Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | readthenotes1's commentslogin

Because "death traps for children" might be perceived negatively by some

Someone will tattoo the weights on their chest

If anyone thinks there's only one reason, it's a clear sign they're incapable of critical thought.

"This irks me primarily because I'm so tired of rampant capitalization and constant advertisements."

Asking for donations has nothing to do with "capitalism", and asking for one on your own blog nor is it "advertising".

If the author is tired of capitalism, he should give up direction of his blogging to hire authority. Otherwise, he's engaging in rampant capitalism.

"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism


" Don't be evil"

The slogans are on the walls because they are not in our hearts.

Google has not changed its moral compass in 20 years. You just didn't want to admit it


Ivermectin is a very potent drug against parasites. That's probably why it worked so well in third world countries to "treat" COVID-- It didn't affect the virus but it did reduce the immune burden on the body by getting rid of other stuff

Is this like fouci funding gain of function research and then being in charge of managing results (including but not limited to suppressing information about his role in it)?

Yall ain't sending your best huh


Spotted the intellectual.

Was it ever really suppressed, if everyone knew about it? Because it was public information. No conspiracy.

The Right: "Nobody is talking about subject X, where is free speech". -> meanwhile -> "Everyone is talking about subject X", because you always had free speech. It was just a McGuffin to rile up the base and take control so you can suppress others.


Can't even spell the name right? Come on, man.

So close!! That is a shape

Wasn't it just flying to a particular GPS, coordinate and exploding? That's quite a bit different than flying to an area and killing anything that moves...

It depends on the system. Some modern systems can react to high-value targets of opportunity, hunt for targets, or switch to a new target if the one they are after is destroyed before they get there. There are different variants of the weapons to deal with different use cases. The 1990s versions were relatively limited though.

Target selection is much more networked, automated, and adaptive than it used to be. Missiles can talk to each other.


I would hope it is. The fact it is even possible for a friendly system to lock onto another friendly system and fire upon it seems like a pretty big damn issue to engineer around. I guess they still haven't though considering kuwait shot down an f15 a couple months ago. You'd think lockheed or raytheon would have figured something clever out to solve this half a century ago.

This is a solved problem, and IFF was invented in the 1930s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe

It is believed that the Kuwaiti aircraft did not have its IFF transponder turned on (IFF is and has always been standard equipment on the F-18).


Clearly the problem isn't solved if people are still getting friendly fired.

Gulf war tomahawks didn't use GPS. They flew on terrain following radar (over Iran to improve accuracy), inertial reference, and image correlation for the final phase of attack.

Some cruise missiles have the ability to detect targets based on camera or infra-red match; on the other side, most (currently-deployed) drone types have at most that same capability. I believe that most of the infamous Shahed long-range drones that Russia has launched against Ukraine have been entirely inertial or satellite navigation based, with no independent re-targeting capability.

Correct. The capability you describe came only recently and only a small part of Shaheds have it.

The reason why pouring money into countries that source immigrants is a questionable solution is graft.

Yes, pouring money may not be a very efficient solution and graft can certainly happen. For me it's a combination of how much graft do we allow if we take the long perspective and see it shrinking over time (maybe we dont allow any, cold turkey)? And what are ways we can help change the environments that may not be directly tied to money? From my perspective, we often need (and graft) money the most when we don't trust ourselves and others to help us. So are there ways we can help build deeper relationships so money is not the only focus or way people think they can get help?

Possibly, but only if the mayor and a couple of city council members own the new land

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: