I imagine, it could actually be useful for architects, to see how other people and environment will butcher their creation, so they could learn how to make it better with that in mind.
Edit: oh, it's right there at the bottom of the page!
Seems fairly simple to me: stop with the naked concrete and brutalist architecture. Old houses before that trend tend to look way nicer regardless of weather. (I'm not an expert on exact architectural style names, so I can't be more exact that that.)
Architects aren't generally brutalists themselves, but rather, brutalist architecture proposals win contracts because their TCO is lower. Facades have maintenance costs; bare concrete just requires power-washing now and then.
I'm carrying my 13 Pro without a case, to see it's Alpine Green glory and feel the matte finish on the back. It's been perfectly fine for the last almost 4 years, some minor scratches on the steel edges I fixed with a sandpaper, there is one recent scratch on the screen and that's all. Otherwise it looks good, just a bit used. Has fallen multiple times from pocket when sitting, and a dozen times from tables, few times onto pavement (that's what needed sanding).
Almost every single one "case" for iPhone is a waste. Waste of material, waste of space, waste of your money, waste of user experience. You've already paid for a perfectly good phone, and then slapped some $[1]0.99 case on it to gain nothing but pain and vanity.
I only had one case on a phone, that made it better - original wooden case for 1+3T. Been looking for same experience on iPhone, but it's not possible due to shape -- they are all bulky. The closest thing is carbon-fiber cases, and I had one, which saved this iPhone when I dropped it onto slanted pavement, where it slid for a few meters screen down, ruining the case, but saving the screen.
Would I drop it if I wasn't using a case, that has parts sticking out, making the phone more cumbersome to use and carry? Unlikely, because it happened in the first year owning it, and I've been going caseless since then and nothing similar happened.
If ceo receives 1000 resumes per month will it even matter?
Imagine as a ceo you receive emails from juniors wanting to work for your company. You might not even know the role, why would you waste time checking these Cv/email that detracts you from your goals? Usually are low quality and spammy , any ceo will quickly learn to ignore or forward to hr to blacklist these people. These are the same people that once they get a job will email the ceo for a raise.
As a ceo you hire hr to deal with that noise and only give you the top 3 are hr and others wasted their time filtering. If ceo does the filtering is useless.
Imagine for a tech role: the good devs would never email the CEO, the crap and entitles one will do. It’s definitively the kind of candidates you want to avoid.
Using spray-and-pray job-sites allows employers to analyze the market, so they can feel the quality, quantity and the price of proposition, to negotiate wages and assess if they can afford to hire to grow, or shrink to get lean.
Connecting the employer with employed to be is not the core proposition.
Without enough adoption expect some companies you are a client of to increase prices more, or close entirely down the road, due to insufficient cash inflow.
So, you would care, if you want to continue to use these tools and see them evolve, instead of seeing the bubble pop.
This is how FPV jammers are often field-checked in Russo-Ukrainian war. It doesn't test frequencies or spectrum quality, but is a useful indicator, that jammer is actually emitting (has power and is turned on), so you can be sure, that if it's up to spec and covers frequently used frequencies at your location - it actually tries to do it's job, instead of being a costly paperweight.
That sounds a lot as gloating mid-febraury 2022. We all know how it turned out.
> Russia has integrated air defence, anв the shit is real, it is fight-proven, it works day and night for the last 3 years. Ask Ukrainians.
Yep. There are videos of oil infrastructure destroyed every single day. Russia is big, so it's hard to defend, and most of its air defense systems are either destroyed, or try to cope with 91 imaginary drones in Valday.
> The EU will lose about 100 planes and 50 pilots
Wishful thinking. You assume EU planes flying just above Moskow, or something like that. Won't happen and Russian planes won't be able to send air missiles to intercept them, as Russia runs out of A-50s.
> will retaliate with new conventional MRBM strikes
Oreshnik does not exist. It's an experiment, that failed to launch into [mass] production. Wishful thinking again.
> Russia will also strike one large natural gas storage, one LPG from the Gulf comes into. Russian diversants will deliver several hits to the EU energy system, probably to large distribution hubs.
This is realistic and very likely, those tactics were already tested in the past few years.
> The EU stocks will drop to 70%-50% of their current value. The euro will fall by 20%-30% against global currencies. Electricity, gas, and heat prices will rise 2-3 times; gasoline and diesel prices will increase 1.5-2 times.
Not realistic. There is oil in the world, there is a lot of oil processing in Europe. US would love to send LNG and earn a lot of money, but it won't be 2-3 times. Ukraine has shown, that Russia can't keep enough pressure to stop the economy completely, so 70-50% numbers are too high.
