> For me personally, I don't really see much use case for something this size the same way I don't see much use case for an iPad. If I have a lot to do, I'll use my laptop. If it's something quick, I'll use my phone. I don't have much need for an in between currently. I'm sure there are use cases for this that I haven't thought about, though.
As somebody who has tons of textbooks in PDF form, the ability to use something like this (or the iPad Pro, which I currently own) for reading, annotating and otherwise working with them is pretty damn useful. I'm especially excited about the Duo, since PDF's are unreadable on even my 6.5" smartphone and I don't always want to bring my iPad with me everywhere.
It's a matter of perspective. For people who believe a strong military is important to protect their own country and in a geopolitical world where military capability is everything that matters, what else is there? If a conflict breaks out, nobody's going to stop just because some military operators could be traumatized. At most you get to choose which military personnel are affected, but overall there's no "good" outcome for anybody involved on a psychological/emotional level.
The former is about operational readiness. If your army is unable to shoot at the enemy for whatever reason, you don't have a functional army. Wars are lost because of this (which leads to political concessions and loss of resources/influence/etc), and it's an important topic to consider when your goal is to maintain a standing army like the US.
The latter is, well, morality.
Of course, these two topics clash. How far do you go to ensure an obedient and effective army, while allowing leeway to refuse orders that are immoral?
In the former case justification for war matters. Compare moral effect of Perl Harbour and compare that to war in Vietnam.
Same army will be far more motivated to fight to defend the homeland than to kill a poor sod in a faraway land for unclear reason. So it's not a static quality.
And every time there is a fuckup from the higher ups it affects morale.
There's a difference between having problems committing war crimes by employing tactical weapons on civilians and being willing to attack a military force?
Is every drone operator killing civilians? Is the sniper's syndrome limited to the operators who've killed civilians?
Recent headlines about the US killing 30 farmers make it easy to confuse the context. I'm sure the operator(s) involved with that operation are traumatized. But that's not really the discussion here.
As per the article
> The rates of drone pilot burn out were in fact higher than that of traditional pilots.
> Given that the target often posed no direct threat to the sniper, there was a moral dissonance about taking the life of someone who is no direct threat. This has obvious parallels to drone pilots.
> Couple this with the familiarity that the drone pilot might have developed through long-term surveillance, and the target becomes an informationally rich human, rather than simply a blip on a screen.
> Posing a threat to someone is often seen as a moral requirement in order for a solider to use lethal force against a target. However, the drone pilot is acting remotely, and they lose this sense of moral justification for their action.
> One important thing to recognise is that such moral injury is not dependent on the pilot actually committing something morally prohibited.
> For instance, if a soldier must use lethal force to protect an innocent family against an enemy soldier threatening the family's lives, the soldier's actions are typically deemed justified.
> However, given the features of drones, this moral justification might not be properly felt by its pilot.
Seems to me like everybody here is out of touch. It's not the 2000s anymore. Torrenting isn't the only option, or even the best option anymore. There's a crazy amount of great non-legit streaming sites where you have access to probably every movie or series you'd ever want to watch. No need to subscribe to 5 different services for 50€, I can go to one site and watch everything for free in a convenient, simple way. Everybody I know does it, especially now that Netflix is a husk of what it used to be content-wise and how terrible it's become usability-wise.
I've seen numbers showing in pedestrian accidents, SUVs are twice as likely to kill the pedestrian than smaller cars. Nonetheless, I'd rather we just phase cars out of inner cities entirely.
Probably just gone unnoticed, ignored or suppressed by mainstream media.
Edit: am I being downvoted by the same people who think voter suppression isn't a thing or pointing out China's mass incarceration of Uyghurs is propaganda? What in the fuck, Hacker News. I expected more from you people.
Its been cited 155 times. Which directly contradicts the pointless, obviously false claim that its been 'suppressed'. Combined with the paranoia about downvote reasons, and I suspect a troll.
The suppression is real, but not in a comic book conspiracy theory sense. Monsanto has been doing disinformation around glyphosate for a very long time, and stirring up controversy and character assassinations around these (admittedly speculative and unconventional) scientists and others. That's all that's needed for more orthodox members of the scientific community to start using words like "quack" and "pseudoscience".
