For us individually. For us collectively it was a horrible thing. We lost the means and incentive to produce anything durable, including a healthy, educated, sustainable society.
People planning the post-WWII system wildly overestimated how how disciplined Americans could be.
The whole point of the US transitioning to a service economy was that it would upskill the workforce into the world's Delta Force team of highly educated scientists, engineers, researchers, etc. The rest of the world would handle the boring stuff like actually manufacturing the beautiful inventions designed by the US.
The problem is that a lot of the US populace is gung-ho patriotic and willing to die for their country, but absolutely refuses to learn math or generally do their homework for their country, which is what's actually required for this whole scheme to work.
I'm paraphrasing the shockingly astute observations of this guy[1].
It's fascinating how education has COMPLETELY fallen off the radar politically in the last 10-15 years.
Even before we introduced a WWE manager for the Secretary of Education, we stopped discussing educational competitiveness. I can recall a couple decades ago every year or two the news having nervous handwringing stories about "(originally Japanese, then Korean, then Chinese) 6th graders have the math skills to design a full lunar rocket launch system, while American high-school graduates are incapable of filling out a Lotto playslip correctly".
The only time anyone talks about schools now is "is one getting shot up" or "looking for an excuse to ban books or siphon the few remaining dollars the public school programs have left into private/charter/religious schools that aren't necessarily delivering better overall outcomes." Rather than fixing the affordability crisis in secondary education, we're seeing an awful lot of amplification on the "not everyone should go to college" narrative, which might be technically accurate but seems to undermine the Delta Force plan you mentioned even more. Nobody seems to make education a central campaign issue anymore (even before all issues were subsumed by "will there be a fair election next time?")
The only way it makes sense is if we gave up on the idea of education as an economic driver. What is our economic vision for 2050? Feels like the current administration has maybe two ideas left:
* Hope everyone else leaves the petrostate pool, either by supply collapse or market trend/long term economic vision shifts, and then we can be the world's leading supplier of goo, from a puppetized Venezuela and maybe by coaxing Alberta seperatism enough.
* Bully economics, no longer even trying to compete on legitimate product merits and just saying "You'll buy 70,000 Dodge Darts if you don't want us to start shooting up your fishing boats."
Yeah, I've heard this interpretation before that this is the US trying to wean itself off the resource curse bestowed by a strong dollar. I think it's a fun idea, but there is no reason or strategy to this, I'm afraid. Just stupid people doing what they do best, doing stupid things.
I agree, the whole thing is stupid. But, when you don't have a healthy, educated society, they wind up being easily conned into electing stupid greedy people. So it seems that the resource curse may lead inevitably to systemic failure. Good times make weak men.
Yes... so lets vote someone in that does all the things towards creating a less healthy, less educated and less sustainable society.
US was doing just fine btw. I know this because people like you blow the small issues way out of proportion, and the reason this haplens is that there is no real issues to worry about.
Whoa there. You're making quite some assumptions about me, it seems. I'm in no way advocating for the present administration, not in strategy nor in tactics nor in any other way.
I do think that the US was not "doing just fine", clearly, because our society was not healthy or educated or sustainable enough to avoid our present fate. It's easy to blame 'them' for all our woes, when we collectively made 'them'. Obviously we can't prevent every idiot and psychopath from existing, but we've certainly failed some 30% of our population if they fall for this crap. And this is the price we pay.
They built boats to sail down the Salt River, to the Colorado River, and to Mexico. Of course the salt river is almost always just a dry river bed. It's shocking to me that no dramatization of this escape exists
I mean, their escape was quite complex and did actually "work", it's just they didn't get very far beyond that. Any dramatization would clearly need some comedic element
Military-grade just means it has a spec, now, I will admit having a spec is nice, very nice. but in general it says little about the actual quality of the item. And if the spec can't be found or there is no spec. Probably best to stay away, in those cases they are not even selling you the snake oil but the sound of it sloshing in the bottle.
Yeah if you see something labelling itself "MIL-SPEC", that's grade A snake oil bullshit.
