O3marchnative

> Soldiers move in 2D, missiles in 3D.

Infantry troops still operate in 3D as they can/will direct mortars, air assets, etc.

In general, what you laid out is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. An infantry platoon applies fire and maneuver using all of its elements to "close with and destroy" a smaller element.

You emplace your weapons squad which has machine guns and other large weapons (e.g., mortars) that will keep your enemy's heads down. This allows your maneuver elements (i.e., assault squads) to maneuver to the enemy force.

In the case of missile defense, you have a limited set of complex and expensive bullets, and your enemy has cheap bullets. If you want to defend yourself, you're attempting to hit your opposition's bullets with your own bullets.

I tried out quite a few products and brands. I've settled on opnsense running on a spare x86 based machine with an intel x550 T2 NIC that I got off of ebay. My only regret is not making this switch earlier.

Out of curiosity, did you try out any other portable simd crates before landing on fearless simd?

That makes the issue worse as the actual app/device likely just relies on querying some NTP pool for accurate time. Then that would mean the actual stratum 1 servers are not working right.

I was thinking of this in terms of aerial refueling.

It's always better to take off with less than a full tank of fuel. Once you're airborne, the aircraft can top off its tank to complete its journey. Of course, it may even be more economical to top off at multiple legs as the journey proceeds. To your point, a "reverse" refueling would also be ideal in order to lower the weight of the aircraft.

In certain contexts, it's already being done. It'd likely need to be much safer in order for civilian aircraft to carry out aerial refueling though.

I've been considering upgrading from 1 Gbps to 5 Gbps. Have you noticed any significant benefits for any particular use cases?

Going back to Clausewitz, war is a continuation of politics through other means. Moreover, victory is achieved by using force to compel one's opponent to carry out one's will.

> intact and combat capable

On its own, this claim is likely true. Nevertheless, this does not mean one's opponent is going to carry out one's will. Hence, one cannot declare victory. It follows that anything short of achieving one's goal is a loss. A loss doesn't have to be complete and utter destruction. It's fair to say that Argentina did not achieve its strategic objectives during the Falklands War, no?

> Losing is what happened to Germany after both World Wars.

Yes, but Germany is not as good of an example in this case as Japan during WWII. Japan would have likely accepted something short of unconditional surrender much sooner than August 1945, but the U.S. insisted on unconditional surrender. As such, the U.S. did not win until Japan agreed to unconditional surrender.

I always remember it as the opposite of what I think is typically called the granny knot. In the case of the square knot, it's just right over left, then left over right.