vonmoltke

The GGP said, "LLMs have ended the need for white collar junior work". That claim is that LLMs are a "1:1 replacement at an individual level", and this is what the GP was responding to.

Sure, but that's margin trading. These bonds have nothing to do with the endowment.

Those are standard, unsecured bonds. They're not loans against anything in the endowment.

> It doesn't look like the other Teslas, which all look really nice, but are more expensive.

No, they're not. The price of a Cybertruck is in line with the price for a Model S or Model X, and significantly higher than a Model 3.

> The US hasn't declared a war since WWII since executive privilege allows the President to pursue war without Congress declaring war.

That's not correct. Congress no longer passes declarations of war, it passes authorizations of the use of military force (AUMF). The change was made starting in Vietnam because a declaration of war can only target a recognized sovereign nation, while an AUMF can target any state or non-state actor. The President is still heavily restricted from employing the US military without an AUMF.

I think the confusion about this stems from Congress having passed several, a couple of which are pretty broad, and never repealing them. This has allowed various Presidents to use one of the active AUMFs to justify actions, but for those who don't know or pay attention to the details it seems like the President is going around Congress.

It, indirectly, was, because it was the reason the country initially relied on decentralized citizen militias for defense in the first place. Many of the founders were worried that a standing federal army would be a tool of oppression, and wanted to keep most of the firepower distributed amongst the populace.

The system more or less worked until the Spanish American War, when the government realized that the militias need some sort of standard in order to integrate properly with the regular army when called up. This led to the creation of the National Guard in 1903. It was tightly integrated into the Army structure in 1933.

What arguably made the Amendment obsolete was the advance of technology. By the early 20th century conventional warfighting took too much firepower, support, and coordination for a loose citizen militia to conduct. At best they could form the core of an insurgent force, but the goal is always to not get to that point.

In theory, that insurgent force could work against a tyrannical federal government. In practice, even if most of the people with the civilian firepower weren't supporting the tyranny I'm not sure it would work out. Conducting an insurgency against a foreign occupier is a lot different than conducting one against a domestic oppressor.

> Adhesion and cohesion always fuck up scenes that combine scale models and water. Splashes always look very wrong

Like the terrible model work in In Harm's Way.

I remember that on a Thinkgeek (RIP) t-shirt.

Only within the table of 20 largest point drops. Neither even makes the table of 20 largest percentage drops (which is above).

> I have also noticed that e.g. Lockheed Martin (maker of the F35) is not doing very well on the stock market.

There's no "e.g." here. It's only Lockmart, and it's because they recently lost the Next Generation Air Defense contract to Boeing. The rest of the US defense sector is fine (for now).

These statements from the US are more about keeping Europe dependent on the US (and thus the US keeping some geopolitical leverage) than about bolstering the US defense sector.

Yes, AWACS has limited moving target indicator (MTI) capability. A full-featured maritime MTI radar would easily pick this up, provided the signal processing algorithms don't reject the track for moving too fast.

> but I'm less sure about the search part of SAR

The article never mentioned the search part of SAR, only the rescue part. The range is still something of an issue with that, though, as you'd need to be fairly close the people needing rescuing. So I still agree that contested rescue is likely a side mission for this.

> Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?

From the way the article is worded, it does seem the author is only considering air search radar with this claim. Without low observability features, this will show up on surface search and surveillance radars. There might be an initial period where some radars fail to register it because they reject it as a possible target due to its kinematics. If craft like this become common, though, the signal processing algorithms will be updated to handle them. Most can already deal with very low-flying helicopters anyway.

That said, just because it isn't angular doesn't mean it doesn't have low observability features. Radar absorbing material would still make it harder to detect. So would more subtle elements of the physical design. I don't think "radar-proof" in that section header is justified, though.

The defense in that game was pretty bad. Five of the nine Brewers runs scored due to errors, and it was five separate errors. The game yesterday went much better, defensively.

> What? They're giving away cars just to cut in line? That seems a pointlessly costly deal. Maybe I'm not understanding the scam correctly.

You're not. As the article notes

> Under state law, the profits from sales of towed cars are supposed to belong to the vehicle owners. Towing companies have to hold onto the proceeds for a year and turn over any remaining money, after subtracting their fees, to the state.

This means D&L doesn't give a shit how much they sell the cars for as long as they get more than the towing and storage fees for them. Depending on how many cars they deal with, it might actually be more profitable to turn them over quickly for pennies on the dollar than let them sit in the yard and rack up higher fees.