Probably some degree of genetic predisposition. Just because glyphosate may trigger gluten intolerance in some people doesn't mean it'll have that exact same effect in everybody else, even within the same family.
"Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
...
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat."
The hope was to bankrupt the US, forcing them to withdraw from the ME (especially Israel and Saudi Arabia), like what basically happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan. This did not happen.
Sure the whole debacle did cost US a lot of money, lives and perhaps prestige. But that does not mean al-Qaeda achieved their goals. The US is for better or worse even more entrenched in the ME, with bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Israel and the Saudis are still there.
Some tend to think that anything which is bad for the US means the terrorist are winning, because "they just wants to hurt us". But it doesn't work like that. Terrorism is a tactic employed by certain groups to achieve certain goals. It is possible that both parties are weakened by a conflict.
Al Qaeda believes in a final apocalyptic war between Islam and basically everybody else, ending in a global Islamic Caliphate. Their goal is to provoke that war, which they believe they are already fighting. They just want everybody else to join in.
Yeah, maybe the actual goals of the terrorists was to make everybody wait longer in airports and getting annoyed? As just revenge for the betrayal of Sykes-Picot and the desecration of the holy lands.
No, the actual goal may have been to increase the visibility of Al Quaeda; serve as a recruitment poster and show that their group can hurt the biggest force on the planet with impunity in a way that can not be denied or spun.
The mantra 'never leave a crisis unused' is enough to explain everything else that followed. Getting the United States out of the middle East was never going to happen as a result of this, rather the opposite and that too would have the effect of driving more people in to the hands of the extremists.
America is about as predictable in this sense as it comes, you can speculate all you want about what would have happened if they had left the Middle East but that universe is not the one we live in.
If some behaviour is too common across all companies, Governments need to focus on laws to address the underlying problems across the industry, not to cherry pick a company and make example of.
I mean, that's why the government isn't just one institution. You have Congress/Senate and the state-level governments to pass laws, and the FTC and the DoJ (and state-level equivalents) to enforce them. You can do both. Except the behaviour of Google et al. has largely gone ignored since their rise for whatever reason. I don't even remember the last time we saw a proper anti-trust case in the US, much less one that went anywhere. Was it Microsoft? Who knows. And there are plenty of financial interests to ensure that anti-trust isn't enforced and isn't adapted to the modern state of markets. There are a lot of things that need to be addressed, but that doesn't make suing Google for their abhorrent behaviour any less valid.
I've never understood what I'm supposed to do with this information. My stove gives me heat information in low to very high or in numbers from 1 to 6. How does that translate into a temperature? I have no idea how hot my frying pan ever is in Celsius.
In addition to just using a thermometer, many recipes tell you to heat the oil until it starts smoking. So now you know roughly what temperature that is based on the oil used.
If you need to find a substitute for a cooking oil, smoke point is probably the most important factor with which you compare oils, followed by neutrality of flavor.
Aside from using a thermometer, you could also look at the relative temperatures to decide which oil to pick. Olive oil started smoking last time? Try Canola oil or clarified butter for high-temp searing next time. I specifically look at it for picking a suitable choice for seasoning my cast iron pans.
All your stove can tell you is how much heat it's producing. It can't tell you how fast your pan heats up, how long your pan has been on the stove, and whether you just tossed in a half pound of ground pork.
What you can do with this information is see relative smoke points. Unrefined versions of oils have lower smoke points than refined, extra-virgin olive oil has a lower smoke point than peanut oil and canola oil. If you buy an oil at the store that you've never used before, you can check whether its smoke point is higher or lower than the oil you're accustomed to using. If you're in the middle of cooking realize you've run out of everything except the flaxseed oil you've been using for salad dressing, you can look at this chart and realize you should probably run to the store rather than try to cook with it.
Well, for example, searing meat generally requires temperatures in excess of 350F, so we can immediately conclude that butter and EVOO may not be ideal choices for searing.
As somebody who has tons of textbooks in PDF form, the ability to use something like this (or the iPad Pro, which I currently own) for reading, annotating and otherwise working with them is pretty damn useful. I'm especially excited about the Duo, since PDF's are unreadable on even my 6.5" smartphone and I don't always want to bring my iPad with me everywhere.