machomaster

What city are you living in? Can you give links to more information that would prove your case?

Stats from Russia/Ukraine are not good. And the ones that exist, could be dismissed for various reasons ("Russians are savages so it doesn't count", "Ukraine is defending itself in existential war so it doesn't count").

With the USA the stats are available and no valid excuses exist to throw the data away. The US military is not defending itself and is supposed to be the most powerful, advanced (tech and policy) and professional military in the world. They are the best case scenario for the human drone operators' performance one has. And yet:

https://worldmetrics.org/obama-drone-strikes-statistics/

https://t.me/milinfolive/100367 https://t.me/arrowsmap/9958

Plus all those bombs that fell in Russia, dozens of kilometers away from the target.

The precision does get better, but still look at the second pic:

https://t.me/milinfolive/150513?single

Only the USA has enough war experience and drones for us to have high confidence stats on the performance of human drone operators (military vs. civilian targets) vs. AI.

Agree. That's why autopilots in airplanes have a much better track record than flesh pilots. And when the autopilot screws up, there is a clear path to improvement, to make sure that the situation will never repeat itself. With humans, people continue to make the same mistakes, no matter how many times it happened before (even for the same pilots).

The stats of USA using human-guided drones to kill people. A civilian/military ratio and numbers was worse that 11.9.

Heck, check the American drone war crime video Wikileaks published. The one that made the USA so angry that it decided to attack and destroy the journalists.

The lack of precision does matter when we are talking about trenches/bunkers and bombs often missing by many dozens and even hundreds of meters.

Ukraine could also reach Moscow with missiles, why doesn't it?

Ukraine doesn't have enough missiles to reach and hit important targets in Moscow.

Due to Moscow having the best defence, it doesn't make sense to try to hit it only for lulz, instead of hitting actually important target elsewhere, like oil refineries.

Otherwise, Ukraine has constantly been trying to hit targets in Moscow and around it, mostly with long-range drones, not missiles. Sometimes this has been successful. I mean, the dome of the Kremlin itself was hit a few years back.

Correct. The capability you describe came only recently and only a small part of Shaheds have it.

There are limitations to the technology, but in right scenarios it is perfect.

One should not use it on attack, when people need to distinguish between a soldier and a civilian.

But on a defence, when you need to keep a certain area empty from enemies (and there is nobody else but enemies incoming), then it resembles the usage of mines, only better (both in terms of efficiency and safety/callback/disarm).

Another scenario or cutting the logistics. If you know that a road is only used by military, then letting the automatic drones watch and engage is a great idea.

A person writing without thinking.

Really, you have never heard of shareware or trial periods?

the vast majority of qualified americans will have no interest in at any reasonable pay rate.

Herein lies the whole problem. It is the potential employees who determine what a reasonable pay rate is, not the employer - the cat decides what kind of milk it likes.

And at Walmart. And at McDonalds. And at Burger King. And at...

Bacically, it is not rare at all. Especially among certain American demographic.

This is just good writing, not a 100% proof of AI being used.

Analogies have to make sense, to be applicable. In this case it doesn't.

E.g. you can't just spew nonsense like "let's work together like a bee hive, everything for the Queen/CEO, no matter the personal cost to an individual" without others pointing out the stupidity of comparing humans with bees.

You can't just come up with a desirable adjective and start coming up with random scenarios in which those characteristics may occur. "Let's make the company strong as a gorilla, big as an elephant, smart as Von Neumann, bright as a Sun, as courageous as young guys from youtube fails compilations." This makes no sense whatsoever.

Windows is what happens when there are too many cooks in the kitchen, without a single authority figure, ultimately responsible for maintaining the OS (and only the OS), guarding against and saying no to all attempts to leech the user base.

The Linux numbers went up because Valve did a better job of cleaning the results from the skewed Chinese data.

For what it's worth, Framework sells more of its new Pro line with Ubuntu than with Windows.

Not for people who use Excel professionally, not even close. Excel is undefeated.

