bb611

Exactly the same in the US: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/iphon...

A mandatory part of Austin PD's academy is being tased. The taser is fired into the student's back, the student is held securely by two other students and then lowered to the ground.

I don't believe the trigger is depressed during this, so it's just the contact shock, not a prolonged/repeated one.

I also have no idea what medical personnel are on hand, but all police officers are trained in CPR and I'd imagine they have an AED on premises, even if there are no EMTs right there.

Building a 50,000 person campus in the Boston area would be challenging and expensive. Areas that have the space are very, very pricey, and they're all outside the city. Public transportation is on the poorer side, and once you're out in suburbia many streets are too narrow to comfortably fit a bus, so the logistics just get harder.

> The drone needs to have an air worthyness certificate and be flown by a full pilot in order for the FAA to allow it.

It's highly dependent on drone weight and usage, but most drones are in the <55 lb category, which doesn't require either of those things for commercial use: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/

Drones above 55 lbs do require a section 333 waiver and a part 61 airmen certificate, which is basically a mild step up from the part 107 UAS pilot training requirement. Both are significantly easier, faster, and cheaper than even the cheapest private pilot's license.

> because we're subsidizing europe, which is a huge free rider on the US military.

The vast majority of US spending since 2001 has been wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with the defense of Europe. This article has a good example of the spending increases specifically earmarked for Iraq/Afgahnistan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/07/every...

That ignores things like the excessively high hours on F-18 airframes from a higher than anticipated rate of deployment, causing increased repair/replacement costs and lower airframe availability, even after: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/62-of-f-18-hornets-unfit-...

> If Putin for whatever reason decided to become an expansionist power and the US had an european level military, no one could stop him.

There are other, much cheaper solutions to this - note that the US and EU have made it politically untenable for Russia to resolve the invasion of Ukraine in their favor, with extremely minimal deployments of military forces (a few show of force exercises in eastern Europe with NATO members or partners).

No, but experts in the field tend to believe a yield this large is explained by a hydrogen bomb:

> That means it's probably "only" a few hundred kilotons depending on depth. 8/ Still a staged TN weapon. But I need to sleep. 9/

https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/90419708681554329...

Lewis' completion of that line of tweets says it's in the couple hundred kT range, but still a staged TN device.

Are you trying to claim the United States doesn't have those?

Because it currently has 2 of those (minimum wage and a health insurance mandate) at the federal level.

Both services return were widely predicted here even before they left. It wasn't a hissy fit, it was a calculated move to reduce business costs, and it worked better than I think they even expected.

It's a big and very active business.

In 2009 alone, doctors implanted ~225,000 pacemakers in the US: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21707667

Germany had the highest reported rate of new implants for any country in the study, at almost 1/1000 just in 2009. In the US that would be 300,000 per year just in new devices, and based on the study's aggregate reporting we could guess another 1/3 for replacement devices - 400,000 new devices per year as a high guess.

There's probably better info in the article but I don't have journal access and don't want to spend $6 to get it for this article.

> the very active and loud anti-corporate voices

Could you clarify which voices you mean?

I have always loved the USMC's leadership principals, but they have a hard time adhering to them in practice. Talk to pretty much any infantry officer who saw combat in the last 15 years and they have endless stories of chaotic command arrangements.

My guess is that businesses have the same issue - it's great in theory, but the cost of failing to achieve it in practice is low at first so it creeps up over time. It takes a catastrophic event to force leadership to rearrange reporting relationships and clear up lines of communication again.

There is no automation in takeoff for current USN carrier based aircraft. The F-18 is the most automated, and the process is this:

1. Pilot sets takeoff conditions (throttles, flaps)

2. Pilot signals deck crew

3. Catapult accelerates the plane off the deck

4. The plane's fly by wire control system pitches the plane for optimal Angle of Attack for the wings (IIRC - 8.1* without flaps).

Once the aggressive acceleration of the catapult is complete, the pilot takes control again and begins flying - this is less than 1 second after catapult release.

Here's an example catapult launch from a USN F-18 pilot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9D1Ls-_JM

If you look at the stick directly in between the pilot's legs, you'll see him put his right hand on it at ~4.5 seconds. His left hand is on the throttles.

> there is no such thing as overestimation. You cannot be over protective when it comes to fire safety.

Have you ensured your house is built exclusively of fire resistant materials, and avoided buying modern furniture with inflammable fabric covering and interior padding? Have you installed a Halon system in your home and all physically adjoining structures?

