Well, surely it's premature to be making grand statements like this until it actually causes a reversal?

I mean you see most of the women in it naked already so I'm not sure what the modders are going to be doing 🤔

The counter-battery radar doesn't prevent artillery from working; it makes it dangerous for them. Theoretically the units that took this out could already be destroyed after having had their coordinates calculated and counter-battery fire immediately called down on them.

In practice it was just setting up, having been tracked to its location, and possibly wasn't working yet. Also the GMLRS rockets fired by HIMARS are not ballistic - they execute a counter-battery-confounding turn. And the salvo is fired quickly after which the vehicle immediately leaves - it can park, get ready and fire a full salvo in under a minute. When the first rocket is detected a couple of minutes later, the launcher will already have driven off and counter-battery coordinates will not be that useful/

Especially if you're a predator

Remove tinfoil before opening mouth.

This is much simpler: Bolton opposed Trump, therefore he is an enemy of Trump, therefore an enemy of the state, therefore a legitimate target for harassment through law enforcement. Same way if in Russia someone opposes Putin he will have goons come after him. It all discourages any kind of opposition, because most opponents will go away if you just trash their house or beat them up a bit.

"Ranked choice voting" is a misleading term for Alternative Vote or Instant Runoff Voting. There are many ranked choice voting systems and the most important is Single Transferrable Vote, which is a popular system of proportional representation.

The RAM impact of the OS is nothing compared to that of modern apps which are all browser-based.

This is what I concluded in the end...

I can't quite put my finger on why he might want a corruption investigation into a politician dropped...

They're so obviously unnecessary I'm surprised more places haven't banned them. They're also new, so conservatives should instinctively hate them.

We need a more generic approach to throwaway culture: the societal cost of disposing of things needs to be embedded in the price of those things. But in the case of vapes, I don't see how that can have a big impact: reusable vape pens only seem to be about twice the cost of a disposable, so anyone who is even remotely thinking rationally about price would be getting reusable ones.

The Israeli government has declared this comment anti-semitic and offensive.

Unfortunately they weren't able to show how it was false.

Dumb thermostats last for multiple decades.

Ultrafinitism is pretty whacky since it requires tossing out the entire axiomatisation of mathematics. Ultrafinitism is inconsistent with axiomatisations even of fragments of Peano arithmetic (e.g. where you weaken the axiom scheme of induction to be restricted to a subset of formulae). You're left with something very cumbersome indeed. One thing the article fails to point out is that Gödel incompleteness still applies to such very weak theories. (It is actually misleading when talking about trying to prove the consistency of ZF - this too is not possible within ZF, provided ZF is consistent, due to incompleteness.)

There's a big difference between ultrafinitism and finitism - the latter allows a mathematical theory that allows you to talk indirectly about infinity but not directly. Peano arithmetic allows you to prove, for example, that, "for every prime number there is a larger one" - or as we might state it succinctly, "there are infinitely many prime numbers." But it doesn't allow you to talk about "the set of prime numbers" in the same direct way as you can talk about a single number or finite collection of numbers, and there is no such succinct way to say "there are infinitely many prime numbers" in the language of PA; you need the circumlocution.

These kinds of circumlocution are par for the course when dealing with weaker theories. But I think there is a huge practical issue with ultrafinitism which is exemplified thus: how do you prove a simple theorem in an ultrafinitist world, like for example, "the sum of any two even numbers is even" when it may be the case that the sum of two large even numbers is actually undefined? You have to write caveats all over every proof and I think for anything non-trivial it would swiftly become unmanageable.

On the philosophical side, I just don't think there is ever going to be a large number of people who think that "x+1 > x" is a statement that ought to be viewed with any level of suspicion. Mathematics is about creating abstractions from our real-world experience; numbers are such an abstraction. Real world objects are always finite, but that doesn't mean the abstraction has to be - to actually capture our intuition about how real world objects work, there can't be a limit.

Damn this couldn't have come at a better time for me. I've been thinking a lot over the past months how it used to be that when you disagreed with someone, you'd still have something shared with them. Not quite the same as the social media aspect, but when TV was all broadcast on a few channels, you'd probably find a show in common. When the only news was national newspapers and broadcasters, you might both be reading the same paper but disagreeing on the articles. My thinking was going down the lines of "this meant everyone had a shared truth" which is kind of like the social media bubble that the research seems to disagree with, but also down the lines of "this meant everyone had, to an extent, a shared identity" at least within a large group like a country, linguistic or ethnic subdivision.

There was something special about the old internet. The idea that the acrimonious disagreements might have been less bitter due to their nature is tantalising. There's also something to bear in mind for Lemmy: the old internet, as much as the interest groups it spawned, was united by a shared interest in the internet specifically - and technology in general. The internet wasn't as necessary and ubiquitous, so most people there had to have some other motivation to be on it. That itself was a shared interest that allowed people to find commonality. Lemmy is the same: people here are a subsection of the internet, brought here because they're drawn to openness not provided by unfederated platforms. That is its own commanlity, and it won't exist if Lemmy outgrows those other platforms.

Far right hate and repeated attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries including the UK. The man can spend orders of magnitude more money than the cost of an entire UK general election campaign and not even notice - that kind of influence is antithetical to a free democracy.

I've long thought twitter, by its nature, was corrosive to civil society, but unfortunately that won't be fixed by replacing it with another short-form rage-machine.

There's currently nothing to suggest a link with the ruling about the ruling on the office of president. The timeline makes it sound like the nutjob pulled a gun in a roadrage incident then tried to hide out in the courthouse.

most people do not generally wear glasses

I don't know about other countries but about two thirds of Americans wear glasses. A good number of them will be older adults with age-related long-sightedness for which they may only wear reading glasses, but this is a basic mistake.

What a weaksauce headline! They didn't just compile "secret files on critics", they banned critics from speaking at government events.

So now he cares about such principles...

If you're hosting it, prepare to get sued out of existence!