Here is a short video explaining the situation: https://youtu.be/XT5TKf9Qfl4

If you don't see a clear difference between the hard sciences of biology/chemistry/medicine and the opinionated "science" of parenting (prescriptive, no less), then you should check your eyes.

The discussion about the negative aspects of helicopter parenting is as old as the term itself.

It's all about subjective habits.

But physiologically speaking there is no difference in the optimal recommendation in terms of protein synthesis: protein should be evenly divided between evenly spaced meals.

If people decide that this non-optimal way of life fits them better, then go for it. But let's stop with the "I feel better this way, therefore biologically my body works differently than any other human body." BS.

The answer does not really depend on genes. There are personal preferences, there are sex differences (women prefer more carbs), and the biggest component is where you are and in which direction do you want to go to.

But in terms of physiology the answer is quite clear:

1. The protein is the most important macro to get, no matter if bulking or cutting. It is the building block.

2. Whatever the amounts (0.8g-1.8g/kg of bodyweight, depends a bit on a situation and the willingness to lose some potential marginal gains), try to divide your daily protein somewhat evenly between meals.

3. Pareto principle, you get the most benefits by having 3 meals. 4 if you really care about small differences and want to optimize. 5 meals give negligible additional benefits, for professional athletes who want to be anal.

4. So basically eat at least 3 meals and up to whatever works for you practically speaking.

It's not that difficult or ambiguous.

This is a very unprofessional attitude. There is no space for laziness in business.

Because a bunch of pissed off men is destabilizing, and what has worked in the past is sending them off to conquer/die under some glory laced pretense.

Such was the way in the old times. At the same time when women were taking their own feminine role and were giving birth.

But this does not apply anymore. Check the population pyramids for various countries. Having a lot of young men that need their energy to be put somewhere is not a problem in modern Western societies.

I am against the hypocrisy and want equality between sexes (they don't have to be the same for both sexes, but if one has more obligations, they should be appropriately compensated by additional rights/privileges).

My morals are not that hard to understand.

The right reaction about bad things happening to a percentage of the population is to get rid of it if at all possible, not making everybody suffer from it.

This is not an argument, neither from theoretical nor practical point of view. This is akin to saying "Yeah, you want a universal health care for everyone, but I want everybody to be so rich that they can buy any insurance and bear any sudden health-costs". Not an argument, is it.

The reality is the way it is. Wars are always going to be fought and no amount of toxic peace wishing will change that.

If anything, adding women to the equation would:

1. make the force stronger. Therefore, a higher probability of not being attacked, and a higher probability of dominating the enemy (thus decreasing the total amount of victims).

2. make the political decisions to start wars much harder (in a good way).

This is exactly the reason why I am against the current American fight-for-money military and am for compulsory army service (like Finland), and for both sexes at that.

If you don't expect males to voluntarily sacrifice and die for the country, why would you expect women to suffer nine months of body horror (provocatively stated) and expend multiple years of full-time care to raise children?

That's my point exactly. If women are not doing their evolutionary job, why should men? There can only be 2 possible solutions:

1. no sex has any sex-specific obligations (be it giving birth or going to war)

2. or impose similar sex-specific obligations to both sexes.

Men already contribute to society by being in the work force (and do a much more important foundational work than women), and it is unfair to impose additional unilateral sexist obligations on only one sex.

Why should men sacrifice and die for nothing, by not getting anything in return, not even a simple appreciation? Why should only men die when things get tough? I also would much rather see other unknown women die, than to send myself or my son to die for them.

Women need to pull their weight. And since they aren't doing that from the evolutional POV, neither in practice (birth crisis) nor in theory (not like giving birth is a legal duty, unlike a draft), then they can at least be useful for a society as a cannon fodder. The more women start pulling their weight and contribute, the less weight there will be for men to pull. What not to love about this equality!

There is a birth crisis. Modern, liberal women are not actually reproducing, they are not keeping their end of the evolutionary bargain (men protecting, sacrificing and dying, while women giving birth). Therefore, there is no need to maintain the old-fashioned, patriarchal system with women as a more protected group. Everyone should contribute equally, pull their own weight. Equal rights, equal lefts (responsibilities).