hguant

This was a fun article, but I think the core argument - indeed the article as a whole - is lacking because it fails to mention the actual major influence on the German general staff; Clausewitz, who did not rely on ancient battles and poorly drawn maps, but his own experiences and the immediate experience of those who were decimated by maneuver warfare in the Napoleonic wars.

If there was a battle that the German high command was obsessed with, it was Austerlitz, where Napoleon showed how maneuver and control of his armies could decimate larger forces. That's, well, the reason the German general staff came into existence - analysis of Napoleon's victories and style of leadership showed that just amassing troops wasn't enough, here had to be a plan, and an operational art of war, beyond mere tactics.

Many studies, even the very first war games, were done by the German high command, using exquisitely drawn maps (again, one of the things they learned from the preceding wars, actually knowing what terrain you're on, and where you are kind of matters a great deal) looking at the battles of the Napoleonic wars, and the power of maneuver over fires.

The issue comes, not from machine guns, but from the absolutely devasting power of artillery, which turns nearly maneuvering blocks of infantry into, well, horrible casualties. Generals on both sides of the war looked for that one crushing engagement, that one sweep where they could break the enemy morale and carry the day. Of course they looked to Cannae, and spoke of victory to match it, it's one of the great battles and is taught for a reason. However, I think it's a mistake to look at the speeches and letters extolling a battle from 2000 years ago while ignoring entirely the world changing war that happened in their nation's recent memory, the one they literally wrote the book about.

I disagree. Look at the history of the Mormons - they spent many years getting run out of town because they were a weird cult, culminating with a state sanctioned armed attack and destruction of the principle Mormon settlement (Navoo) and the lynching (to them, martyrdom) of their founder, who was also an elected official and a surprisingly serious presidental candidate. Follow their Exodus to Utah, they very nearly declared themselves to be their own nation and we're engaged in low level fighting with the western US Army until the admission of Utah into the union - which only happened after the Mormons, effectively at gunpoint, declared the more blatant polygamists schismatics and sent them packing to Canada and Mexico.

I'm not a huge fan of the Latter Day Saints, but for a large and important chunk of their religion's existence, they were not only called a cult, but persecuted as one.

Answering without doxxing myself is harder than I thought. The last time I was on a US military range, which to be fair was right before the pandemic so things probably have changed - we drew green tip (M855) from the range master. My understanding was that a) the steel targets were getting beat up by A1 and there wasn't any money to replace them and b) we weren't a combat group so we didn't rate the good shit.

EDIT TO ADD: I don't know if that qualifies as "quantities" and anecdotes are just that, but that's been my experience.

Sorry, but this is entirely incorrect.

First, terms - brass is not used to "jacket" a bullet. Brass is used as the case material for the cartridge. Steel, and nickel plated steel are some times also used here. "Jacketing" (as in, Full Metal Jacket) refers to the material that wraps around the exterior of the projectile. As far as I'm aware, the material used here is almost always copper, or a copper alloy (cupronickel).

The US standard bullet is the M855. It's a lead core with a soft soft steel penetrator at the tip, that's jacketed with copper.

There's an advanced version of the M855, the M855A1, which is an entirely steel slug, jacketed with copper. This bullet has better terminal performance at longer ranges, and slightly better armour piercing capabilities.

The US army standard training round is the M193. It is a lead bullet jacketed with copper. Interestingly, it in many ways has better terminal performance than the M855 because this is the bullet the M16 and M4 rifles were designed around, and the M855 only exists because of NATO politics.

There are no bullets in the US inventory, to my knowledge, that use a copper core. Copper is simply far too expensive to be used at that scale, and, as you pointed out, reduces the weight of the projectile which has negative effects on terminal performance.

"Why are bullets jacketed in copper" you might be wondering here - when rifle cartridges were invented, they still used black powder, and all bullets were lead. When smokeless powder was invented, it became possible to have more explosive power per unit of volume. However, this had two negative effects - one, the lead projectile would either disintegrate, or became entirely inaccurate, at the speeds it was accelerated to. Second, the force of the bullet against the rifling of the barrel was rubbing away metal from the bullet, leaving lead deposits which fouled the gun and made it inaccurate. All steel bullets solved this problem, but increase the wear on the barrel. The solution was to coat (jacket) each bullet in a thin layer of copper, which was stiff enough to withstand the force of friction in air, while also softer than the steel barrel and reduced wear and tear on the rifles

I would argue that media pcs and home servers are becoming _more_ not less important, precisely because Netflix, Disney+ et al have become such bad stewards of movies and shows, both in terms of deleting content, and no longer being "worth it" for the price. Anecdotally, I know more and more friends and coworkers who are moving to having their own media servers because they don't want to have to hunt through different services for their favourite shows or movies, or they've been burned by Amazon changing the streaming license of their "purchase."

