jjk166

149 ms·

901.
by jjk166 2y ago
Beyond a person's life being turned upside down, one also has to wonder how much this investigation and "major hazmat incident" cost taxpayers.
902.
by jjk166 2y ago
You don't need a former fighter jet pilot to fly an airliner, but a former fighter jet pilot would probably do a very good job flying an airliner. The guy who can roll his own probably also has a better idea than most what easy off the
903.
by jjk166 2y ago
A great quarterback with an otherwise average team is still going to beat an average quarterback with an otherwise average team every time. That a team is more than the sum of its parts just means that adding great team members can lead to
904.
by jjk166 2y ago
I feel like this article completely misunderstands the point. Their two big arguments are that 1) people aren't 10X at everything, they are at most 10X at specific things and 2) what good is a 10X engineer if they are on a team that ca
905.
by jjk166 2y ago
A few issues. First, there are countless other ways to get Europe to rearm if that was actually the goal. Russia's position at the moment is virtually the same as it was a few months into the invasion, which is strong enough that europ
906.
by jjk166 2y ago
Protecting international shipping from terrorists is radically different.
907.
by jjk166 2y ago
The problem is this theory has no predictive power. Everything can be a useful domestic and geopolitical tool, and everything might be a better tool if weaker or stronger, and everything might be disposed of in favor of some other tool whic
908.
by jjk166 2y ago
The US has no power to stop it anymore. Nuclear non-proliferation relied on America guaranteeing security and coordinating the rest of the world to ostracize any country that didn't play by its rules - that's out the window. Count
909.
by jjk166 2y ago
Bold of you to assume there will be a next administration in the United States in four years.
910.
by jjk166 2y ago
The American order that stood for decades was anti-fragile. Everyone outsourced their defense to some reasonable degree, so no one was strong enough to pose an existential threat to anyone else, so we could all afford to be off guard. Now e
911.
by jjk166 2y ago
I wouldn't equate defending oneself with doing violence to others. Building strong walls harms no one. Even if a sufficiently determined adversary pushes you to the point where the only effective remaining means of defense is to fight
912.
by jjk166 2y ago
Their economy is in a terrible spot because of the war. International sanctions mean Russia has extreme trouble selling its natural resources or importing necessary products, and what trade it can do it pays a stiff premium for. Its massive
913.
by jjk166 2y ago
Name one American who would volunteer to fight because a mine got attacked. Either we have the spine to defend our allies against unambiguous breaches of international law, or we don't.
914.
by jjk166 2y ago
By not using nuclear weapons?
915.
by jjk166 2y ago
So what you give in to demands every time he rattles his saber? History tells us that appeasement is a worse gamble.
916.
by jjk166 2y ago
> Democrats have been in office for 5 of the last 9 administrations. Democrats have had 4 presidents in office in the last 10 administrations (11 if you count the current one), accounting for 24 of the past 56 years.
917.
by jjk166 2y ago
That's wildly different from what's being discussed here. SpaceX gets paid to launch satellites by the government exactly the same way any other customer would pay to launch satellites. It's not charity, it's payment for
918.
by jjk166 2y ago
There are systems for use on Earth, yes. See for example [0]. Such a system would need to be heavily modified for use on the moon given that its path relative to a "static" stellar background would be very different, but nothing a
919.
by jjk166 2y ago
The're a surprisingly high flux of micrometeoroid impacts at the lunar surface. Most of these are too small to do much damage, but there will probably be measurable erosion in centuries and genuine damage within about 1 million years.
920.
by jjk166 2y ago
The odds of them getting the same result for any given patch should be very high if it is the correct result and they aren't garbage. The only times where they are not getting the same result would be the times when at least one has ma
921.
by jjk166 2y ago
That is the hypothesis here, and the second case in no way rules against it. Again to clarify, no one here is arguing that to intercept a target you have to be moving faster than the target. The argument is you have to be moving faster than
922.
by jjk166 2y ago
> Like the parent says, you already know where it is. The parent is incorrect. You know approximately where it is. If your approximation is off by some amount, you miss. How good of an approximation you have is determined by your detecti
923.
by jjk166 2y ago
You are switching back and forth between talking about your personal definition, rigorous working definition, and an '"AI" in pop culture' definition. I am talking about the popular definition shifting further and furthe
924.
by jjk166 2y ago
2 inches per inch? What a country!
925.
by jjk166 2y ago
If the ship's current position is 200 miles from its destination and you are 400 miles from its destination, you need to go faster than it to deny the ship from its destination. Conversely, if you are 40 miles from its destination, you
926.
by jjk166 2y ago
It's not about energy required to destroy it, it's about speed required to get to it.
927.
by jjk166 2y ago
In this scenario increasing lead distance is equivalent to detecting and firing earlier (ie increasing distance between x1 and x2), which again has serious technical issues. Yes you can hit a falcon with the same bullet, but it's harde
928.
by jjk166 2y ago
I'm not assuming the interceptor needs to match velocity. There is some point you detect the target x1, and some range for your missile from your position x0 to an interception point x2. Your interceptor needs to get from x0 to x2 by t
929.
by jjk166 2y ago
> It you can shoot a satellite at 8 km/s, you probably can also shoot it at 11 km/s. Assuming all else is equal (same altitude, same targeting capability, same flight characteristics), an interceptor for an 11 km/s target
930.
by jjk166 2y ago
Solvable with a combination of robustness and stochasticity. If you say need two randomly selected people to approve an edit, and you flag users who make too many attempts at making rejected edits (either one user, lots of bad edits or lots

More ›