> Every rusty trawler is a viable launch platform for Shahed type drones
And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own (well, with a couple of tankers accompanying it, but never mind that) and hope no-one pays attention?
> operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia
I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototypes rather than the models in actual use. The Shaheds have ranges in the hundreds of miles, not thousands.
It's surprisingly difficult to find ships if they don't want to be found. Iran has been able to maintain it's shadow fleet for decades for a reason. It'd be more difficult to get a boat that close to the USA for sure, but not impossible. What is more likely are the various Iranian terrorist organisatons that have been showing up especially in the UK [1, 2].
These people are used to executing civilians when they are the police. That's how IRGC, hamas and hezbollah work. You won't see much action from people like that when they can't just shoot anyone that they don't like.
> And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own
China operates fishing fleets all around the globe but Iran is not known for this so Iranian fishing vessel in western Atlantics will rise suspicions. An ordinary cargo vessel heading to the Central America on other hand may sail unnoticed.
Shaheds are launched not from the frontline (to avoid a launch site being attacked) but I would agree that a typical attack distance is around 500 km (which is much less than the range stated in wikipedia). Still this unlikely the max range of this drone and there is a tradeoff - one can increase range by reducing the war head mass.
The genius of the Shahid drone is that the fuel is the warhead. Look at Shahid attacks - mostly FA damage, very little HE damage. They are for killing people and destruction of soft infrastructure by fire, not destruction of hardened infrastructure by explosion.
The fuel tank is heavily segmented, so they are difficult to shoot down. When shot, they lose fuel but continue to the target. They get to the target with less fuel, but still get there. The HE them detonates the remaining fuel load.
A Shahid could do a 2500km mission, and arrive with a very small fuel load. That will be effective against targets that already have enough fuel to burn there, such as apartment buildings, petroleum energy infrastructure, office buildings, etc. Less so against places with little flammable material concentration such as hospitals, military installations (other than fuel and munitions depots), roads and runways, etc.
He's speaking from a military, America-first perspective (which I suspect may be somewhat affected, because he is hoping to convince people who sincerely think that way). The people in these countries are not strategically important.
> It costs me nothing to install both stores on my PC.
But you wouldn't bother unless you have a reason to. I put off buying games I wanted to for months because I'd've had to install a new store. No-one is going to install a store for nothing.
> I buy Alan Wake 2 on EGS, great, that doesn't make me any more likely to buy the next game I want there.
Now every time you launch Alan Wake 2 they get a chance to sell you another game. If you see a game you like, why wouldn't you buy it on EGS now that you've installed it and know it works? They've got your email address now and can send you recommendations or tell you when there's a sale on.
Sure, it's still going to be an uphill struggle. But if they can't get you to install the store then they can't even start.
> No, because programs sending telemetry to the US is so routine that and pervasive that we don't even remark on it.
That's not a valid reason. Nice try, though.
> Now who's committing a whole catalogue of fallacies?
Calling a fallacious and manipulative comment that literally follows a country's propaganda playbook "propaganda" isn't a fallacy - it's just true.
It's extremely telling that you didn't comment on any of the actual points that I made, such as it being a false dichotomy and whataboutism - because you know that I'm right, and so you had to resort to insinuations and redirections yourself. Congratulations, you just proved me right.
The original comment was neither false dichotomy nor whataboutism. It was a simple point that the rest of the world is already used to their data being snooped by the US government. So apart from US exceptionalism, there is no particular reason they would be especially alarmed by the prospect of their data being sent to "Chinese servers".
> You realise you can walk into any US bank right now and they'll just open an account for you with nothing more than some accurate ID?
There's an ocean in the way, not to mention how risky visiting looks right now. I changed my name recently and the one US bank that I managed to get an account with (so that US clients can pay me without weirdness) won't accept any kind of documentation without going there in person (and I'm not sure I can provide anything they'll accept even if I did go there in person). What now?
Well no matter what you say it's always nuh uh, doesn't count or some variation of why can't you just be an "everyman." It's hard to argue with a dogmatic position that is based on feelings. You can tell such person what's actually happened to me when I tried to open an account with only "accurate ID" (a US passport) and they literally won't do it while you are homeless because they require a proof of address for KYC even if you have none. Almost everything they have asserted is plainly false. They also claim to have used their bank account to pay for trade in North Korea, a comprehensively sanctioned entity, which seems to be a public written confession of committing a serious crime just to own the crypto use crowd for internet points lol.
People in the middle bands of uses are just ignorantly bliss. And moving between "2 continents" in some vague most likely semi-developed white listed countries in most cases doesn't fall outside the middle bands of uses. So you end up with people shaking their fists at the sky crying that crypto exists, with their fingers in their ears and loudly proclaiming anyone using it are just making up absurd contrived scenarios.
>> They also claim to have used their bank account to pay for trade in North Korea, a comprehensively sanctioned entity, which seems to be a public written confession of committing a serious crime just to own the crypto use crowd for internet points lol
Lol. Thanks, Mr Google Esq.
I was indeed in North Korea. It was not particularly hard to get to before COVID (I'm told it's harder now). You have no idea what the laws of my jurisdiction are were at the time I went, or the purpose of my visit and whether sanctions even extend to it, whether I sought any exemptions from my government, etc - but please tell me more about all these alleged serious crimes you've just discovered on Wikipedia.
>> So you end up with people shaking their fists at the sky crying that crypto exists, with their fingers in their ears and loudly proclaiming anyone using it are just making up absurd contrived scenarios.