What an absurd statement.

> Pinpointing critical facts that lead to an outcome can help the planning in the future

I agree. The critical fact in this instance is that the vast majority of Americans were willing to put up with the war in Vietnam as long as it didn't grow. Speculating about an alternative America where this wasn't the case requires us to make up many, many facts, that would significantly reduce the believability about any conclusions we draw.

That's why historians discourage speculation - because it reduces the legitimacy of the field and the value of its conclusions.

> Under that logic we may as well never study history

I would love to understand why you think my statement implies this.

I think it's particularly interesting given that I have a degree in history, with a specialization in US National Security Policy in the 20th century, so I don't think I generally give people the impression that "we may as well never study history," especially the history of the Vietnam War. In general, the reviews I receive are quite to the contrary.

The batteries being talked about are 18650s, which is mentioned pretty clearly in the article and apparent from every single picture of batteries in it. This makes sense, because the vast majority of laptops sold across the world use a set of 18650s as their batteries. These are also the form factor of batteries being used in current Tesla powerwalls (though I believe they will also switch to the 21700 form factor as production of that ramps up).

18650s are just as safe as any other battery chemistry in everyday use, but they're a high energy lithium cell. In particular, if you do bad things to them, they may light on fire. It's not that hard to take appropriate precautions to avoid that, and reasonably sized lithium-ion battery fires can generally be put out with a standard househould fire extinguisher.

It also appears the community is collaborating to spread good information about powercell design to avoid/manage fires inside the units, in the unlikely event a cell starts a fire. If the container for the powercell is designed correctly, it can contain a complete unit burndown: https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-saf...

In short, you're overestimating the risks and underestimating the level of safety attainable with these products.

You're arguing "if the US political climate was totally different, the US may have been able to win." Of course if we posit a totally different reality we can have a different outcome.

In fairness, Sanders polled significantly better vs Trump than Clinton did. How he would have done in a straight matchup is speculation, but at least based on polls before Clinton won the nomination, he had a better shot.

The general consensus is that the US could not win the war in Vietnam, because the vast majority of South Vietnamese were not on board: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/vietnam-was-unwin...

I would agree that the major lesson the US military learned was "manage public opinion", but that wasn't the actual lesson on offer, which was that you can't win a country without winning over its people, and that was learned all over again in Iraq between 2003-2008.

I think you're right to ask for credit where it's due, but this is not such a place - the event being referenced is the 2009 LCROSS mission: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/10/09/probe.moon.crash/in...

I discovered this with a very quick google search of the terms "2009 NASA crash moon"

Given the range of ad networks they support, it still gives no particular benefit to Google.

Yes, my point was that I had preconditions and yet didn't reach the expected outcome. Interestingly enough, my twin brother did.

Kids are complicated and non-deterministic.

> In my opinion, the best thing you can do with kids is create boredom. If they have access to a shop, or some lumber, they will start to build stuff.

As a kid I was constantly bored, this strategy was deeply ineffective on me. I did grow into it as an adult, but it took a long time.

In short, YMMV.

Appropriate webcomic: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2015/05/11/a-recognized-p...

These are activities you enjoy. They might be novel to your step kids, but they aren't activities which they actually enjoy.

> Driverless trains so far are only used in mass transit so... I am afraid these are daily experience.

Not in the daily lives of the vast majority of Americans.

The three train systems I've used on a regular basis in the last half decade (NJ Transit's NE Corridor, Amtrak's Northeast Regional, and Caltrain) very much do not have driverless trains.

Two of those are in the top 10 commuter rail systems in the US.

I realize you hate AMP and rational discourse is unlikely to change your mind, but here's what their homepage actually says:

> The AMP Project is an open-source initiative aiming to make the web better for all. The project enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms.

> everwhere else it's slower.

No, everywhere else it's the normal speed your servers can deliver it to clients. Nothing about AMP is slowing down your normal web page.

The positioning and display are a ranking boost for whoever chooses to implement AMP pages - they are not explicitly targeted at Google services, which is the behavior the EU fined them for.

Anyone who thinks the EU is going to fine Google for AMP is actively avoiding reality at this point.

AMP supports dozens of ad networks, including AdSense. It gives no particular benefit to Google's ads, and it doesn't require any ads.

Where's Google's upside in all this? This (maybe) improves their search product, but it doesn't directly make them money.

From a legal standpoint, this behavior is clearly different from their last slap on the wrist.