tal
The weapon will be operated from the ground using VR goggles.
Not that this isn't good, but one thing that I've considered before in a Shahed counter...if it uses visual light to track its target, my guess is that there may still be ways to get past it, like flying inside clouds or fog.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't still greatly improve the situation.
The feature list of the language is so long at this point that it is pretty much impossible for anyone new to learn C++ and grok the design decisions anymore.
Even if it is possible, it's a high bar. The height of that bar matters in bringing new people in.
I have seen decades of would-be "C++ killers" come and go. I think that in the end, it is C++ that kills C++. The language has just become unusably large. And that's one thing that cannot be fixed by extending the language.
At least the latter one is just showing which instances the named instance has defederated from, not which instances have defederated from the named instance.
That's easy to get by checking /instances on a given instance already.
The problem is that you'd need some kind of spider that crawls all of the instances to get the reverse of that.
The former one does seem to show it.
I thought of that, but I don't think it's an option. From reading about past air disasters -- one of which involved depressurization of the cargo hold that turned into a cascading failure of the plane -- my understanding is that the pressurized area includes both the cabin and cargo area. The plane isn't structurally designed to depressurize the cargo area while keeping the cabin pressurized.
Well, he's on fedia.io, so I assume that he recommends that.
Keep in mind that that's an mbin instance. It has a different UI (much of which, though not all of which, I like), but last I looked, which was some time back, didn't have mobile client support other than a PWA. That may or may not be significant to you, depending upon your usage. It also has native support for Mastodon-style microblogging.
Your home instance is a lemmy instance, so it'll look and work somewhat-differently.
My main irritation with the mbin UI last I looked was the difficulty of bringing up the subscriptions list. On the other hand, it did a collection of other things that I liked that lemmy presently does not, like permitting resizing inline images.
They don't seem to get into friction over it. I've never heard of @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com or mods on their communities banning people for being statists. Granted, I don't presently subscribe to any communities there, but I haven't seen a stream of comments complaining about interactions with them.
I mean, it probably wouldn't be my first place to stick a non-piracy related community if I were starting one, but I also wouldn't avoid existing communities there.
slowly being edged out of the wider lemmy experience.
If your home instance is lemmy.ml and it's just people using communities on instances other than lemmy.ml, then you still get the full experience, unless you're committed to only using locally-hosted communities or something.
If instances are defederating with lemmy.ml, then you're missing content.
I don't know of an easy way to get a list of which instances have defederated with a given instance. The information is public, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone has a spider, like the lemmyverse.net one, that gathers it. But as things stand, it's easy to, given an instance name, know which instances it has defederated from, but not which instances have defederated from it.
Apparently the EULA blocked them from lawsuits, as people have tried suing them before.
This guy tried suing them six years back over his $4500.
Ken Lord was one of those fans, and an early backer of Star Citizen. He’s got a Golden Ticket, a mark on his account that singles him out as an early member of the community. Between April 2013 and April 2018, Ken pledged $4,495 to the project. The game still isn’t out, and Lord wants his money back. RSI wouldn’t refund it, so Lord took the developer to small-claims court in California.
On June 13, 2018, a judge ruled in favor of Star Citizen. According to Lord—and the LA county court records—the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, saying an arbitration clause buried in the Star Citizen end-user license agreement prevented Lord, or anyone, from taking RSI to court for a refund on a game that some backers think may never come out.
I suppose a class action lawyer might be able to find some jurisdiction in which they were taking money and running afoul of consumer protection laws.
Thing is, I think that a class action lawyer is going to want to go after someone with money, and when CIG runs out of funds, I don't expect that they're going to be a very interesting target.
https://gamerant.com/star-citizen-development-history-kickstarter-budget-delays-fans-disappointed/
In October 2012, Star Citizen was officially revealed, alongside a Kickstarter campaign that would be opened a week later. The Kickstarter page discussed the game in pretty extensive detail, boasting a long list of features that the game would allegedly have by launch.
Star Citizen was going to have a "persistent universe," a vast multiplayer environment that allowed players to trade, fight, and talk amongst each other, acting as a simulation of a real sci-fi galaxy. Alongside this, a singleplayer campaign named "Squadron 42" would also be released, featuring co-op. Upon release, Star Citizen was going to have no pay-to-win mechanics, and no ongoing subscription model. Simply put, if people pledged money once, then they were done, and would receive the full game at launch, slated for November 2014.
Twelve years ago, the game had a release date set to be two years in the future.
Today, it also seems to have a release date of two years in the future.
https://www.33rdsquare.com/demystifying-aaa-games-the-past-present-and-future-of-blockbuster-gaming/
Lengthy development cycles – Given their complexity, AAA games take 2-5 years to develop. This allows time for extensive testing and polish.
Two years is at the lower end of what it'd take a studio to do an AAA game from scratch.
Just to moderate expectations, at this point, the US government has not said anything public as to immediately initiating NATO accession.
According to an anonymous European diplomat, if Democratic candidate Kamala Harris wins the US presidential election, it can be assumed that Joe Biden will start working on an invitation to Ukraine during the transition period.
The chain here is an anonymous European diplomat with God knows what kind of access to the US decision-making process.
The quote here is "can be assumed", so I assume that this involved at least some analysis on their end, that they aren't simply relaying information from the US executive.
That isn't to say that they are necessarily wrong. They may have a solid analysis, or may indeed be someone with inside information and leaking it. But I feel like there's a big difference between a title like "US Ready to Invite Ukraine to NATO" and "some European diplomat somewhere in Europe told a French newspaper that it can be assumed that if Harris wins election, that the US will start that process".
I have not, myself, seen anything indicating that NATO membership will be added during the war, though I haven't been closely following news on it. In a scenario where Ukraine and Russia are at war and Ukraine is in NATO, one would expect Ukraine to promptly invoke Article 5. That means:
-
Either NATO has a unanimous agreement that all member states are prepared to initiate war against Russia.
-
Or there is going to be some kind of legal exception or fancy footwork involved.
My guess, especially looking at the Finland and Sweden process, is that the US is most likely not going to be the long pole on unanimity for NATO membership, which means that in terms of near-term impact, from the US executive, I'd personally be more interested in what bilateral security guarantees the US would provide. There have been some level of agreements signed between Ukraine and the US, but I have no idea as to their contents, and as far as I know, Ukraine and the US have not made their specific terms public. Here's a press release on one such bilateral:
I'd also note that this press release also says something along the lines of what I am above:
We are not waiting for the NATO process to be completed to make long-term commitments to Ukraine’s security to address the immediate threats they face and deter any aggression that may occur.
My guess is that it won't be NATO membership that changes the situation on the ground in the immediate term. That will probably only formalize a post-war situation.
I don't think that Russia can spare much in terms of air defense, not in the short term. They're constrained there themselves.