You are not playing a war game, you are mostly fantasizing about world dominance, as many Russians did mid-feb 2022. Yes, Russia can spoil your day. No, it can't fight and defend successfully on two fronts. Yes, it has more soldiers now and experience. No, it can't protect them on marches, it's forced to fight with FPVs and will be. Armored vehicles are lost. Air defenses are lost. Many strategic aviation, including bombers and A-50s are down. Bombers didn't even knew what hit them, no ballistic missiles needed. Few A-50s were hit by ground-based air defense systems, which is kinda ironic. EU has stockpiled air defenses which, as we know, work well against Kinzhals, Onyxes, etc. EU has Saab 340s to defend against low-flying Kalibres and drones. EU doesn't have enough interceptor drones yet, but it has enough AAGs. And you should expect the same drone swarming as done in Ukraine, to penetrate the air defense with ballistics.
So, I would expect
1) Diversions
2) PsyOps
3) Combined strikes (not as devastating as you paint them)
4) CyberOps (can count as diversions)
I would not expect
1) Air superiority
2) Destruction of Europe's industrial and military infrastructure by missiles (maybe some by GBUs, but seems risky)
3) big drop in EU stocks, or increase in pricing (unless CyberOps and PsyOps succeed)
My point is not that Russia can win the war with Europe, it definitely can not. My point is that Europe can't even start the war with Russia. It is economically and politically unsustainable for the EU locomotives: Germany, France, Netherland. It will be devastating for the entire EU political canvas when Russia's marionettes Hungary and Slovakia, backed by right-wing EU and US actors will start peddling pro-Russian (masked as anti-war) rhetoric at scale 10x from now.
My point is that the EU has a unique opportunity to outsource that war to Ukraine, but seems like blowing that opportunity.
Update: I hope you are right about RS-26/Oreshnik, but you can't spread hope on your sandwich, as an old Russian proverb goes.
Russian tactics with EU is not to start a full-scale war, but to draw aggro there, so they won't be able to chill and outsource the war to Ukraine, but instead to prepare themselves, which would limit the amount of support given to Ukraine. Make EU anxious -> EU keeps more resources at home instead of directing them to Ukraine. Even if it gets hot, advances are unlikely from both sides. (Believe it or not, but I didn't use AI to write this, I hate that it overuses some figures, so I'm forced to apologize for them).
You can hear similar individualistic rhetoric from puppets (Hungary and Slovakia, some parties in other EU countries), which themselves only get richer from the ongoing war (they provide almost no support, but get high return from taxing Ukrainian refugees, while also being subsidized by leading EU members).
Also, there is another Russian PsyOp to paint Ukraine as ridiculously corrupt country in mass consciousness, designed, again, to prevent others from providing support ("it will be stolen anyway"), which, unfortunately, plays well with Ukrainian fight with corruption (corruption scheme gets exposed, actual corruption goes down, but it's then used as an example, how corrupt it is, while in many countries, including EU, corruption is not much better, but dynamic of change is smaller, so there is no much public attention to it, and it's not magnified by Russian PsyOps).
The real attacks from Russia on EU and others are designed to weaken support of Ukraine, by any means.
Ukraine has a chance to capitalize on that, by collective defense programs and exporting extra munitions, such as drones (many companies sprung up and current production capacity is much more, that the government can pay for, so exports could subsidize locally consumed weapons, and interceptor drones are much cheaper, than missiles to intercept Shaheds aka Geran, Molnias and other, launched by hundreds each strike, sometimes even up to thousand a day), and experience, but it's slow to get to speed.
> I hope you are right about RS-26/Oreshnik
Me too, but it's not that precise anyways. It can deliver nuclear warheads, maybe it could be bettered with individually targeting submunitions, but in current form it's only good to carpet-bomb large areas, providing it could actually launch successfully. Note, that there was only one strike with it in many years, without using it they can paint it as better, than it is. Meanwhile, there were many failed launches of other IRBM/ICBMs in the last 10+ years, after giving up Yuzhmash expertise in rocket engines, leaving it to Ukraine, which can't capitalize on it financially (and US has now it's own cheap means to deliver satellites to orbit, thanks to SpaceX, so Ukrainian rockets are out of favor there as well)
> but you can't spread hope on your sandwich, as an old Russian proverb goes.
This is not a "Bucharest Memorandum", but a memorandum of a convo between Bush and Putin, which happened on April 6th of 2008. What you are talking about is from [0], and you should not believe Putin's words verbatim. Remember: he likes to "teach" history people from other side of the world. He cherrypicks some facts, omits other facts, distorts some other, and spits out some narrative to base his claims on it. Later these narratives get to school history books and become the history as russians know it. This practice is more than hundred years old by now in USSR and later Russia.
Edit: oh, it's right there at the bottom of the page!
reply