fork1

I would be wary of those numbers. There is a heavy selection bias, as we don't see the videos where the AT weapons fails, where the operator gets shot, etc. We'll have better information once the fog of war lifts.

A guy hiding in a bush was able to defeat tanks since the invention of HEAT in WW2. Before that, they were other ways as well.

I do not know for tanks, but for artillery, it tends to be much higher (few thousands) It is quite variable depending on if you re firing full charges, firing when the tube is hot, etc.

There is an issue with that, being efficient in conter insurgency warfare doesn't necessarily translate into High Intensity warfare. Infantry support for armor is one, but things like maneuvers, operating under contested skies, EW, etc. When were NATO troops under heavy sustained artillery barrages?

I m quite impressed by the attrition in both troops, ammo, and material. More than Wunderwaffen, i think the lesson is more in trained personel reserves, as well as stockpiles.

The issue is not overthrowing them, but finding a good replacement. Overthrowing one just to get another similar one is kinda pointless.

The overall population is still way better now than it has been historically. I don't understand why both cannot be done in parallel anyway. It's not like we are investing everything in the space race, plenty goes on more earthly concerns.

Not just bones. Muscle mass and the rest doesn't just disappear. In the sport i do (rugby), it's been evaluated to be a danger to players (increased risk of injury), and i would wager most contact sports are similar.

There is plenty of brackets so all can play at their respectives levels, separation in different leagues for collective sports, different levels in individual sports, etc. You can have fun in your local amateur <whatever>, but there would not be any point in a game against professionals. And at the top level, olympics or international competitions, there would be no match in mixed genders for most sports.

Or you simply don't believe in it. Which is a perfectly valid reason. Not everyone is just either ignorant or risk averse for crypto.

Why put something else than meat though? I never understood this.

I know you weren't, just providing some background information. If you were a local living in the colonies, any of the imperial powers were going to treat you rather poorly. But in continental Europe, the treatment of occupied Belgium/France would prefigure WW2 behavior of the German troops. In either cases putting entire villages and their inhabitants to the torch and sword was rather normal.

In WW1, the rape of Belgium might have been used by propaganda and some parts fabricated, but was still pretty real. And it was not an isolated incident, but a policy.

How come a double brick home would be worse for tornadoes and hurricanes? At a pinch i would say the first weaknesses would be windows and roof, not the walls.

Yeah, a lot of companies that enter bankruptcy end up with wiped shareholders and new owners in the shape of it's creditors. It's not really news.

Then if some idiots think it's not the case, and there is value, let them bet if they so want, they obviously know better than Hertz. Hertz only decided to issue shares when their share price went over the roof, driven by those same speculators.

As long as things are correctly disclosed ("our stock is worthless, but buy it if you want"), caveat emptor.

Lectores is still a masculine. And it doesn't work for "Lectores!".

There is such a push in French, works fine with some words, much less with others.

A much more ridiculous one is to change the word endings to reflect gender neutrality. You're supposed to write both endings separated with dots.

"Chers lecteurs", a group plural, so like in all latin languages you default to neutral (ie masculine), becomes "Cher·e·s lecteur·rice·s".

It makes text nearly unreadable.

Spanish equivalent would be : "Querid·o·a·s lector·e·a·s"

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The issue is when you reduce people to nothing but their "color".

How low are you talking about? And hidden fees such as the spread do matter. Last i checked, which was a while ago, paypal wasn't that flash compared to alternatives.

Usually, when i do international transfers, i expect a fixed known rate. Transferring to bitcoin or whatever and then having to carry the risks in wild swings in value is not really my cup of tea.

While violence is not always a tool, it is an evolutionary strategy. Before the advent of the state, it was already a tool, or could be at least. It, and other adaptive behaviors still hold some sway on us, and our societies are still shaped by them. We've become more complex, and cultural evolution influences as well, but you cannot cross this a defunct relic of our history.

I agree with your second point though.

> People do not fight for the protection of reproductive resources. The peaceful way birth rates fell around the world these days is proof of that.

People have fought for a number of reasons, material resources AND reproductive resources are usually key to those. Historically, raiding for woman and resources has been a constant. A big tribe is a safe tribe, more women is key. Even in modern times, you can see the pressure in expensionist/aggressive societies for women to have more children.

>Evolutionary biases are also essentially irrelevant in how societies are structured. The structures of societies are very intentional and based on material reality, not mere biases.

Evolutionary biases are fundamentally relevant to the way society is structured. Historically more violent behavior in males has always been very adaptive as the rewards are far greater.

Polygyny was not restricted to Islamic societies though, and was a common occurence accross many societies. It was always restricted to a limited amount of men of course, as only the most successful/powerful/whatever could afford it. It does have heavy social consequences, but those might or might not be an issue for a given society, as some were quite successful (ie surviving for a long time, no moral judgement here).

Vae victis. Losers of conflicts against non-western expansionists were no better as a general rule. NZ itself was hardly a haven of peace in pre-european times, and Maoris didn't have too many qualms exterminating Morioris either.

I've written a DB2 FDW that is used in production. Not as good as direct access of course, but very practical still.

From experience, i have seen cobol code stashing entire copybooks into char/varchars, along with some binary switches to select the appropriate copybook. Unless you have the copybook or a translated version, it's pretty much unreadable. In general it's useful if only to interface with those old parts you don't want or can't change.

We did it to replace a Cobol core-banking system. The hard part is not so much the code as all the interfaces (DB, queues, printing, etc).

You tend to have two types of processing done in a mainframe, batch and online. Transactions usually refer to online work. In the old times, it used to be someone connecting in 3270 and issuing a bunch of "transactions" to bring up screens and perform various operations. Now, it would likely involve a web layer. The server part can be CICS for example, but they are others. Think of them as application servers. Proper batch jobs tend to perform even faster. There is a few reasons to that, one of them is the full integration of the systems (ie: the batch has "shared" memory access to the database, basically it's a big stored procedure).

We migrated the core banking from a small private bank, and that was 12 million COBOL lines. It actually seems like a "small" system. We used the same approach (java translation). Running the cobol is actually the easy part. The hard part is when you start throwing in managing files the mainframe way, the database (needs to quack like DB2), the transaction monitor (CICS), presentation layer (3270 like), scheduler, etc. And there is plenty of other technologies usually deployed in such shops (IMS, MQ, etc). And you need to support it all...

Not just the OS, legacy applications tend to rely on DB2, CICS, IMS, and what not. All of those have expensive licenses and cannot readily run on emulation. Switching to Hercules does not solve the issue, unless your cobol apps are barebone batches.