onenukecourse

I just want to say thank you for your work. I bought one for the lab last year and I love it. Maybe even saved my job.

Now let's talk program and unit cost and combat range.

The Arrow was a brilliant plane for its time and purpose. But its cancellation was not wrong (if perhaps immature) - if there are no Tu-92 to shoot down, there's no need for the Arrow.

It's like the CANDU that solved a problem (Canadian inability to enrich U and make welds for PWR) using a solution at hand (world's largest capacity to make heavy water) but that is now largely obsolete (the CANDU's have been increasing their enrichment is an attempt to gain market share).

EDIT: I know that Tu-92, like B-52s still fly as part of the triad. But when the Arrow was designed there was no triad, or even diad. But what does the Arrow do to Tu-92s that an (modern, not the '50s crap) AA missile can't do better?

Why should Canada do coalition missions? They have nothing to do with Canada. Coalition missions are euphemism for beating up a weaker country. As far as I can remember, the F-35 in Canada was always argued by those who want to play John Wayne in foreign lands.

If Canada can't defend against the US, then they should just accept they'll be swallowed by it or start making babies and populating the prairies. In the meantime, if Canada wants to contribute to defense of its allies, it should focus on creating a credible air counter to the Arctic.

The f-35 lacks the range and speed, coupled with the lack of airbases in Canada means that it is not very effective. Canada needs something like a Su-35, a big twin engine with a large range, but those aren't for sale, obviously.

It's not the F-35's fault it's not suitable for Canada. It was never intended for tundra. It's Canada's fault that for the last 20 years there's been no juicy tender for a long range fighter to entice the europeans or the yanks to come up with a suitable modification of one of their twin fighter jets.

List didn't include the one we're all most likely to encounter - crappy hotel connections.

We can, and have, shut off large portions of the grid in seconds.

Take the 2003 blackout. Yes, the whole shut down took 15 minutes (?). But thats because it was a cascading effect that had to travel down the lines. Once the fault was detected by a particular segment of the grid, the relays responded in milliseconds. They have since the 1920s? Add in an "incoming solar flare" fault condition and we can trip the whole grid in seconds and send a start signal to the diesel generators to warm up to bring her back up.

Pretty nifty trick.

Question is why would we? The grid has been undergoing a lot of strengthening against EMPs and flares for decades. Its not obvious to me that a flare can take it out, especially if we shed dumb loads (partial blackout, say data centers) before it hits to give the conductors and transformers head space.

Just one pole on the right side will take a plane down

"It's not falsifiable."

So? That's only a problem if you assume Popper's epistemology.

Brain scans of a sentient beinb aware that he is in a box.

Also, weren't a bunch of results junked because there was a nasty bug in the CT code?

Stones, replication crisis and glass houses...

Im sure this is about some higher end math than I dont understand, but in day-to-day mental math just

1. multiply by 3

2. divide by ten

3. If more accuracy is needed, add 10% to the answer.

Of course, you can always add up all the digits and see if it's divisible by 3. If not, add/subtract to make it divisible by three, divide it and then correct for the borrowing.

I don't think that's how the FDIC insurance works. I was under the impression that the 250k is after liquidation, the last resort. Anyway, SVB was really leveraged so I'm not sure how much of their asset book value is recoverable.

People held without bond are in that situation for (presumably) extraordinary circumstances. Long history of violent behavior, huge flight risk.

This is a punk (he is a prick) who wouldn't know how to wield a butter knife. He agreed not to have an extradition hearing in the Bahamas. He's hardly a danger to others or a flight risk.

My wife and I have wanted to learn it for years so we could communicate to each other while holding hands. But who has the time?

I'm traveling, so I just assumed my internet had died instead and didn't refresh all day. I literally just found out HN was down by this post.

He's very popular in the Balkans. Even the Croats I know respect him. And the third world loves him.

That doesn't change the fact that he was a brutal commie. But a sensible one at least.

Even Albanians. I know many Kosovar Albanians, and they all praise him. Heck, even Albanians I know think highly of him.

Which is stroke of luck for him. He started off as brutal stalinist but then had the good sense to lack center and play the big power against each other.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&versi...

It really isn't that archaic. It might not be the best resource for Biblical scholarship, but it's quite readable today. The KJV is so dominant in English culture that English's course of evolution is probably guided by it.

The KJV has probably been more influential on English than Shakespeare on English or Cervantes or Dante on their respective languages. Consider that, until recently (1950s?), the KJV has been read daily by a large portion of English speakers.

