agent00f

This is the only comment that matters in this thread.

The US currently can only put 50 something hulls in the water, so even if they ALL somehow converge on TW, that's not enough to keep that factory busy for more than a week.

Also to contrast, equivalent Tomahawk production is down to 55 last YEAR, despite current urgency. Plus the Ike CSG just used up about 150 in that yemen excursion.

The real tragedy is all the STEM in the US can't seem to muster up the competency or fortitude to compare these basic numbers in any public facing material.

These are likely using smaller turbojets. Eg. the ADM-160 MALD were supposed to be using the TJ-50, all in for <30k.

Of course like most defense projects, they ended up with the "B" version which were supposed to be 120k, but ended up being >300k when said & done LOL.

Currently the Anduril 20lb suicide drone is being sold for $1M apiece LMAO

> Higgins' analyses of Syrian weapons

The ironic and actually instructive part of this is that his work was used to rationalize the Syrian war for the west, which has left an absolutely devastating trail of misery for countless millions of Syrian people.

Even more instructive is that the people responsibly for that misery all still pretend to be the good guys.

> Because of the greed and stupidity of Western governments and companies

Interesting how you left out the folks who buy the products in question.

Thanks for at least admitting the goal is regime change, same as for the "Arab spring" which has left much of that region as failed states.

It's always amusing when people who cause the most misery in the world shout the loudest about human rights and such.

Uh, there are many accounts from people who were at various camps if you just search, because the typical stay is much shorter than let on in propaganda. In fact, pretty much all accounts are from people who were released. These are much closer in nature to the US border detention camps, with "prisoners" entering and leaving regularly.

Tibet really is the perfect case study for US agitprop. The typical audience for this material literally know nothing about the region outside of state dept/cia pr. For example, the Lamas ran a feudal theocracy but get played up like disney characters. I guess those are only supposed to be bad to the atheists here if it's scary Muslims. Or how it's portrayed as some invasion about as much as the union "invaded" the confederacy.

It's also a perfect illustration of how otherwise supposedly intelligent people in tech are just as easily manipulate outside their area of expertise as the fox news audience.

Statements in sources you cite seem rather deceptive, for example insinuating that censorship delayed response. Wiki has a pretty factually sourced timeline with precise dates, and it shows the infamous Dr. Li in question messaged a private group about a lab report he saw from Dec 30 (authorities found out because it was reshared on public forum), when the WHO was notified if it on Dec 31. He was also reprimanded for claiming it was a sars outbreak, when there's no evidence at the time. I suspect many of these news sources are aware of these underlying facts, if they're the sort to do any research before publishing, so the only interesting question here is why they chose to be deceptive anyway.

The WHO said there's no clear evidence of h2h on Jan 14. The Chinese cdc team didn't conclude their investigation until a few days after, and the advisory was changed after. Your sort know perfectly well why your statements are misleading but will continue to make them for obvious reasons.

The comment you replied to asked for a source, the fact you can't produce any despite all this bluster is revealing.

The problem with Taleb is that he's incapable of recognizing any error, and he's not smart enough to do novel intellectual work. I recall pointing out some trivial mistake in the stat reasoning on some Facebook post of his, in a comment section full of fawning adulation by sycophants, and was immediately banned.

What really draws people to him is that controversial overconfidence, mostly from folks who don't understand the math anyway but are drawn to the personality. It's the standard confidence con frankly not much more sophisticated than Alex Jones. He mostly got lucky publishing a book about market crashes right as the market crashed, that's pretty much the extent of what his fans understand about the matter.

Can you explain why you're taking conservative bigots seriously?

I'm curious where all these concerned westerners were when hk was undemocratically ruled by the Brits as a colony.

Were they ignorant of what they meant at the time or did they not care so long as others were ruled by their own?

These types of protests are largely encouraged by the West to deepen division within it's enemies, same as with sunni/shiites in the middle east, or gop/democrats by the Russians. You can tell because the West didn't give a single shit when hk wasn't democratically ruled by the Brits, but now democracy there is headline propaganda.

The occasion political content here that's often just fox news level "we're the good guys" talking points makes me question the objectivity of the rest of the tech content.

These are $10/month subs which are akin to channel packages. Just because some will also sub to the Disney chan package doesn't mean they'll drop Netflix. Would surprise no one if the author were shorting Netflix.

Huawei is a massive org which does tons of technical work, and beyond a handful of things it's already down to ring tones, which only shows how desperate the accusers are.

You might as accuse Google of ip theft due to that Oracle/Java thing. Or Americans of it since I'm sure it's happening at some level, eg Uber from waymo lawsuit.

> It seems like you went in with preconceived notions about the subject.

This rather seems more applicable to the wsj and you. The op points out how weak some of these claims are, which is a sign that the wsj is desperately throwing everything at the wall and hope something sticks. This figures given they're a largely conservative pub prone to supporting the gop/Trump econ policy, which I might add a disturbing proportion of techies are sympathetic towards.

What's particularly revealing about this issue is how many parrot the "stealing" talking point while at same time going on in the past about how software shouldn't be patented etc. Basically it shows they want to be able to use the ideas of others but not vice versa when they're getting beat, typical hypocrisy.

