psunavy03

Half of the problem with American politics these days is people from blue and red states trying to force the entire country to become one giant blue state or one giant red state.

It's too big for one-size-fits-all answers. Every state should be able to largely do its own thing as long as it isn't violating the Bill of Rights.

Can we also talk about how Win11 just randomly drops audio for no reason after even a brief period of silence, then takes some random amount of time to start playing sound again? I'd say it was a problem with my home theater/gaming rig, but it happens on my work machine too.

So policy disagreements now deserve jail time. And this is why modern discourse is in the toilet.

For the US, that's still "far left" as opposed to merely "left of center."

Interesting that this is being downvoted considering "Thiel is a right-wing loon" and "Jacobin are a bunch of left-wing loons" are not mutually exclusive statements.

They're both wrong, just in different ways, and observing this is not "bothsidesism."

I realize that for the simple use cases like that it's fine. I'm talking about people at work using complicated workflows in "low code" tools or spreadsheets full of macros. At some point it's equally or more complex, just in a different way.

And then when 1T worth of workers are laid off, who is going to buy the stuff that the companies who laid them off make?

That's my point. At some point, people's fear of learning code is causing them to do things in ways that are unnecessary and overcomplicated, which is quite a bit ironic.

I'm not sure what that last example is meant to be other than an anti-Python caricature. If you're implementing calculating things like standard deviations by hand, that's not real-world coding, that's the undergraduate harassment package which should end with a STEM bachelor's.

Of course there's a bunch of loops and things; you're exposing what has to happen in both R and Python under the hood of all those packages.

I haven't used the eJuror site personally, but having served 20 years active and reserve Navy, that is but the tip of the iceberg of shittily-implemented Federal government websites.

The "new and improved" cloud portal for doing Navy performance evaluations turned into such an unadulterated shitshow that everyone went back to the old system. A Visual Basic application bolted on top of an MS Access database . . . that originally was someone's side project in 1998.

At some point, doing things the "low code/no code" way turns out to be more painful than just . . . writing code.

And there we are . . . "Our society is unable to do what's necessary on issue X, and what's necessary is this laundry list of my unrelated political hobby horses."

That works for technical folks, but it's also a barrier to Linux adoption when too many things require dropping to a Bash terminal and dorking around. Try getting Grandma or Katie from HR to be able to do that . . .

Non-STEM curricula do not necessarily require calculus.

While I don't agree with him doing that, he's doing it above board and in his own name. That's different from foreign actors doing it incognito under covered identities.

Elon is a nut, but he's open about being a nut.

In my experience, this is more or less anyone with graduate education or engineering experience. It's a common failure mode to go from "I am an expert in X" to "being an expert in X means I can solve all the world's problems."

> just make the wing engines 50% more powerful

You realize this is not quite how aerospace engineering works, right?

> Presumably it was designed to withstand the forces of this moment and clearly has done so many times before.

The report seems to suggest metal fatigue in the motor mount may be a possible culprit.

And there's the archetypal comment on technology-based social media that is simultaneously technically correct and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

There's also a whole lot of people who point out the middle ground fallacy just so they can avoid examining their own beliefs. No, the correct answer is not always exactly between the two sides. But no, that doesn't mean that one side or the other has a monopoly on recognizing the best way to handle things.

Centrism and objectivity aren't reflexively seeking "the middle," just refusing to buy into either tribe's propaganda and FUD.

Although I was never named to a mishap board, my experience in my prior career in aviation is that the proper way to look at things like this is that while it is valuable to identify and try to fix the ultimate root cause of the mishap, it's also important to keep in mind what we called the "Swiss cheese model."

Basically, the line of causation of the mishap has to pass through a metaphorical block of Swiss cheese, and a mishap only occurs if all the holes in the cheese line up. Otherwise, something happens (planned or otherwise) that allows you to dodge the bullet this time.

Meaning a) it's important to identify places where firebreaks and redundancies can be put in place to guard against failures further upstream, and b) it's important to recognize times when you had a near-miss, and still fix those root causes as well.

Which is why the "retrospectives are useless" crowd spins me up so badly.

Because there's a concerted effort to "denormalize" and stigmatize the perfectly legitimate activity of owning a firearm for lawful purposes like hunting, collecting, and sport shooting.

Just one more front in the culture wars.

Ah, the old "I am a free-thinking rational being, but everyone else are a bunch of NPCs who can't be allowed to have what they want without enlightened supervision" argument.

Wranglers are often lifted via the aftermarket, and I bet a lot of people who do that don't ever stop to consider whether the headlights need to be realigned after.

The fact that we can't do this in the US boggles my mind. So the data is already reported to the IRS, yet I have to fill out a tax return containing the same data, and then I'm responsible if it's screwed up? Why can they not just send me a bill if they already have all the data, then I dispute it if there's a problem?

Neither of these have anything to do with running a well-regulated nuclear power program. Chernobyl happened because of the apathy and incompetence endemic to any Marxist-Leninist system, not because a modern democratic state is incapable of regulating the nuclear power industry.

Know what else spreads a thin layer of poison over the whole of the world? Coal power.

People want houses. Planners can either yell and stomp their feet about this or adapt to circumstances. It's like electric cars. People want cars. Better they have the ability to have an electric SUV or pickup, because if you try to force them into little tiny econoboxes or lecture them about how they should really be using mass transit, they're just going to flip you the bird and walk away.

Similarly, better to have people be able to have reasonably energy-efficient houses than demanding they all live in apartments.

I fully understand that waste management of fission reactors is a Very Big Deal. But I still stand behind the argument that opposing nuclear power in the 70s and onward is possibly the biggest own goal the environmental movement has ever achieved.

At worst, nuclear waste contaminates a discrete section of the Earth. Climate change affects literally everywhere. The correct answer would have been to aggressively roll out fission power 40-50 years ago and then pursue renewables. You can argue that other solutions would make fission power obsolete, but we would have been in a much better spot if it'd at least been a stepping stone off fossil fuels. Instead, we have 40-50 years of shrieking and FUD from environmentalists over an issue that can be kept under control with proper regulation. The US Navy has operated reactors for over 60 years without incident, proving it can be done with proper oversight.

TL;DR nuclear has issues, but I'd take it over coal every day and twice on Sundays, at least until something better can scale.

> In a battle between a million drones and 10 F-22s, I'd bet on the drones.

This is not how militaries work. Military forces exist to complement each other's strengths and weaknesses. Combat is literally the ultimate team sport. A world full of drones still has a need for F-22s or similar. Just with proper short-range air defenses around their airfields.

It's not who has the coolest piece of gear; it's who can employ everything and everyone they have in the most effective fashion to accomplish the goal of national leadership.

I don't make light of industrial theft/espionage, but let's be honest. Can you not just put a blurb on your proprietary stuff with the proper lawyerese? Something like "Business confidential and proprietary - not to be released without written authorization" or somesuch?

For those of us who have worked in the cleared space, a company labeling something "Intel Top Secret" is like watching a 12-year-old put on Daddy's suit jacket and tie in front of the mirror. If business confidential materials leak, yes, it can have huge financial impacts for the business. If actual TS materials leak, people can no-kidding die.

Not to mention if your company does do cleared work, you've now created unnecessary confusion between "Company Top Secret" and actual TS, which just increases the chances for someone doing something stupid/malicious.