They must given they can react to vehicle speed or prevent access to things while driving etc. I always imagined that to be a fairly hardened API that not even I, after a drunken bender, equipped with Electron, could cause any harm with.
Hmm. Would it be a read only API or can infotainment ever effect change to the vehicle’s operations? My Forester’s vehicle settings (eg. modifying the autonomy features) are managed by the crappy screen behind the wheel rather than the nice touch screen.
The decision to invade sits with the leaders in Beijing. "The enemy gets a say", as the saying goes, and whether they would be successful is not obvious. It would be arguably the most complex amphibious invasion in history, definitely rivaling Normandy. The US has a lot of tools, both software and hardware, to bring to the fight in this scenario. Perhaps the question is on acceptable cost. There's also really only two times in the year when the weather in the Straight is calm enough to support that kind of invasion, and the sheer volume of hardware and systems they would have to move makes this kind of operation almost impossible to hide, though there are limited and imperfect ways to mask the preparation.
>It isn't winning these fights.
It absolutely is, right now, in Ukraine. The US has been able to use the Ukraine war as a massive real-time R&D laboratory for our weapons systems. The result is that Russia can no longer project naval power, their strategic air force is completely neutered, and they have tipped their hand for much of their signals and EW systems. The war is stalemated ... without the direct involvement of NATO (the wisdom of direct involvement is not relevant here).
This is to say that I disagree, there is a military solution to this problem.
I dunno, my read on Ukraine is it looks like the Ukranians are feeling their way toward some sort of a collapse. They haven't been able to stabilise the frontline, there was that discussion of lowering the mobilisation age earlier this year and the Russian negotiators don't seem to be in any hurry to make concessions. No certainty in a war but those aren't rosy signals.
Regardless, say China decides to take Taiwan. They set up a blockade with drones and missiles. If there is a counter the US has for that I haven't seen it, Taiwan pretty much disappears off the economic map. There is an interesting series of wargames [0] recently where CSIS looked at what might happen over the first 20 weeks of a blockade and it isn't pretty (let alone what presumably happens if China turns out to be willing to wage war for 12 months or more). My read on the "summery of game outcomes" section is that the US generally takes higher casualties than the Chinese, which is a not a position anyone wants to be in. Then the war drags out and we find out if the US has any idea how to manufacture ... I don't know what they'd need to maintain an attrition war like that. It looks quite hard and consequently the idea of material US support is probably a bluff. They've shown no willingness to bleed on behalf of other people.
Maybe if some sort of grand coalition of Asians comes together to fight and die protecting US hegemony in the Pacific it could work out well for the US. Crazier things have happened.
Australia, The Philippines, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and possibly France would join American military intervention. Not to mention Taiwan itself. Probably get logistical support from other places like Singapore, Thailand, etc.
American sentiment would change if mass casualties were inflicted on US troops.
This war scenario is different for Americans than Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. There is direct threat to the American homeland if Taiwan falls. Not to mention destroying our technology infrastructure and industry.
>would it make sense for the US to adopt a more peaceful strategy?
"Just be nicer when someone threatens to punch you in the mouth"
The structure of the Chinese economy is very different from ours. It's not that their trade policy "leverages producing high quality goods cheaply", as if there's something magic about the dirt in Shenzhen. More that they were able to play a very long game, and take advantage of continual missteps in industrial policy that started somewhere back in the 1990s. They have not won this game yet.
You’re right I forgot that PRC has no agency in their long term geopolitical activities, is always responsible and honest about what they’re doing, and anything bad happening is simply a result of the United States’ jingoism. “China good, America bad evil empire”. We get it man.
I'm in favor of compromise, but why the 12th inning? Haven't looked at the data but from memory it does kind of feel like games that get to the 12th inning tend to last into, say, the 15th or later.
I think 12th based on (and I cannot emphasize this enough) vibes instead of data would be fine.
10th definitely feels too soon (it's basically the 9th), and the 11th still kinda feels too soon too.
If anything, I'd argue it should be fine to ask your closer/reliever to pitch an extra inning (the 10th) "as-is". The 11th makes you burn an extra reliever, and that should be okay.
The 12th is where I'd start to say "okay, wind it down, we're all losing now".
The ghost runner rule is by far the most ridiculous. A pitcher can give up no hits, and get an ER and the L in extra innings. Make it make sense. Baseball is also telling on itself here because that rule does not apply in the playoffs.
That wikipedia article has got to be up there with one of the worst I've read. I get it that most people think this hypothesis is bogus (I do too, for the most part), but the article is needlessly inflammatory and as a result it's hard to understand what the hypothesis even is other than "it's a dumb as cold fusion".
I agree that the article starts out needlessly inflammatory. There are big egos in Science, as in all other endeavors, and folks can get reactionary and arguments heated. "Science advances one death at a time" after all.
That said, further down the article, there is some legitimate discussion about alternatives and even mention that "Wallace Broecker—the scientist who proposed the conveyor shutdown hypothesis—eventually agreed with the idea of an extraterrestrial impact at the Younger Dryas boundary, and thought that it had acted as a trigger on top of a system that was already approaching instability."
I can't say whether an impact happened for certain or not. I await further evidence. But I do think that the hypothesis is plausible and it's clear from the Chicxulub impact that meteors can have disastrous impact on global ecology.
The best part is one of the cited articles: "Rebuttal of Sweatman, Powell, and West's "Rejection of Holliday et al.'s alleged refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis"
A rebuttal of a rejection of an "alleged refutation". You can tell there's a lot of academic egos involved here.
The article Wikipedia cites for that says the group publishing the hypothesis cited a PhD thesis that "pioneered the idea of using the Old Testament as a guide to our understanding of cosmic airburst phenomena", and that they cited a young Earth creationist journal for their information on the Tunguska airburst event. It's a weak connection IMO.
I thought I had heard it used as flood explanation, but it seems young Earth creationists know the timeline doesn't fit.
We're getting into the weeds here, but once I learned of the 400ft sealevel rise at the younger dryas, it seemed immediately clear to me that this could be the great flood immortalized in so much myth and legend around the world.
Researchers have verified oral histories of at least 10,000 years age among Aboriginal Australians against date-able geologic events. Consequently, it is now clear that we can maintain such socially important information across such time.
It seems to me that we most likely fudged the exact date somewhere along the way.
Ancient peoples are often underestimated. But they were as smart and capable as ourselves, and possessed of a great deal more contemplative time and opportunity to observe the natural world around them.
Scientists are trained to look for faults and reasons to invalidate. It's the fundamental skill for eliminating hypotheses. And that is OK. But I believe there is useful information to be found in ancient culture if one is willing to consider it in good faith from the perspective of someone living through it.
Is there a technical write up of the false positive? I've long known about Petrov and his intuition, but eventually the error was confirmed and I haven't been able to find much detail as to the "how". Presumably the satellite system that failed had a lab twin, and the failure was reproduced there?
"It was subsequently determined that the false alarms were caused by a rare alignment of sunlight on high-altitude clouds and the satellites' Molniya orbits, an error later corrected by cross-referencing a geostationary satellite."
