"Never hesitate to state the obvious", for socially awkward teenager-me this was a game changer how to participate in conversation. I still live by it and it's really useful in meetings, as it also brings real value to the conversation, as whatever is obvious to you isn't necessarily obvious to others. And even if everyone knew, it may still spark a discussion.
Let me preface this that I didn't read the article due to the paywall. Now my answer: Not really. Soviet doctrine is really just a Zerg rush supported by artillery, it's rather stupid in terms of tactics. Coordination between different arms is only minimal: "we bomb then you go, if you die we try to bomb from where they shot you."
NATO doctrine is to out maneuver the enemy, which is really hard to learn as many branches of your army have to closely interact with each other to raise the pressure to a maximum. Timing is key, as is fast movement. Units have to trust each other to perfectly time each action. It has to be perfectly planned. Ukraine has to learn these on the go and also didn't have the forces to keep up the pressure while preparing their counter offensive. This gave the Russians months to prepare their defenses. Ukraine doesn't have air superiority to fuck up the observers and manning of these trenches & minefields, so they try to achieve the same with cluster munitions. In principle that could work, but it works best if well coordinated: a German general visiting Ukrainian front lines a few days ago complained about bad coordination, that Ukraine shoots a salvo of artillery, effectively warning where an attack is about to happen and then takes too long to execute the follow up attack. You want the enemy to be scared and keeping their heads down while you rush their trench. That doesn't work if there are ten minutes between artillery strike and infantry attack. And the coordination to reduce this time is the hard part.
Usually these are empty when rolling into battle, they are used to get there in the first place. Tanks aren't known for great fuel economy and the inside is already cramped, so for cross country travel it's practical.
I can't get over how hard the author deep throats Tim Apple. When reading I stopped to check if it was marked as advertisement. This is 100% pure advertisement, not journalism. If you like apple maps, fine, this article just feels way overboard.
Well yes and no. It’s a ballistic missile, so it doesn't have a "low trajectory" but a ballistic flight path, which can be calculated from just 3 data points. It can indeed maneuver at all stages, but because it's really fast (that part isn't a lie), it's only able to do very small deviations from it's predetermined flight path (apart from also needing to hit the actual target, so it can't just fly in a completely different direction). The deviations are so small that the patriot can just correct for them in many/most cases. So it's not a lie it can maneuver, it's just not as much as would be necessary to reliably avoid interception, even though patriots fly slower.
It may be due to Microsoft demanding certain minimum configurations: at the very least minimum resolution and minimum frame rate. On PC you can always go down to 240p and/or live with 10fps in very high density scenes. Microsoft can (and will) just say "no" if they try that on the Xbox S
I'm improving my mental capabilities even right now
Wow that's an enormous payload, is that an rpg warhead? Is the plastic wrapped block on top extra battery? How big is the carrying capacity of these drones?
Ok this is off topic but... What are y'all printing so much? I print a form once or twice a year and just print at the store across the road or the library for 10ct a page. The printer I had probably cost me 3$ a page because I used it so rarely.
I agree you need much less capacity because you'd usually just want to even out fluctuations, but I think the general gist of the comment is still true: you need just 2,5x the amount of water to produce the same amount of energy. The article says very little about the liquid, and very little about why this would enable them to build this capacity much quicker. A little more data would be nice.
♥️
Слава Україні Brother
Yes, NATO tactics haven't been proven against a peer enemy, but I would argue neither did the Soviet tactics, this war can hardly be seen as a show of force over a "peer enemy". And NATO advisors saying "if there is a minefield, go around it" if they are continuous for many miles is naive to say the least. But my armchair general spidy sense tells me the static nature of the battlefield and allowing the creation of these minefields are both a consequence of Soviet tactics, not the other way around.
I guess that's debatable, depends on how you define what "it runs" means. PC gamers with dated hardware may be fine with playing on 1080p, while on the Xbox Microsoft might veto if it doesn't run on 1440p and 30fps. Of course weaker hardware won't run everything faster hardware can, you can't just sprinkle infinite magic optimization dust on a game, there are simply limits what's possible with weaker hardware, and once you've reached them you can't just shout "enhance" like in CSI Miami.
Not in my opinion: if you read the article, it clearly says that Microsoft enforcing a level of quality for dated hardware leads to devs abolishing features that the hardware series S hardware won't be able to support. They also can't decide to not support the S unless they abandon the Xbox series X as well. It leads to lower quality games for everyone, not just series S owners.
Ok eli5 how that's not the same. If you had said "the Series Shit™ is weak sauce" I would have understood. But if that's not the case, what stops the devs from turning the graphics dial all the way down to "washed out pixel mess" to accommodate the very much PC-like hardware. For which you don't have to worry about players messing with the config because you simply don't let them.
I'm not trying to attack you, merely trying to understand why it wouldn't be the same. You saying "are you saying the devs are stupid" isn't a very good explanation.
See my answer to the comment you mention.
The article doesn't explicitly state it but heavily implies "the Xbox series S is too weak for modern titles". The optimization is necessary because it's weak as fuck. It's very much the same as optimizing for a PC, with the additional constraint that they need to artificially dial down the experience on other consoles, too, due to contract stipulations that prevents them from "giving an edge" to a competing product. The problem is not that it's different from optimizing for PC, the problem is that it's "optimizing for a PC that is in principle too weak to handle the load".
This law is more than a decade in the making, the only reason it was on Apples roadmap is because of this law.
The EU doesn't have to mandate a new connector when something new comes up, it just has to be an open standard, ANY open standard. This is miles better for everyone. And the EU doesn't force the whole world to adapt their standard, it's just not economical to produce different versions for different markets, but they are very much allowed to sell whatever to their non EU customers.
If you really want the lightning adapter back, you can ask one of the many people who soldered a usb-c connector in an iphone 12/13/14. If one person can do it, I'm pretty sure Apple can, too.