archonet

I'm not saying you're wrong, but: has anyone in Ukraine actually tried a shotgun?

I generally try to avoid watching anything that'll scar my psyche, but, as far as I'm aware soldiers in the field don't usually carry shotguns, but rifles, in the anticipation of dealing with enemies wearing body armor/at some distance. And hitting a moving drone with a rifle, yes absolutely that'd be a bitch -- one projectile is not enough, especially for an erratic moving target.

Police (and I'm assuming ICE as well), generally dealing with people not equipped with body armor, tend to keep shotguns handy for a multitude of reasons (breaching doors, not overpenetrating through walls, etc), and skeet shooting is already a thing (though admittedly it would still be harder if the drone was moving erratically).

All this is to say: I don't know anything for a fact, because I've tried to avoid watching anything that'll scar me, but has anyone in Ukraine on either side had access to a shotgun or two before getting turned into gibs? because I can absolutely believe that soldiers with rifles would fail to shoot a drone, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount a couple people with shotguns unless that's already a solution the Russians tried before the cope cages. Especially in the context of just filming them, your drone probably isn't moving very fast or flying very high if you're trying to get a good shot.

That sounds like a fine way to have your (presumably expensive) drone carrying your (presumably also expensive) camera hit with buckshot.

I'm not saying don't try anyways. But there's a good chance the gestapo just starts blastin'.

keep me in the screenshot unless you want your subscriber base to know this guy from the past thinks you suck.

also, we're so sorry. not all of us, but some of us.

but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

...

you know, there is a difference between "getting published in Nature" and "submitting your work to Nature". It's subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.

I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren't well substantiated enough to publish.

Also, one field. Lmao.

Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I'm genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?

it's not about a takedown, really, I'm not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they're just having a bad day they oughta just say so.

that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I've ever heard of, both because an educational journal is built on its reputation, and because even if it were true, you'd still be wrong to imply that's a bad thing for a different reason: proving some other guy wrong is part of the process.

let's assume -- even for a brief moment -- you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.

You're almost definitely not, but hey, let's assume.

scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don't believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because "I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we're all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim". Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that's what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn't be going "nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!"? And at that point it's two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they're right and the other guy's wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don't publish horseshit.

in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is... a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice -- there's always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters -- but that's part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers and generally make sure that nothing they publish is outright bullshit.

now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going "fuck you I'm gonna find out if you're wrong" is literally part of the job.

Are you just, like... not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?

ah, so now instead of China spying on TikTok users, it will be Russia spying on TikTok users.

a paywall I am sure will be exactly as effective as google's attempts at ad-blocking on YouTube, for exactly the same reason: a dedicated group of pissed off nerds who spend their time getting around it as a service to everyone. Bypass Paywalls Clean is already a thing.

uBlock Origin probably just needs its filter lists updated, you can update them by opening the extension, hitting the gears icon, clicking on the "filter lists" tab at the top and selecting update next to any that are outdated.

Personally, I use the nuclear option because fuck google -- I have AdNauseam (which includes uBlock Origin), SponsorBlock, PopUpOFF, DeArrow, Return Youtube Dislike, and CanvasBlocker.

I mean, a motorcycle is transportation. It can transport maybe you and one passenger (and some light cargo, I know), but it's more practical in a car-centric service economy than walking everywhere. They're also pretty fuel efficient for being so light, and fairly dangerous if people don't notice your tiny ass (which is an advantage of all the noise)

I have literally zero negative or positive opinions about Harleys as motorcycles, I don't own one or know anyone who does, I don't even have a motorcycle license so feel free to correct me if you have a differing opinion -- to me, they just are what some people enjoy. It's the... quality of the people who tend to enjoy them that gives me the ick. Like a bar that didn't quite fully kick the Nazis out. I know they aren't all Nazis, but there are still a disturbing number of Nazis. Or at the very least, American neo-nazis are not frequently depicted riding crotch rockets from overseas.