This law is more than a decade in the making, the only reason it was on Apples roadmap is because of this law.

The EU doesn’t have to mandate a new connector when something new comes up, it just has to be an open standard, ANY open standard. This is miles better for everyone. And the EU doesn’t force the whole world to adapt their standard, it’s just not economical to produce different versions for different markets, but they are very much allowed to sell whatever to their non EU customers.

If you really want the lightning adapter back, you can ask one of the many people who soldered a usb-c connector in an iphone 12/13/14. If one person can do it, I’m pretty sure Apple can, too.

Usually these are empty when rolling into battle, they are used to get there in the first place. Tanks aren’t known for great fuel economy and the inside is already cramped, so for cross country travel it’s practical.

Oh yeah it’s really crazy impressive, from a technology pov this is amazing.

I concede I’m neither a biologist nor a doctor, and if lazy sperm is not genetic, respectively if children born from this would lead a completely normal life: awesome. I just think knowingly passing on serious disabilities with a high chance to a new generation is something that should be avoided, specifically because you can’t ask the people affected, which is the children born. In the end, it’s just my ignorant weird feeling from what looks like Frankensteining together something that seems dead to create new life.

This is clearly a case of “just because we can doesn’t mean we should”. Sounds like a really bad idea to create life from sperm that doesn’t even move. Some people are just not meant to have kids and should come to terms with it instead of passing their own problems on to the next generation. I think it’s selfish. Also it’s not like there aren’t enough people already, adopt and give a good life to a healthy child that otherwise wouldn’t have a future.

I agree you need much less capacity because you’d usually just want to even out fluctuations, but I think the general gist of the comment is still true: you need just 2,5x the amount of water to produce the same amount of energy. The article says very little about the liquid, and very little about why this would enable them to build this capacity much quicker. A little more data would be nice.

Ok this is off topic but… What are y’all printing so much? I print a form once or twice a year and just print at the store across the road or the library for 10ct a page. The printer I had probably cost me 3$ a page because I used it so rarely.

Wow that’s an enormous payload, is that an rpg warhead? Is the plastic wrapped block on top extra battery? How big is the carrying capacity of these drones?

Now I like dead vatniks in Ukraine just like the next guy, and I’m not sure this qualifies me to be the party pooper but the quirky tone when recounting war crimes does not sit well with me. Like when bush Jr misspoke and said “Iraq” instead of “Ukraine” and everyone laughed. Tens of thousands iraqis were killed on your orders (on false pretenses if that somehow makes it worse), yes you should be in prison, and no, you giving candy to Michelle Obama doesn’t kinda even it out.

Well yes and no. It’s a ballistic missile, so it doesn’t have a “low trajectory” but a ballistic flight path, which can be calculated from just 3 data points. It can indeed maneuver at all stages, but because it’s really fast (that part isn’t a lie), it’s only able to do very small deviations from it’s predetermined flight path (apart from also needing to hit the actual target, so it can’t just fly in a completely different direction). The deviations are so small that the patriot can just correct for them in many/most cases. So it’s not a lie it can maneuver, it’s just not as much as would be necessary to reliably avoid interception, even though patriots fly slower.

Once you pay you just get an email “stop falling for ridiculous scams you dumb fuck, you’ve hereby increased your IQ to 81, pleasure doing business with you.”

Слава Україні Brother

Yes, NATO tactics haven’t been proven against a peer enemy, but I would argue neither did the Soviet tactics, this war can hardly be seen as a show of force over a “peer enemy”. And NATO advisors saying “if there is a minefield, go around it” if they are continuous for many miles is naive to say the least. But my armchair general spidy sense tells me the static nature of the battlefield and allowing the creation of these minefields are both a consequence of Soviet tactics, not the other way around.

Let me preface this that I didn’t read the article due to the paywall. Now my answer: Not really. Soviet doctrine is really just a Zerg rush supported by artillery, it’s rather stupid in terms of tactics. Coordination between different arms is only minimal: “we bomb then you go, if you die we try to bomb from where they shot you.”

NATO doctrine is to out maneuver the enemy, which is really hard to learn as many branches of your army have to closely interact with each other to raise the pressure to a maximum. Timing is key, as is fast movement. Units have to trust each other to perfectly time each action. It has to be perfectly planned. Ukraine has to learn these on the go and also didn’t have the forces to keep up the pressure while preparing their counter offensive. This gave the Russians months to prepare their defenses. Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority to fuck up the observers and manning of these trenches & minefields, so they try to achieve the same with cluster munitions. In principle that could work, but it works best if well coordinated: a German general visiting Ukrainian front lines a few days ago complained about bad coordination, that Ukraine shoots a salvo of artillery, effectively warning where an attack is about to happen and then takes too long to execute the follow up attack. You want the enemy to be scared and keeping their heads down while you rush their trench. That doesn’t work if there are ten minutes between artillery strike and infantry attack. And the coordination to reduce this time is the hard part.

♥️

Not sure I want to go this hard for people self-identifying as right wing nationalists.

“Never hesitate to state the obvious”, for socially awkward teenager-me this was a game changer how to participate in conversation. I still live by it and it’s really useful in meetings, as it also brings real value to the conversation, as whatever is obvious to you isn’t necessarily obvious to others. And even if everyone knew, it may still spark a discussion.