Which is doubly ironic, because (in the book at least) HAL-9000's murders/sociopathy were a result of a conflict between his superhuman ethics and direct commands (from humans!) to disregard those ethics. The result was a psychotic breakdown

> 1. Stand on a street corner (if you're in a busy area) or make a call if you're not. If you have to make a call, there's a ~20% chance a taxi actually shows up.

option 3 - go to a hotel, and have them call a cab for you, or get one from the stand there. This is my go to for cities I'm unfamiliar with, and it's never let me down. The taxi companies might not have an incentive to show up promptly for _you_, random person calling them, but they do for the hotel in their area.

The penalty for having an allergen present is steep, and the process of certifying that yes, you are in fact allergen free, is expensive and difficult, while the cost of adding an allergen into your process, for pretty much any foodstuff, is cheap, and the cost of slapping a "may contain peanuts" label on is cheaper.

I believe the original comment was complaining about the perverse incentive there.

Increased regulatory burden for US companies, increased labour enforcement targeting foreign companies in general, and preferential treatment for DE/EU companies codified in law.

In 7 years? I think the current crop of pilot tests for UBI are set to finish up in 7 years. No way meaningful UBI gets well enough established in 7 years to be considered "a norm."

UBI is this generation's fusion - it's going to be 10 years away until the late 2070s, if at all.

It's not that you omitted nuance, it's that your basic premise - "cash assistance to the poor generally does not drive inflation in any meaningful way, because the cash used is extracted via taxation in the first place, its, quite literally, shifting money around" - is fundamentally incorrect, and goes against both economic theory, and lived experience over the last few years post COVID.

> Its false equivalency to think cash assistance and many other forms of social welfare drives inflation more broadly, in the general case.

This is also probably why you're getting down voted - it's just wrong

1. taxation, either explicit or implicit through interest rate manipulation, doesn't impact monetary supply at the scale we're talking about here. It impacts the cost of, and therefore the availability of capital.

2. cash assistance to the poor isn't a simple "take $100 from Peter and give it to Paul" transaction. It transforms capital (what taxes impact) into money. This is a weird distinction, but capital isn't money. Think of it as two separate streams - there's a fictionalized capital stream of stock markets etc, and a "real world" money stream that interacts with good and services.

3. Cash assistance to the poor directly drives inflation because the demand for goods is decoupled from reality. By giving cash to the poor, you generate increased demand for the same amount of goods and services. This is econ 101 - demand goes up, prices go up. Because the monetary supply has been manipulated by injections from capital, this demand is decoupled from the cycles that would tamp it down.

Let me repeat that: a sudden increase in demand, coupled with more money in the system, decouples prices from the systems that keep them in place and drives inflation.

If you'd like an object lesson in this, I'd refer you to the past 3 years of experimentation with wealth transfers in the US, and the current inflation as a result of that.

Edit to add - I make no moral statements here. I think that cash assistance to the poor _is_ generally the least bad option of government assistance; however, we should be clear eyed about the costs of these actions, and not hand wave them away, only to be shocked, shocked, shocked, when those costs come due.

My math teacher in 6th grade had a conversation with my parents that essentially went "he's not going to learn algebra from the Hobbit, but I feel bad telling him not to read"

There are worse problems to have!

1. Generally photos from active investigations aren't released until the investigation is completed. These are active records, and could potentially become part of civil or criminal hearings, so the agencies in charge of them tend to keep them close until they've finished the report.

2. The US Coast Guard is a part of the Department of Homeland Security; the sonar and pictures they take could reveal capabilities they deem important to US national security (ie how good the sonar is, resolution of photos, etc.).

3. It's generally considered poor taste to post disaster photos before the families have had funerals. Naval institutions tend to be more tradition focused than other entities.

This is something of a false equivalence - yes, "everyone" is at risk from a country ending event, but not all countries are equally at risk.