(I'm Catholic and native Spanish speaking, I don't have any cultural attachment to KJV)

It doesn't matter what Ukraine wants vis a vis NATO. NATO states have publicly admitted they were egging the Ukrainians along with NATO membership. NATO doesn't want to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty. They couldn't care less about Ukraine.

NATO want to put missiles in Ukrainian and Georgian fields. Now that they've admitted that NATO's out of the question, why would Ukraine agree to make itself a target?

Why wouldn't Ukraine also plant a fall harvest crop? I thought Northern countries try to plant two crops per year. Countries like Argentina try to plant three.

Some thoughts:

1. Costs are at the margins. Is 1% irrelevant, or cannot be replaced? Replacement depends strongly on local weather and requires that land be substituted for wheat instead of other things.

2. Global production is 778 million, but Russia produces 74 million, Ukraine 28 million and landlocked (by Russia) Kazakstan 11.3 million, or a total of 113, or about 15% of total production [1] . This is the wheat Russia effectively controls. True, not all of that is exported, but I doubt Russia with 2% of the world's population eats 15% of the world's grain. I'd really like to see the source of her export figures (is dollar denominated exports? Total exports? Wheat of a certain type? Etc).

3. Food needs the following inputs:

- Ammonia

- Potash

- Phosphorous

- Diesel

- Propane (in the US to dry the grain in remote farms)

- man power.

All of those input costs are going through the roof, and Russia effectively controls more than half of those inputs:

- Ammonia: The Russians are a top exporter and they export the NH4 EU needs to make more

- Potash: Canada is the top exporter followed by... Belorussia and Russia

- Phosphorous: China, I believe is the top producer

- Diesel: Russia is a top exporter of diesel and also exports the heavy crude needed to make diesel. Diesel is used in everything, it's hard to sub out, has very inelastic demand, and short term supply is inelastic as well (fracked oil is diesel poor).

- Propane (used in the US to dry the grain in remote farms). This is byproduct of NH4 production (i.e. produced by Russia). Also, the price, like oil but unlike CH4, is basically global since it's readily liquified. Therefore, it's a (expensive) substitute good for NH4 which the EUros are scrambling to get. Conclusion - The US produces enough for itself, but Russia is the marginal producer and sets the global price.

- Man power, computer chips (those self driving tractors need chips!), etc. These need money, and the USD is not exactly going through it's finest moment.

Farming is considered a perfect competition, so margins are important. A sharp blow on any one of these would knee caps farmers, but they're facing all their inputs going up. Russia doesn't need to be the majority, or even the top player in any of these to bring large increases in the cost of food to whomever she wants.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production...

I agree, but the tenant seems to believe the landlord will retaliate instead of being thankful. In my contracts I make it crystal clear the tenants have a responsibility to inform me ASAP about any water issues. However, I also try to be a very understanding landlord.

I don't avoid very high income earners, it's just that the unit I'm renting is a small house I could afford to live in at the time I bought it. This unit naturally fits a certain, soon to be upper middle income young family. However, I'm currently renting the units to a couple who just moved into the city that each makes more than what my wife and I make.

My biggest concern with them was that they'd only want to rent for a few months to get to know the city before buying a place of their own. A missed renewal is very expensive (lost income) and time consuming.

As a landlord, I insist you look to move. You're being abused. If your local landlords are more or less the same, move. You're in an abusive city.

As a landlord:

1. I insist any small problems are brought to my attentions ASAP. Early repairs cost less and dealing with it promptly creates good will

2. I get the place professionally cleaned before move in. It only costs me $150 (a hard working cleaner can clean an empty unit in a three/four hours)

3. I provide a full set of cleaning supplies when tenants move in. The supplies are already there so use them ;)

4. I give a $50 gift card to Target midway through the contract. What are you going to buy at Target? Hopefully, cleaning supplies ;)

A decent landlord won't mind if you break a lease if you've stayed there long enough (more than eight months). Even if you do, it should not be more than two month's rent.

I charge a bit below market rate to ensure the unit is always rented (divide a month by 12. An empty unit costs money). However, I target professionals to avoid problems (students), but not rich professionals - I once rented the two bedroom unit to a pair of recently graduated nurses.

I'm not in the business of making friends. I'm in the business of having a cordial relationship with a client who is satisfied and keeps renewing. A missed renewal costs me a lot of money. My goal is that my tenants move out only if they move out of the city or decide to buy a place.

Hence my care to distinguish a religious taboo from a religiously derived moral objection.

