The navigable part of the Strait of Hormuz is only 15-ish miles wide, maybe less. There is no way the US can convoy screen anything without significant loss in sailors and ships.
The WW2 convoy situation was far easier to escort (but still quite dangerous obviously) because:
1. The Atlantic is a much bigger place, even considering common routes and chokepoints.
2. U-Boats had to surface frequently, making them extremely vulnerable to Allied air cover.
3. U-Boats had to be within visual range to strike convoys, versus the drone and missile world we live in now.
I’m a pretty mid around the house DIYer, and I commend the ingenuity. But will never understand someone going to the expense and hassle of buying a Billy and converting it into built-ins. Someone who can do the conversion is also capable of adding their own shelves at a fraction of the cost, and the product would be far more sturdy.
Whenever I see this in practice I always think a determined killer would clearly know not to attack the “secure” building. Rather, attack the densely-packed line of people waiting to swipe their badges.
Unnervingly, this usually occurs to me when I’m waiting patiently in the densely packed line of fellow targets.
This is amazing work, and I certainly respect the talent of those involved.
That said, my question to those interested is why? I've been a daily user of both Ubuntu since 2005 and Mac since 2012. There are some edge case differences but for the most part they are so similar that I nearly always run the same code on both without modification. Clearly I'm missing something important but I'm curious what it is. Thanks in advance.
One reason is for continued software support after Apple drops macOS compatibility for your machine. Intel Macs could be patched to run newer, unsupported OS versions (essentially hackintoshing your real Mac) but from my understanding that's basically impossible for Apple Silicon Macs.
Apple makes some of (if not) the best hardware around. It makes sense that some people would want to buy a Macbook Pro for its hardware and run their favorite OS on it.
This isn’t about addiction, it’s about censorship. If you limit the amount of time someone can spend getting information, and make it inconvenient with UI changes, it’s much harder to have embarrassing information spread to the masses.
Amazingly, the public will generally nod along anyway when they read governmental press releases and say “yes, yes, it’s for my safety.”
Scrolling through an infinity of AI slop videos can't really be classified as "getting information". If you want to read the news and stay up to date with the "embarrassing information" there's plenty of news websites out there.
> Why hasn't gamification of safe driving habits been built directly into the car itself before now?
I am so glad it hasn't. Data point of one, but gamification now has the opposite effect on me: it's such a well-worn pattern that it just annoys me. It was great when it was novel. I wonder how many others feel the same but without sampling it's hard to know.
I concur with you regarding gamification. When I am aware of the gamification it fills me with exhaustion to annoyance to extreme frustration. This is especially true of things that I want to use for one purpose.
I also think some of the car sensors (Subaru especially) that are trying to make you safer are notoriously bad.
I also find the random “coffee break” notice on Subarus frustrating.
My personal examples: “eyes on the road” - triggered frequently by one pair of sunglasses I have, looking left to check blind spot, checking mirrors, etc.
“Hands on the steering wheel” - triggered occasionally on long drives when I have been giving input, but very light input.
The infighting is so tedious. We really need to peacefully explore the "national divorce" idea again. In the 1860s the concept was too intermingled with the evil of slavery to be considered separately.
But realistically, instead of both sides hating each other to the point of perpetual violence, why not just have 2 or 3 countries in which we can all be happy? Trade and travel agreements are easy to establish by treaty. It doesn't have to be this way.
> We really need to peacefully explore the "national divorce" idea again. In the 1860s the concept was too intermingled with the evil of slavery to be considered separately.
The idea is still just as intermingled with fundamental human rights, plus the sides are more deeply geographically intermingled than in the 1860s, largely because the victors decided not to really root out the evil they had defeated an instead allowed it to metastasize. There may be no peaceful resolution; there is certainly no possibility of a peaceful divorce.
Because this time, the Mason-Dixon line runs through our back yards and down our neighborhood streets.
The time to split the country was when the Confederacy seceded. We should have just let them go, but that would have meant ignoring a human-rights atrocity, and in any case it would have resulted in a shared border with a belligerent enemy nation and ultimately with a failed state. It's definitely too late now.
Slavery still is—and will always be—the issue. You think the Black populations of Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida want to be ruled by uncontested white supremacists?
It is the historical task of our species to abolish slavery. In every generation we've got to reeducate ourselves about its evils.
The WW2 convoy situation was far easier to escort (but still quite dangerous obviously) because:
1. The Atlantic is a much bigger place, even considering common routes and chokepoints.
2. U-Boats had to surface frequently, making them extremely vulnerable to Allied air cover.
3. U-Boats had to be within visual range to strike convoys, versus the drone and missile world we live in now.
reply