See, the problem with all your posts is that you're just spinning one tale after another. You need crypto for all the orphanages you're building in war zones. You need crypto for illiterate Iraqi farmers. You need crypto for your Comoros citizenship purchases. Never mind that none of that makes any sense - it's everyone else who's not listening to you! And all your super legitimate, not at all made up, not at all tax fraud related use cases for stable coins!
Why is it more absurd to want to build an orphanage in Iraq or buy a residence visa somewhere off the beaten path than it is to proclaim you've gotten sanctions exemptions for North Korea in the context of you explicitly pointing to the use of US bank accounts? Why is your anecdotes somehow more valid than mine?
Suddenly when it comes to your North Korea escapades (while proclaiming about mr. "everyman", lmao) I just don't have all the facts and nuance, but you just handwave away any of the uses I point to. Get real.
I never said I obtained sanctions exemptions, I merely pointed out you're just straight up making stuff up when you're concocting "serious crimes" with no knowledge of the underlying facts whatsoever. Which seems like a bit of a pattern with your posts, to be frank.
It's relatively trivial to visit North Korea, and there are many reasons one might do so that may not fall afoul of any sanctions (journalism, research, aid, and so on). It's ludicrous to proclaim you're building orphanages in Iraq for which you require crypto stablecoins. These are not even remotely comparable claims.
It's funny how you can know all the facts to be sure stable coins aren't applicable to some others' scenario but if someone dare point out that you paid a comprehensively sanctioned country by god they're not allowed to use the same evidentiary standards you have presented. And for the record, I said it seems as if a confession to a crime, not that it actually was one.
Seems as if you don't like it when your own logic is used on you. Which seems like a bit of a pattern with your posts, to be frank.
Lol. Evidentiary standards? Mate, I don't give a flying fig if you believe me or not. You asked for my experiences, so I gave them to you. I certainly don't believe you, so you're free to not believe me. Seems only fair.
Your claimed use cases for stablecoins are utterly fantastical and I think your posts speak for themselves.
I did not ask for your experiences. You were the one asking ("waiting"). Then just dismissing anyone that told you because it was never a genuine question.
> But the fact that a company can manufacture consumer(ish) routers in Latvia means it's very practical that another company could manufacture consumer routers in the US.
Assembling them in Latvia, or the US, from internationally sourced components isn't a solution to anything.
> Usually the argument is that X can't be made in the US because China's so good at it that the US could never compete, so we shouldn't even try. But if a company with 367 employees in a country with the population of a medium-size metro area can do it, it proves that argument is bunk.
Unless Latvia is a much better environment for this kind of industry than the US is.
> Assembling them in Latvia, or the US, from internationally sourced components isn't a solution to anything.
I disagree. It's the first step. I mean, how did China do it? They started with assembly and low-value manufacturing and worked their way up the value chain. The US still had fabs. Once you get assembly reshored, start pushing to to reshore components (which are mostly chips, and pretty soon the equipment is mostly domestic.
> Unless Latvia is a much better environment for this kind of industry than the US is.
In what way?
Even if the US is utterly terrible for this kind of industry, we're talking about a small-medium sized tech company. It seems extremely doable.
> legal avenues exist to hold those manufacturers accountable
Maybe in theory. I think the practical chance of enforcing anything meaningful through those legal avenues against a US manufacturer is not meaningfully higher than the chance of doing so against a Chinese manufacturer, so it doesn't make sense to treat them differently on these grounds.
> Other than duck-typed languages (and I count Go as basically that), which languages actually provide this feature?
There are only like 3 significant languages with trait-based generics, and both the other ones have some way of providing orphan instances (Haskell by requiring a flag, Scala by not having a coherence requirement at all and relying on you getting it right, which turns out to work out pretty well in practice).
More generally it's an extremely common problem to have in a mature language; if you don't have a proper fix for it then you tend to end up with awful hacks instead. Consider e.g. https://www.joda.org/joda-time-hibernate/ and https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-datatype-joda , and note how they have to be essentially first party modules, and they have to use reflection-based runtime registries with all the associated problems. And I think that these issues significantly increased the pressure to import joda-time into the JVM system library, which ultimately came with significant downsides and costs, and in a "systems" language that aims to have a lean runtime this would be even worse.
> Scala is interesting. How do they resolve conflicts?
If there are multiple possible instances you get a compilation error and have to specify one explicitly (which is always an option). So you do have the problem of upgrading a dependency and getting a compilation error for something that was previously fine, but it's not a big deal in practice - what I generally do is go back to the previous version and explicitly pass the instance that I was using, which is just an IDE key-combo, and then the upgrade will succeed. (After all, it's always possible to get a conflict because a library you use added a new method and the name conflicted with another library you were using - the way I see it this is essentially the same thing, just with the name being anonymous and the type being the part that matters)
You also theoretically have the much bigger problem of using two different hashing/sorting/etc. implementations with the same datastructure, which would be disastrous (although not an immediate memory corruption issue the way it could be in Rust). But in practice it's just not something I see happening, it would take a very contrived set of circumstances to encounter it.
And where exactly are you planning to operate that trawler out of? Or are you going to send it across the Atlantic on its own (well, with a couple of tankers accompanying it, but never mind that) and hope no-one pays attention?
> operational range ~2500 km per Wikipedia
I think you either added an extra zero or were looking at the hyped prototypes rather than the models in actual use. The Shaheds have ranges in the hundreds of miles, not thousands.
reply