It's the "like" that is the significant detail here.
> You must be 10 years old!
I disagree with your assessment therefore I'm stupid? immature? I hope this was an unusually abusive moment for you, and you don't generally treat folks this way.
Yeah, calling someone a child is pretty immature. So lets focus on hard numbers, no?
I'm currently on IRC using HexChat. I'm in 6 different IRC rooms, with 2 being 500+ users and lively discussion. I'm using 27.8MB ram and since execution 2 seconds of CPU time total. It doesn't do inline images or frillies like what Slack does, but that's what links are for.
Electron-ized IRC is a magnitude more CPU and ram than a native application. This is a waste of my resources and time, so that a developer can be significantly lazy in doing some 'app'.
Of course, the upside is that using electron allows targeting linux/windows/mac. That's not trivial either, however, the resource costs of running X chrome backends is not negligible. With much of the heavier processing I do (RF hacking), this would never work with any sort of acceptable timings or throughput.
> the upside is that using electron allows targeting linux/windows/mac
The more significant upside is that you can add features to an electron app 10x faster than to a C app, and non-technical users care about features (inline images and frillies, etc) more than they care about RAM efficiency
My intention was not calling you a "boy", but more an assumption, that you may not have been around when IRC was used instead of Slack & Co. Because then you'd not be so easy going about wasting so much memory (RAM, storage) for an app, that, basically, allows you to chat.
I have kids and down-voted your comment. Simply because a person has (or might have) the capacity for working overtime doesn't mean this should be a requirement. We're employees, not slaves.
Thats not what I meant - the OP stated "I dont have kids and I want to be able to work overtime and focus on a project" -- so, my comment was "well if you dont have kids, you should be better able to work overtime and focus on a project"
> I <...> would like to be able to not be stressed and work overtime and solve hard technical problems and move towards a more rewarding job
I cannot tell whether he is saying he would like to be able to work overtime, or whether he doesn't want to <be stressed and> work overtime. I would assume, "work overtime" has a tighter coupling with the preceding "not" than with the preceding "would like to", but can't tell for sure.
Agree with you mostly, though on occasion it's nice to know if my taxes are increasing or decreasing soon, and where most people in my country stand on "Merry Christmas" vs "season's greetings" (whatever that means).
> Have fewer children...think of yourself as committed to this cause...People will even try to discourage you...Stop looking at them or listening to them.
There's no way we're going to make a meaningful positive impact on the climate without doing things that make people uncomfortable. The sooner we start, the less dramatic that discomfort will be
> The enemy here is fairly low-tech. Shouldn't be a problem.
Would be perfectly acceptable if your hardware was only used for 2-3 years against only low tech enemies that don't have access to electricity during that whole time.
I think this can be a downfall of the US military if they ever get into a conflict with a capable enemy. They are so used to use super complex and expensive weapons against enemies who can't really put up a resistance. I wonder what would happen to the B-2 bomber or aircraft carriers if they had to fight China. My guess is these weapons would be eliminated very quickly.
> They are so used to use super complex and expensive weapons against enemies who can't really put up a resistance.
Tell that to Vietnam and Afghanistan. Historically the US does well against standing armies (Iraq for example), but absolutely terribly against low-tech enemies who don't engage in a way that allows these super high tech weapons to be used effectively.
A scrimmage in a Border Station-
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail[1].
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!
I meant it in a sense of an enemy that can take on the high tech weapons. Since the Korea war nobody challenged the high tech equipment in meaningful way.
I have to quibble with that a bit. The US regularly overflew the USSR and China through at least the mid 70s, meaning our best aircraft were in a very real sense fighting their best air defense systems 20 years+ after the Korean war ended.
There have almost certainly been satellite, submarine and other engagements too, they just aren't generally publicized by either side until 30-40+ years later.
True. However, I think in a real shooting war those aircraft could be attacked by a huge number of low tech weapons and get overwhelmed. From what I know about warfare often large numbers will eventually overwhelm every kind of defense. For example could an aircraft carrier handle 10000 incoming drones? I hope we'll never find out...
10,000 drones? How big a drone are we talking? They would have to be big enough to carry a weapon big enough to penetrate at least 1/2" steel (at the thinnest, only accessible from the side). If out to sea, a small EMP could drop them all.
Battles won by numerical superiority are usually won by defenders. If it's an invader, it's almost certainly early in the game. Even at the end of WW2, Germany wasn't invaded so much as it lost in France and Russia. The Allied rush to Berlin was an early aftermath. By the time supply chains necessary to conduct a protracted war have been committed, the true cost starts making invaders progressively less interested.
A more interesting concern is the major powers using proxies to demonstrate their new tech. If Russia sold Syria 10,000 drones, that might get interesting.
That certainly was true. The war was already lost when they were still deeply into Russia. the last 2 years of WW2 were just trying to fight off the inevitable.
> Since the Korea war nobody challenged the high tech equipment in meaningful way
Le Duan tried to in Vietnam, the Easter Offensive. Despite fighting to a strategic draw, he under-estimated the effectiveness of US airpower and lost 100,000 men on the field.
Thankfully the answer is "If we are fighting another nuclear power such that they are trying to shootdown a Bomber that didn't invade their airspace or sink an aircraft carrier something has already gone horribly wrong." Pax Atomica is in effect and there is a very reason why all of the wars were proxy wars. Everybody knows that it can only end in everyone losing.
I think partisans are the only ones who would dare and the only way that would be remotely deniable for intelligence agencies is if they don't have major unexplained resources - including training. Which I suppose is where cyber attacks could be useful in the sense of "remote chance of working without being utterly atomic suicidal" - if sensors go down long enough for low budget explosive attacks or their own weapons decide they must sink is their own ship. The later /really/ shouldn't happen if people are doing their jobs given the sheer number of at all given the munitions handling and design sins that would require to be possible makes juggling loaded guns look like the peak of caution.
Yup. The enemy may be poorest of poor, but in this day and age, their entire population probably has smartphones (or at least dumbphones), and there's plenty of smart people with nothing better to do than to play with computers.
There aren't many low-tech places left on this planet, where it comes to computing.
The catch is that on DOD systems, encryption is very difficult to add. That is, to be certified by the NSA and compatible with the military key infrastructure. So its better to avoid mentioning it unless its forced on you. Better is a relative term here. I mean, in terms of cost and effort to add. Not security.
You're waiving encrypted channels around as if it were de facto mandatory. Without knowing the ConOps of the system, how could you possibly conclude that confidentiality was an imperative? Effective acquisition of weapon systems is about balancing budget, schedule, performance, and risk--a lot easier said that done.
Been a long time since my Latin days and there's so much nominative/genitive overlap in those words I can't figure it out. "Writings of a fat snake" or something, I don't know. Help? :-)
It's "snake oil font". littera is a letter, and I hope that the plural form means "font" or "script". But litteræ definitely means "science" as well, so that's OK.
Good question. Is oleum used for liquid fat, no matter the source, or is it confined to plant-based oils? pinguis has definite animalistic qualities. You'd think it was oleum nucis indicæ [1], not pinguis nucis indicæ, except when used in a metaphorical manner.
I provided the link to google books to the Liber fundamentorum pharmacologia only to show that oleum serpentis was actually an ancient remedy, of course the Latin of a book translated from medieval Persian might be not exactly Cicero, still it should be much better than any translation I can do.
But most probably oleum was a synonym of olive or however vegetable oil in ancient Rome, and it is entirely possible that the actual Persian medicine was the extract of some plant and only called serpentis.
On the other hand, besides the name, we don't actually know if snake oil is actually made of snake oil or snake fat or something else.