It happened during the Iraq War. The Canadians had a bunch of problems deciding what to do with them.

If his objection is a religiously derived moral, as opposed to a religious taboo, that wouldn't work. You can physically insert it into him, but he would not be morally at fault since it wasn't his action.

This would be like physically grabbing his hand and forcing it to slap his fellow prisoner with it. Obviously the person who slapped the prisoner isn't the CO but the captor.

All those drugs existed, approved and became generic before fetal cell research emerged. If one drug manufacturer decides to do FCR on asprin that doesn't invalidate all asprin, just that manufacturer's. For a new product the logic is different. This product exists because of FCR and is forever tainted unless it is recreated using clean room design.

Now, you might disagree with this logic, and that's your prerogative. But also irrelevant outside of an honest attempt to persuade a person otherwise. It's their conscious.

I am NOT an expert. Just an amateur. But I doubt this.

Pro Forma: To anyone who gets upset, the following is not an opinion over the war either for or against. Just some thoughts from a random person who likes energy and is a geopolitical realist.

First the good news: Europe can wean itself off Russian gas, but only over the course of a decade or more. Specifically Europe would have to:

- Build nuclear power plants

- Build LNG plants

- Build coal plants (coal is easy to store, just a pile. This gives it massive strategic importance)

- Accept even higher energy prices

- Probably accept that CO2/GDP will go up. NatGas is very clean wrt to CO2 compared to coal.

- It's also not obvious that there is gas readily available to be LNGed. (See second list below)

All of these take ten years at best given the regulatory and political realities in Europe. They are also massively expensive and it's not obvious to me that the Europeans have much money left (a lot of that money is in Russia's state coffers). These are things Europe should have done ten years ago.

But it gets worse; the available supply in the short term is tragic for the EU:

- Russian gas that isn't piped doesn't have an LNG terminal (yet). It's therefore a massive hole in global supply. Therefore, the EU would be competing with Japan, Korea, India, etc for Qatari and Australian gas. Prices would increase massively and expect the Asian countries to get very aggressive to protect their supplies.

- The US has little LNG presence. This is because (I believe) until recently it was illegal to export nat gas. Therefore LNG terminals have to be built in the US.

- The export ban and lack of LNG terminals in the US has shielded nat gas users in the US. It's also, effectively, a massive subsidy to American industry. It's not obvious what political support exporting gas will have from the non energy-sector. Heavy industry needs gas and American's want to get back to "building things".

- Currently the US energy sector isn't benefitting from the high energy prices because production is tapped out due to lack of investment in the last five years. Specifically, the US' industry is not obviously sustainable (financially) and banks are getting shy. Expect them to get more shy if interest rates rise.

- On top of that there is a shortage of "shale sand" needed to extract shale oil. US gas is a byproduct of oil extraction.

- Keystone. Or the lack thereof. Oil and gas are somewhat exchangeable goods (in an expensive pinch, you can burn oil in many gas plants. You can also crack oil. The EU is in an expensive pinch). The more oil you make available into the market, the lower nat gas prices gets. Keystone is dead, limiting Canada's ability to export oil

So the EU is not in a good place strategically. How about the Ruskies?

I believe that Russia can more readily wean itself off of the European consumer than vice versa.

- Russian financial reserves are massive. Much larger with respect to her needs than the EU's gas reserves wrt to EU's needs. Look up Russian foreign reserves wrt to Russia's GDP. Remember, Russia only has to supplant 3% (?) of her GDP, not all of it. It appears to me that Russia can stay solvent far longer than EU can stay thawed.

- China is not going to stop buying Russian gas. Neither is India. Or Korea. Or Japan.

- Russia can have LNG terminals too. A short pipeline and a LNG terminal in Murmansk and a lot of the gas that would have gone to Germany can be shipped out.

- Russia has a lot of gas. Gas production requires continual investments. It appears to me that Russia's capacity to produce gas is not resource limited but capital goods limited. By redirecting investments (again, not financial investments, excavator time) to gas fields west of the Urals to those east of the Urals, Russia can tack east.

I'd love to have ppl comment on which ever of those points they disagree with.

Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote. The US did assist Pinochet (bad). The Cuban people did revolt against Battista (good).

You'd be surprised, however, how popular Pinochet is particularly among working class Chileans, just as you'd obviously be surprised how much support Cuba needed from the USSR to keep the regime together. Material support and training manuals on how to buttstock resistive people.

Battista fell over 60 years ago, Cubans want something else.

Reality is complicated, it cannot be reduced to pretty slogans.