nesadi

> 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.

I think those are two separate issues.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Have you tested the site on mobile? The examples page seems oddly unresponsive on Chrome on my Android.

By every measure, the terrorists accomplished their goals and won.

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.

It seems to me like a decent first step.

All of these companies are guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, actually. This isn't proof that Google isn't guilty.

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.

Edit: no idea what I'm being downvoted for, okay

> in order to bring about equality of the sexes in all aspects of public and private life.

And none of that has anything to do with helping men. It's all about women. Which is fine, women need advocates for all the shit they have to put up with. But pretending that feminism has any interest at all in helping men is utter bullshit and such an atrocious lie and this isn't the place to push that lie. I've never once ever in my life been helped by a feminist. I've been demonized, insulted, discriminated against, but never helped. Because that's not their goal.

Yeah, no. If feminism were at all interested in improving the mental health of men, it wouldn't be called feminism. Feminism is only interested in men insofar as the whole gender is considered the source of womens' issues.