This comment gets to the crux of this matter, where everyone recognizes industry coding is for the most part not sophisticated enough to warrant a university degree. The majority of jobs are technician 2 year trade school level, but just happen to be well paid for to scarcity. The same folks wouldn't claim the same for doctors or scientists, etc.

The point of assignments and such is to guide students through the thought processes useful to understanding material in depth. It's arguably true that some students can get by via guessing or whatever, but the disservice is mainly to themselves. Might as well pay someone to do the work for you.

The fact that so many here place so little value in their education (I would guess esp the liberal arts portions) reflects more on them than the edu system.

All education is inherently time/resource consuming and thereby expensive.

What many are proposing here is expending that into trade schools/edu, which I suppose makes sense for what most coding consists of. But what's most revealing is this insistence on the public shouldering that burden instead of employers who reap the benefits investing into the training.

Higher ed in form of universities aren't meant to be trade schools. Their purpose is to produce thinkers instead of technicians, which unfortunately industry isn't well equipped to utilize.

Also, parroting political talking points about snowflake kids and such doesn't provide any value, even if draws support from a certain type of crowd.

Obviously not everything of this sort is the same everywhere in all cases, but the parent statement is largely true. It's also exceptionally true in high turnoff corporations like Amzn.

Even in the corner cases where the manager/HR was acting in good faith, the employee will be under the thumb of his superiors; even if someone manages to survive intact the PIP will be a mark on someone's record they can do without. It's something that will come with every promotion discussion, transfer, etc.

It's quite rare for anything good to come of doubling down, for the employee at least.

Thanks, fixed. Have no idea why they got broken.

> I don't see a reason to ban someone over this behavior as long as you can make sure that the fraudulent votes don't actually add any value to the content, which they shouldn't.

Visibility of the content is essentially predicated on early votes.

The problem is that an initial sort is built on limited data (quality content or just easy to upvote produces same results and latter is more common), and the subsequent feedback loop is built on initial visibility decisions.

Why this matters:

Visibility on Reddit is essentially predicated on early votes. Get a few upvotes and even mediocre comments will often remain at the top due to momentum. Less than -4 and it's doomed to oblivion (ie. downvote the competition).

One of the most popular linked sites on reddit (quickmeme) got to where it was with only a few strategically placed votes for each link, and it took ages for them to be found out and similarly banned: http://www.dailydot.com/business/reddit-quickmeme-banned-mil...

More broadly, the algorithm reddit uses is not only known wrong/buggy:

http://technotes.iangreenleaf.com/posts/2013-12-09-reddits-e...

but also generally defective:

http://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/vqy9y/dear_circ...

It's possible HN suffers from the same flaw (initial sort and feedback loop from such) since it's the natural (naive) way to produce such algorithms. The machine can't tell if it's quality content or just easy to upvote, and the latter is more common.

TL;DR: Visibility == early votes from people who have no interest in depth and don't read the articles anyway.

edit: fixed links

> Controversies like these make me glad I work in the field of programming...while arguments over what algorithm or frameworks work best are less sexy than what the sciences cover, at least with narrow claims, it's easier to concretely argue for one or the other

Yeah, it's pretty ironic when the field with (Comp) Science in the name isn't really a science but math.

I wonder if such studies are susceptible to bad stats of confirmation bias as many business studies are.

What I mean is whether they had proper controls to assess whether each average person is more likely to succeed than each "smart" person given the same scenario.

If they instead took a bunch of successful people, figured out that a lot of them weren't that "smart", then it could be the product of there being a lot more average than smart folk. In other words, "smart" doesn't guarantee business success such that all successful businesspeople are IQ gods, but we all knew that.

> Being good at school is not a sure sign of high intelligence - school is an artificial environment that values short-term memorizing of facts, over critical analysis and independent decision-making.

This is a common but mislead read of the situation. "Intelligence" (per IQ) as typically defined is abstraction/calculation ability. This is very useful in highly rational environments where being correct matters, such as academic ones.

OTOH, in "life", it's _far_ more important to succeed in social environments where being analytically correct is largely irrelevant and thus those abilities have limited direct value. For example, it doesn't necessarily "make sense" on the surface to simply support a direct manager regardless their arguments' quality; yet that may be the socially optimal course of action. IOW, it should come as no surprise there's limited correlation when using an orthogonal metric. Some have even introduce separate metrics ("EQ") to account for such discrepancies.

The societal problem here is that we often expect those well-training and successful mostly in the former environment to thrive in the latter. Whether the issues is in preparing them for the wrong place or society doesn't live up to what we believe how students will live is another discussion.

> Can't we agree "intelligent" is the skill of setting good goals, achieving them, and making good decisions in light of limited facts, limited time...

The reality is that traditionally intelligent people are good at these things, esp when their talents are specifically applied. For example, they can be good at figuring out their shortcomings at overemphasizing risk when it's explained.

However it's unrealistic to assume those prepped all their life only for one enviro will adapt autodidactically.

Also, I don't think just redefining words like what success/intelligence means is an adequate resolution.