That said military spec stuff is actually generally a good sign that something is of higher quality than random off the shelf garbage but only if you know there's a specific spec you want it to work with. And most of the time you aren't even necessarily looking for a MIL-STD (standard) but rather a MIL-PRF (performance rating/spec).
So like if something is "MIL-SPEC" run. But if you see say a spool of fiber that is "MIL-STD-1678 compliant" and more importantly "MIL-PRF-49291 compliant" and "MIL-PRF-85054 compliant", that's probably a really good sign that it'll do its job. The former PRF documenting perf requirements for the fiber itself and the latter PRF the cabling/sheath's corrosion and deterioration resistance.
It's the military so odds are it'll probably cost extra for that and it'll still kinda suck but it'll suck in exactly the way they promised.
Hell, anything even close to salt water is apt to get ate. What's funny is you'll see people say they want to retire and get a beach house. No. You. Don't. Blowing sand is hard on stuff, getting in gears and moving parts. But the salt, the salt is like some alien monster that just dissolves things that flat landers would never expect. Get the smallest amount of saltwater flooding in a closet with equipment and things start to corrode away like it's an alien acid world.
Military grade afaict just implies the military ‘could’ use it, by that definition almost any company sells military grade products or services, except companies who explicitly would not sell to the military.
In the US, "military grade" is like "natural". There is no legally enforced meaning, so it means whatever the manufacturer says it means. Sometimes that's something real and of some value, but the majority of the time it's just a meaningless marketing buzzword.
the military often writes a spec and then refuses to buy anything that doesn't meet it. Most soldiers are not going to walmart to get supplies - even f walmart sells that type of thing.
"military grade" isn't a protected phrase. As a consumer you might be able to sue them if the thing breaks and they can't prove that phrase meant anything? But doubtful.
Claiming to conform to a more specific product or process standard would be more specific fraud.
But in general though "military grade" is a red flag for shitty marketing.
If you had one, you could also buy games in the form of “cartridges”. Putting one of those cartridges into the gameboy would let you play the game for as long as the batteries held out.
I don’t disagree but it’s not hard to understand why people think “military grade” means it’s better. “Military grade” communicates tough/durable/stress tested to a lot of people. Veteran/patriot isn’t an indicator of build quality, even if it is also pandering to a certain sensibility.
For many products it just means it's a small run from a group that may not have a lot of domain experience using materials and methods that will make the end product appear superior to buyers.
Totally understand that, I’m just talking about the difference between “patriot/veteran” and “military grade” to the average person. The latter heavily implies “quality build” while also appealing to people (mostly dudes) who want that sort of label for whatever reason, while the former is purely about values and has no implications as far as quality is concerned.
There are some ratings, like semiconductor temperature ratings, with labels that include "military", (e.g. manufacturers may name their products, from the narrowest to widest operating temperatures, with something like: commercial, industrial, automotive, military) and "military" would indicate a better product.
On the other hand, when a product is designed and manufactured to sell to a military, it's going to be expensive, and that extra cost isn't going to quality or capability, it's going to compliance. You're more than likely paying extra to get something using some old and outdated technology, that includes paperwork to prove that it's only built using the approved old and outdated technology.
Hand-beaten from Tibetan silver by buddhist monks who live in a cave in the Himalayas. You just have to make sure the chakras are aligned correctly when you've installed it.
A company can not sell a product to consumers cheaper than it can sell to the federal government, and the federal government contract normally comes first. A lot of the stuff you can buy (minus restricted items), it'll just cost you.
They can't sell the same thing but they can sell something slightly different. put a different type of paint on it and you can sell for different prices.
FS will literally sell you heavy-duty Armored (e.g. thicker/stronger sheath) cable and the packet it comes in will be labelled "military grade". That's literally your scenario.
Is one supposed to send it back for a refund and order the much thinner, less-durable cable? Or is perhaps the landscape not as black-and-white as your "this is automatically snake-oil"?
