5 ms·
Unpopular opinion, but had this happened at a company that hired H1-Bs, people would’ve jumped on the incompetent immigrants band-wagon immediately. This here
by curiousDog 7y ago
Unpopular opinion, but had this happened at a company that hired H1-Bs, people would’ve jumped on the incompetent immigrants band-wagon immediately.
This here is a fine example of the classic American work ethic devolving into sheer laziness. FWIW, I saw this happen at another Military contractor (Northrop Grumman) too!
- nostrademons 7y agoSometimes I wonder what'll happen if the United States ever has to fight a war against an opponent whose industrial base is not 150 years behind it. Then again, I've heard Russian military equipment is in just as sorry a state. No idea what the Chinese military is like, but I'd imagine the real money is in selling to Americans rather than killing them. We're in this interesting place where it's entirely possible that the best military equipment is actually in the hands of private, ostensibly civilian companies. SpaceX has ballistic missiles with a CEP significantly smaller than a drone ship, for example, a feat that was unheard of during the Cold War. For that matter, the very concept of a drone ship would've been awfully helpful during the Battle of the Atlantic.
- m_mueller 7y agoI think a war between China and the US, with neutral Russia [1], would be truly terrifying. To given example of the level of sophistication, just have a look at [2]. All the signs point towards China overtaking the US in industrial power, if it hasn't already happened. [1] if Russia isn't neutral it would stay cold anyways due to MAD I think. [2] https://dms.licdn.com/playback/C4D05AQE8hl2GCSdo1Q/feedshare-aws-analyzed_servable_progressive_video?e=1555491600&v=beta&t=HDlb6B-v294Dlxbl-tzC-Gtw-DjFucaSeQ1HW642jUs https://dms.licdn.com/playback/C4D05AQE8hl2GCSdo1Q/feedshare...
- atemerev 7y agoAs a Russian, I hope that nuclear weapons still provide enough deterrence to avoid large-scale war between superpowers. However, this might not be the case, as said superpowers can just decide to avoid nuclear confrontation (because of immediate counterstrike) and still fight conventionally — just like chemical weapons weren’t used on large scale in WW2, compared to WW1.
- m_mueller 7y agoWhat worries me is that the mechanics of MAD may be approaching their end. With increasing space technology, perimeter defense against ICBMs have become feasible (albeit still very expensive). Thinking this forward a couple of decades, I think that defense may become cheaper than offense, even with multiple warheads per ICBM. In a way that's good, as nuclear annihilation might be averted, on ther other hand it could also lead to nations feeling cornered to strike first (before defense is built up sufficiently), and also we might be seeing a rebirth of conventional industrial warfare like in WW2.
- gambiting 7y agoI don't have such a feeling at all. It is my understanding(and please correct me if I'm wrong) that even with the best technology there is little to no defense to ICMBs. We have tech to stop some missiles, but with the sheer number of them in existence and the fact that every ICMB carries 12-16 warheads which split off early in descent stage, I think you can quite safely say that whatever target needs destroying it would be destroyed. Then there are weapons like the Russian System-6 torpedo which launches from a sub and detonates off shore to cause a gigantic tsunami destroying any coastal city(and if that wasn't bad enough, it can be salted with cobalt so that any area flooded by the tsunami is uninhabitable for at least few hundred years). I don't know what sort of confidence level you'd need to have in your defence systems to even start thinking of actually using nuclear weapons against another superpower - the risk is just too great.
- salty_biscuits 7y agoHypersonic cruise missiles are an "interesting" development to the equation as well. Much harder to shoot down but also more sneaky so harder to have the mutually assured part.
- jacobush 7y agoStill probably impossible to fire enough sneaky missiles to disable enough ICBM silos. I think they are an interesting development, but I don't think they are meant as first strike weapons against another major nuclear, at least not without excepting a full lobby back. They are terrifying against a state without a "nuclear umbrella". A few of these sneaky nukes could take out any ability to strike back conventionally. (Thinking of Sweden. Not that it longer could strike back anyway since about 1992.)
