Readit NewsYou're writing as if watery moons around gas giants aren't something we look for.
In Hungarian the order would be Erdős Pál - https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_P%C3%A1l .
What's your point? We also say Carl Linnaeus instead of Carl von Linné.
Finally a use for all the wasted hours I’ve spent on HN — my next word prediction is marginally better than that of the AI.
Fundamentally all chess moves are a piece moving from one source to another destination including:
- castling as a king move with a distance greater than 1
- pawn moves to the 8th or 1st rank with the additional datum of a new piece
- en passant is the same as a regular pawn capture, it just requires the victim pawn to have moved two squares previously.
Algebraic notation also has an arbitrary and reasonable amount of extraneous detail despite dropping the source location if it's unambiguous.
For example, the captures (x), check(+) and checkmate(#) symbols are all unnecessary given the previous state of the board is always known. With en passant it's also unnecessary to have a special symbol indicating an en passant capture, and indeed there isn't one.
I was initially hoping to get some insight on e.g. which pairs of squares had the fewest moves for a given piece etc.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the video. It was beautifully illustrated and explained everything clearly.
It's not disingenuous at all. It's pretty apparent if you even take a cursory look at modern American military doctrine/spending. The plan is always to park a carrier close by (maybe two), conduct an air campaign, then send in the troops. Artillery wars just chew up people which the the American public has not had an appetite for since Vietnam.
>The fact that thr US hasn’t had such a conflict since at least Vietnam (and arguably Korea) not withstanding.
It think that is a caveat as big as the Pacific. Vietnam was literally 60 years ago. You don't think top brass have rethought how wars are fought since then? For context, that's 10 Presidencies since LBJ (36th).
> Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years.
Again, modern American doctrine has focused on the layering of power projection and troop mobility specifically to NOT fight in static positions.
> Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China.
Again caveats. Also a war with China will be fought exactly opposite to Ukraine (with missiles not artillery, and with dynamic naval fronts, not trench warfare).
I do appreciate your point of view, but I maintain that in a lengthy land war with a near peer, missile stockpiles would run low and 4th gen fighters would be unable to contest enemy airspace. Of course, the caveat is that the US would very much like to avoid any such conflict via either diplomacy or a decisive first few weeks of combat. And the hope is that 5th gen fighters would evade air defenses. Even so, US doctrine calls for being capable of fighting prolonged land wars on multiple fronts.
The Soviet plan - which both Russia and Ukraine are well trained in - was to use lots of artillery. In backing Ukraine NATO suddenly sees a need for some shells that they wouldn't use if it was them. But the Ukrainian generals know them and so that is what they want. (Note too the nobody has provided Ukraine anywhere near the number of airplanes needed to fight a NATO style war - even if all promised F16s arrive today with full training it isn't enough for a NATO war)
Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China.
In short, artillery remains important, which is why US artillery shell production is up an order of magnitude over the last 3 years, and will continue to rise.
Personally I think the lack of visible galactic civilisations is more plausibly explained by a combination of life being rare (and probably brought to Earth via panspermia after billions of years of evolution elsewhere) and both multicellular and sentient life also being rare.
One issue with your claim though is that once you have interstellar flight, you certainly have weapons of mass destruction. Even crashing a coke-can sized meteor into the Earth at 1% of the speed of light would cause major destruction.
The societal pressure on women to look young and beautiful is ridiculous. And influential women actively promoting such garbage is part of the problem.
Men get former Mr. Universe's modeling "eat right and exercise." (Arnold in case you aren't getting the reference.) Women get this kind of crap.