each according to “how much do I want to be (seen as) an asshole, today?”
There is certainly an element of this, especially IRL. But there are also examples like Andreas Kling writing much of SerenityOS and the Ladybird browser while paying rent with donations for BSD-licensed software.
desert
Not a word I associate with upstate New York, usually, although I'll admit I've never been to Woodstock.
Comparisons with modern Burning Man in Nevada probably aren't that far out of line, though.
The growth of tipping culture in the US, as much as I dislike it outside of specific traditions, does feel like a negative sign for capitalism: "you can just ask people if they want to pay more, and sometimes they do!" Whole careers have been built around Patreon and pay-if/what-you-want models.
On the other hand, this feels less Marx ("from each according to their ability") and more Banksian post-scarcity: "from each according to 'eh, why not?'".
We're probably 5-10 years out from "device with (parental) content locks enabled is able to internally detect and choose not to render objectionable content" (for separate check boxes of "nudity", "violence", and "heretical ideas", naturally). I have pretty mixed feelings about the idea: device-side removes a lot of the privacy concerns, but every year it feels like my freedom to do what I want with my electronic devices gets eroded.
Do the zero-knowledge proposals have good answers for the actual human parts of the systems? It's cryptographically interesting, but seems like it requires issuing authorities and all sorts of other identification crypto infrastructure from what I can tell.
I remain amused that I've lived long enough to see the zeitgeist shift from "poor communities are disadvantaged because they don't have computers and Internet access" --- see One Laptop Per Child as an example that people put real money behind to "fix" this --- to "poor communities are disadvantaged because they don't keep their kids off screens and the Internet". It's quite the vibe shift. And it only took a decade or so.
That said, I don't think kids should be given unfettered Internet access. I know what can happen: I was there, and the Internet was in many ways a less scary place back then. Although it's also where I learned a lot about the tech industry and programming and such.
Some of it is a general problem of the double-edge sword of (knowledge is) power. The Screen puts it all at your finger tips, any time, anywhere. How do we empower people to use this power for constructive purposes? More Khan Academy videos, less porn. Big picture stuff like that is easy, but I often find myself wondering about details like if another WWII history podcast is really the best use of my time. "I'm not wasting time Motteposting, I'm sharpening my witty and persuasive debating skills!" (X to doubt).
We're all like penguins crowding around on the edge of the ocean, not sure if there are any predators around. Nobody wants to be the first to jump post, but we'll all be there once someone else does.
There are plenty of overseas US bases that have medical facilities and schools for families of soldiers. And plenty of US military facilities that are directly in the middle of urban areas: San Diego, San Antonio, Norfolk, Alameda, Annapolis, and so on.
When I last looked at this, I was specifically looking at the turret armor, which doesn't have the extra layers of ship around it. It might be able to knock out a turret (with some luck on powder handling), but probably not the whole ship barring Jutland-type cascading failures Iowa's designers were aware of. But I also didn't really have much faith in comparing ballistic numbers from the 1920s with modern claims: it's unclear if "RHA equivalent" really is a static comparison and if all the sizes really scale linearly.
At least some of the "Trump is doing this to distract from The Files" feels a bit reminiscent of that time when a president facing salacious scandal at home decided to bomb Serbia. I'm going to withhold judgement on the accuracy of the either claim here.
Lastly, it’s unclear that a nuclear attack on Israel, depending on scale, would 100% be the end of Israel or (viable) Zionism.
Does Iran even have a sufficiently reliable delivery mechanism for this to be viable? At least a decent chunk of their ballistic attacks have been intercepted. Landing a nuclear warhead might have some (debatable) tactical/strategic benefit, but a bunch of spicy isotopes getting detected after a ballistic missile interception only has all of the fallout (heh). Existing nuclear powers trying to limit the viability of proliferation, and so forth.
And given Israel's intelligence victories over Iran previously, it seems likely they'd have advance knowledge of such an attempt, and likely have interceptor missiles earmarked specifically for, uh, non-conventional warheads.
"we want to eradicate you"
Khrushchev's "we will bury you" line to the West might be a relevant example here: there are alternate readings from the literal -- "we buried my grandmother" doesn't suggest a murder -- but the English default is pretty aggressive. Perhaps some of our Russian speakers can vouch for the idiom.
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.
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.
- Prev
- Next

This presumably depends on the technology for your missiles: if they're dumb ballistic things, you probably need to be very confident of where you are launching from and where they're going to point them the right way. If they're liquid-fueled you may need extra
targetstanker trucks to fill them once they're vertical. Smarter missiles help a lot with that (see why the Navy now uses VLS instead of missile turrets), but doesn't necessarily solve your problems like precisely initializing guidance systems.More options
Context Copy link