- cm2187 7y agoBut modern firepower between two nuclear nations only requires a few nuclear facilities, not the sort of industrial complex that made the difference in ww2. Good intentions of not using nukes don't really matter, as the conflict would invariably escalate as one of the parties takes over. Which is why this noise of direct war between US and Russia or US and China isn't really credible. A supply chain war is more credible, China refusing to ship certain products to the US in a conflict. But it is self-destructing too. The world pulling its supply chain out of China would be the end of the Chinese economy.
- m_mueller 7y agoin my other comment I'm kinda replying to the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=m_mueller#19672286 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=m_mueller#19672286 > The world pulling its supply chain out of China would be the end of the Chinese economy. I'm not so sure this is true. China has a huge domestic market, and even more potential to build it up more. It's also likely that in such a scenario, a whole block of nations would form, replacing some if not much of China's output with war efforts as it happens in a WW. Let's just hope it never comes to this, really, for the sake of our daughters and sons if not ourselves.
- adrianN 7y agoThere are more than a billion people in China, most of which don't have a particularly great standard of living. The domestic market in China is massive and has huge potential for growth. I think China would be fine without the rest of the world.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gdy 7y ago"SpaceX has ballistic missiles with a CEP significantly smaller than a drone ship" It goes quite slowly compared to a real ICBM and relies on GPS that will be jammed in a real war.
- jacobush 7y agoDon't you think they could easily replace the GPS with some other navigation module?
- vonmoltke 7y agoI don't. The most accurate navigation system that doesn't require an off-platform signal is inertial (INS). INS units drift badly (relatively speaking), with errors measured in tens or hundreds of meters after only an hour. I have personally seen data from a unit that was off by kilometers after a couple days without GPS correction.
- gdy 7y agoINS drifts a lot, not sure how precise is stellar
- Rebelgecko 7y agoF9 has multiple IMUs. Won't be accurate enough to fly a cruise missile through someone's window, but if you're sending a big enough bomb it doesn't matter if you're a few hundred meters off.
- gdy 7y agoA single bomb is not as good as lots of MIRVs
- dfox 7y agoIIRC also the drone ship has active role in the guidance loop. ICBM targets usually don't do that.
- mariuolo 7y agoAlso they run on kerosene. By the time they are fueled and prepped the other side will have taken out the facility.
- codingslave 7y agoBoeing is full of H1Bs...
- atemerev 7y agoThere definitely are, or at least were, H-1Bs at Boeing. In the beginning of my career, I nearly became one myself (this was at the time when Russia and the US were on much friendlier terms), but I decided to steer into computational finance instead. Not all H-1Bs are incompetent or lazy. I still have good memories of my team back in Russia — some people there did contractor work for Boeing (documentation management software), and a few moved to the US via H-1Bs. They were competent professionals, I’d vouch for them anytime. There are no guarantees for all contractors, of course.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- matt4077 7y ago“Not all H-1Bs are incompetent or lazy.” You don’t say!
- masonic 7y agohad this happened at a company that hired H1-Bs But they do, so I don't understand what point you seek to make. https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=THE+BOEING+COMPANY https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=THE+BOEING+COMPANY
- curiousDog 7y agoUsually, H1-Bs aren’t supposed to work on core pieces like aircraft design software and such. This stuff is sensitive and subject to US laws. I know this because I interned at a similar defense company and most H1-Bs were limited to back-office IT apps and such.
- matt4077 7y agoThis doesn’t even begin to make sense. First of all, everything a US company works on is “subject to US laws”. Second, where clearance is required, there is a bright line defining the rules, no “isn’t supposed to...”. Third, security clearances are available for foreigners as well.
- Pfhreak 7y agoClearances are one piece. Trade restrictions like ITAR are another.
- brational 7y agoMost h1bs at boeing will be restricted to internal IT support work. You need to be a US-person (citizen/greencard) for aircraft/military products.