But shitload of vendors won't bother and just sell you a "military grade" or, even in non-english speaking countriess, say a "MIL-SPEC Daniel Defense AR-15". They won't list every spec in detail. And they make good AR-15s (but not cheap).
Anyone who thinks the triggers listed as MIL-SPEC from, say, Geissele here:
Guess what? Its screen never broke overnight like the one of my MacBook M1 Air did (the infamous "bendgate").
I can bend my LG Gram's screen and it's keeps working fine. I can let it drop. Friend who sold it to me stepped on it when he woke up once.
There's a very big difference between saying: "There are shady vendors" and saying "Military specs do not exists and it's impossible for consumers to buy items passing military specifications".
Yes, there are dishonest vendors.
Yes, military specs do exist.
And, yes, it's possible for consumers to buy products passing (and even surpassing) actual military specs.
If you buy a commercial product labelled "military grade", you are also buying snake oil.
"Military grade" is generally shit. It's built down to a price, manufactured the cheapest possible way, so they can get the lowest possible tender submitted. Bonus prize if the manufacturer is owned by either someone already in government, or with close ties to someone in government.
The only "military grade" devices I own are some woefully unsuccessful radios, which failed in the market because they were actually good - easy to use, reliable, and easy to repair - which made them about 5% more expensive than the cheapest option which was made by a company part-owned by the government and part-owned by someone who donates heavily to the Conservatives.
Look, we could spend a fraction of what we do, but then there would be people who get things for free or even fraudulently. You can see just how bad that would be from an American mindset.
It's crazy that it's been almost 20 years since I played a large amount of quake/quake 2/q3a, but I can instantly recognize the architecture of the levels that are re-skinned. The original map development was incredibly iconic.
It's crazy that there can be over a quarter century between the last time I played Quake, yet the first thing I do in e1m1 is shoot the fake wall in the recessed area on the right and grab the shotgun shells from the secret area…
Here it might fail. If you were sufficiently motivated and controlled the software stacks on the rpi's you may be able to get data to flow in the other direction. LEDs have their voltage modulated by light. And it's possible that is the voltage on the transistor if properly modulated it may able to emit light. It's a lot of ifs and requires the adc of the rpi to be sensitive enough (and one of the pinmux options). But it's why certifying is important.
Oh, and if you controlled the software stack on the two rpi's there's a good chance there's a side channel somewhere
I reckon it is also possible to set up a second channel covertly at a higher frequency. It may also have surprising flaws. People have read network packets from router indicator LEDs lol.
To be fair, as someone who used to manage an X account for a very small startup as part of my role (glad that's no longer the case), for a long time (probably still the case) posting direct links would penalize your reach. So making a helpful, self-contained post your followers might find useful was algorithmically discouraged.
Everything that is awful in the diff between X and Twitter is there entirely by decision and design.
Vagueposting is a different beast. There’s almost never any intention of informing etc; it’s just: QT a trending semi-controversial topic, tack on something like “imagine not knowing the real reason behind this”, and the replies are jammed full of competitive theories as to what the OP was implying.
It’s fundamentally just another way of boosting account engagement metrics by encouraging repliers to signal that they are smart and clued-in. But it seems to work exceptionally well because it’s inescapable at the moment.
Vague posting is as old as social networks. I had loads of fun back in the day responding to all the "you know who you are" posts on facebook, when it's clearly not aimed at me.
Devil's advocate. There could be a extension for ipv4 stacks. Ipv4 stacks would need to be modified to include the extension in any reply to a packet received with one. It would also be a dns modification to append the extension if is in the record. Ipv6 stacks would either internally reconstruct the packet as if it were ipv6.
It would be easy to make such an extension, but you're going to hit the same problem v6 did: no v4 stacks use your extension.
How will you fix that? By gradually reinventing v6, one constraint at a time. You're trying to extend v4, so you can't avoid hitting all of the same limits v6 did when it tried to do the same thing. In the end you'll produce something that's exactly as hard to deploy as 6to4 is, but v6 already did 6to4 so you achieved nothing.
reply