Iran has showed it's neighbors something powerful which is US military can not protect you. The damage Iran did to us military bases is under reported.
FWIW, the whole conflict is a study on how much wars have changed. Information was always a part of it, but I have never seen it at a point, where I am entirely unsure on what is actually happening. Granted, some of the confusion appears to be by design courtesy of our president, who considers flailing some sort of grand strategy ( which may well work in real estate, but is ill-suited for something like this ). I can only speak for myself, but I find myself hesitating hard. I have zero doubt everyone is lying, but I have never seen such a wide chasm between two versions of the world we all occupy.
With respect, I think it's extremely clear what's actually happening, and the idea that it's confusing is a defense mechanism. The US and Israel launched a series of decapitation strikes, with the explicit and repeatedly stated expectation that this would lead to the overthrow of the Iranian government.
Then it didn't work, so they started a strategic bombing campaign.
Then that campaign proved ineffective at keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, leading to a sustained oil crisis.
So now here we are, with the entire world in a worse position than the status quo, and yet neither the US nor Iran feeling so defeated that they're willing to accept a conclusion worse than the status quo.
What you say might be true, but what you are saying this with some benefit of hindsight ( and even that is incomplete as we will likely learn more in years to come ).
<< So now here we are, with the entire world in a worse position than the status quo, and yet neither the US nor Iran feeling so defeated that they're willing to accept a conclusion worse than the status quo.
And this is exactly what I am referring to. The physical reality is what it is and won't care much for propaganda ( even soviet Russia eventually learned you can't sustain that forever ). But, to your point, I don't see both sides showing much hesitation.
If it helps, I am not saying you are wrong, but you may be already too entrenched in your worldview if you see fog of war as 'defense mechanism' and not a designed feature now supercharged by AI ( with some fascinating examples too ).
Actually a lot of the enlightenment ideas (which our government is based on) came from native American critiques of European societies. Read The Dawn of Everything for the details.
What your intro gif describes is "I can ask the chat to build a todo list" (not too novel, and I don't believe it would happen that fast). I feel like what you're actually trying to describe is "I can ask the chat to build a Kanban view of my todo list and the Abject, not the chat, takes over and asks the todo list for its data." You need little popups showing the messages going back and forth. If I've understood your idea at all, which is pretty difficult.
If you don't want to hack on it, you can just download the desktop apps for Mac, Linux, or Windows. Note the system is alpha, but I believe usable enough to do some fun stuff!
pnpm awake starts the backend
pnpm scry starts the client.
That's really all you need. If you want to run your own signalling server you can use whisper.
Their objectives keep shifting and starship is far behind schedule. Sure, it's a success if you keep objectives small. They could have tried for LEO ages ago but didn't. Each launch should maximize learning and having small objectives is anathema to that. And very wasteful.
If you think Starship is behind, look at the 'competition'.
Learnings per flight may not be maximal, but they are measured with enough risk so that bureaucrats will approve it (not restrict future launches) and other countries won't be impacted by a failure.
What would going into LEO have taught them? They have been there hundreds of times.
They don’t have small connectives, or was catching the Super Heavy booster and then reusing it too small for you? Not everything they are doing is public.
It's almost like if you don't have dependencies and coupling, you really just end up with a toolbox with widgets that don't do anything special when put together.
This article really misses the point of Collaboration. In biology there is the concept of symbiogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis). We are writing and speaking on the web because of collaboration.
The point of collaboration is to put people together that when combined are greater than the sum of their parts. You take person A individually and they may to X, you take person B individually and they may do Y. But individually X and Y might not be that valuable, it's their combination and the glue that combines them that is valuable.
What the article misses is that yes, 20% do 80% of the work. However, you can't predict which 20% will do 80% of the work. Not only that but it's not always the same 20% that do 80% of the work for all tasks and projects.
Collaboration is the 'glue', that little bit of added information, that combines the work of individuals into truly something great.
The challenge is how do you combine the work of individuals and I can tell you what doesn't work, rigidly planning and executing.
You are right. We don't need more EVs. Lets get rid of cars completely and built cheap electrified public transport. Make ICE cars illiegal. Going all EV won't help the environment. Going all public transport would.
Even in places where public transportation is very good, no bus goes everywhere or all the time, and trains are still limited to very specific routes. Need to go to the supermarket to buy food for your whole family? Not very practical on a bus. Live in rough area and come home from work late at night? Perhaps a car is safer. And so on. And this is in a city, it's even worse in rural areas.
Even as someone that loves electric vehicles and uses public transportation a lot, it's hard to get behind these extreme "let's ban X and go all on Y" views. It ignores how things work in the real world.
reply