Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal.
Perhaps in a couple of centuries when a tube of nutrient slurry is the standard meal, people will be equally proud of not spending 15% of their salary on food...if salaries even exist by then.
> Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal.
Lots of countries attribute the clothing industry to increasing standard of living and economic prosperity. Like India, Pakistan.
Of course, do not ask the question of how they ended up with the original low standard of living to begin with, or how that increased standard of living compares to the standard of living of the westerners proud to announce that they can get the commodities they produce for cheap.
"Something something uplifted from poverty" is much shorter, quippier and cleaner.
In that sense it's rather similar to triumphantly holding up Big Macs as evidence of the modern food industry being awesome actually. Is it relatively cheaper to fill your stomach than at most other points in history? Sure, but at what cost? There is a debate to be had about whether being stuffed with unhealthy levels of fat/salt/sugar is worth the low price and accessibility, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that someone opposed to the existence of McDonald's and the like just "hates efficiency" or wants to "gatekeep" food.
Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago. In fact, it will be even higher quality than people had access to since we have much more advanced materials and techniques than existed back then. But, almost no one does that. Maybe you consider it brainwashing, but I consider it people just making a rational economic choice.
And yes, I can see a world where, if tasteless nutrient slurry was essentially free and perfect nutrition for the body, then people would gladly consume that for most meals, and maybe splurge every now and then on an "old school" meal. I don't really see a problem with that.
> Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago
You really can't. That price/quality point basically does not exist anymore
What's worse is that we have "designer brands" that charge the higher price point but are the exact same low quality as the lower price point stuff. Actual midrange quality just plain does not exist
Sure it does, you just need to get something custom/bespoke/made to measure.
Take your yearly clothing expenditure and multiply it by 10. And then, just like people 200 years ago, be content with 2 to 4 compete outfits. And then stop buying clothes yearly and go more on 10+ year cycle, where you use your funds to mend clothes instead of replacing them.
Even if you only spend $300 on clothes per year, doing it the old school way means you can spend about $15,000 on 2-4 outfits and save the other $15,000 for mending and cleaning over the next 10 years.
I guarantee you you can find a high quality custom outfit for $5000.
It is precisely because I both make and buy custom apparel that I will always push back on people proudly announcing that the Luddites were wrong because they can buy clothes that are worse than rags for a few dollars today. I have actually felt and worked with quality textiles which is why it's crystal clear to me that the slop the modern garment industry produces (and I mean that very literally, a lot of these clothes straight-up lose their structural integrity after a few routine laundry cycles) is not "efficiency". The fact that I live in a region that becomes the ultimate landfill for all of this slop when westerners discard it, doesn't help either.
> I think that's quite a lot faster than most people are watching out for
That isn't even beyond the top speed of a car, which non-trained humans are very well capable of tracking by sight - to talk of airport workers that are specifically trained to look for air traffic. It really is not that hard to tell that an aircraft is on short final if you are actually looking at it.
With four miles of visibility in light rain at night, the aircraft should have been perfectly visible (in a vacuum); what remains to be determined is why the ARFF crew did not see it. The answer to that could range from "they didn't look at all" to "the orientation of the runway relative to the surrounding neighbourhoods meant that the CRJ's lights got lost in the city lights".
It's interesting to me the lengths people will go with vibes and back-of-the-napkin maths over things that are easily verifiable.
Even without looking up the very public ADS-B data, you are ignoring the fact that ARFF trucks are very much not the same as the average firefighting truck as well as the fact that the CRJ-900 was in the middle of its landing roll (which alone would have been clue enough that it was obviously moving much faster than 24mph).
“BlackSky CEO Brian O’Toole echoed “strong momentum” from international government customers, saying these governments want to move faster with commercial capabilities.
[…]
Motoyuki Arai, CEO of Japanese synthetic aperture radar (SAR) company Synspective said that he sees “huge demand” from the Japan Ministry of Defense
[…]
Speaking to commercial imagery’s role in Ukraine, Capella Space CEO Frank Backes said Ukraine showed the value of Earth Observation (EO) data from a military tactical perspective and not just an intelligence perspective — driven by speed of access.”
I phrased that badly, what I meant is two things in one and I mashed them together:
- do you think nation-states have the same commercial relationship with the ultimate sources of their satellite imagery as the general public? To me that makes about as much sense as thinking that Facebook won't reveal your private messages to specific governments because they won't reveal them to some third-party advertiser.
- do you think nation-states that are your opponents would be getting their services from commercial image providers that are loyal to you? The American companies you list are far from the only ones on the planet that provide satellite imagery as a service.
...literally yes (to the latter)? Is that not exactly why modern warships have to implement things like measures to reduce their radar cross section? If you could actually just rely on "ocean too big" then there would be no need for that.
It is in part for small crafts (frigates and corvettes) but for pretty much anything larger there's no concealing those ships.
The primary reason however for minimizing radar cross section and increasing radar scatter is to harden protections against radar based weapon systems during a conflict.
Even if the ship is still visible in peacetime operations, once electronic countermeasures/ECM are engaged, it gets an order of magnitude harder for guided missiles to still "see" the ship.
Depending on the kit, once missiles are in the air the ship and all of their friends in their strike group/squadron is going to start jamming radar, popping decoys, and trying to dazzle the missiles effectively enough for RIM-174/SM-6, RIM-66/SM-1, and RIM-67/SM-2s to intercept it without the missiles evading. And should the missile make it to close-in range then it's just praying that the phalanx/CIWS takes care of it.
And if everything fails then all that jamming and dazzling + the reduced radar cross section is going to hopefully result in the missiles being slightly off target/not a complete kill on the vessel.
So they still serve a purpose. Just not for stealth. Instead serving as compounding increases to survival odds in engagement scenarios.
But what you're describing is stealth. "Stealth" doesn't mean "invisible". Humans wearing combat fatigues aren't literally invisible either especially when moving, they're just harder to track/get a visual lock on to aim at.
The point still stands that you cannot rely on "ocean is too big for anyone to find me" because it very much is not.
I think you are sim-interpreting what I was saying (and if you see what I've posted elsewhere in the discussion thread I'm very much in agreement with you).
I was just saying that stealth is a component of ship design for small crafts (i.e. those that would generally stay close to the coast) but that it's not the case for larger ships and even for those smaller ships it's just not the primary purpose for radar optimized hulls.
Close to the coast, non-coastal radar won't be able to detect ships nearly as well as out at sea where they stand out like a sore thumb. And of course coastal radar will still light up any ship so stealth there is of little value on foreign shores.
But really outside of some niche cases for small crafts, radar "stealth" is all about survivability and not the traditional view of stealth.
I would in fact expect any human that's as good at writing code as various state-of-the-art LLMs (if you take the breathless proclamations of their hype bros at face value) to be able to solve the rather simple problems in the benchmark given the relevant esolang spec and some time to figure it out.
It's not as if the models here were asked to write a kernel in Brainfuck; the medium tier of problems here contains such apparently insurmountable tasks as "calculate the nth prime".
I'm not sure how you missed that the user you were responding to was poking a little bit of fun at you claiming that "over 900 BILLION" people play games on Windows.
That aside, it is also a bit funny that the Hacker News crowd's grand indictment of Mac gaming always uses the same examples of first person shooters that gained ascendancy when they were young. Meanwhile a teenager in 2026 is more likely to be upset that they can't play Fortnite on it - and that's besides the fact that many of the games that today's teenagers are excited to play (from Roblox to the Hollow Knight series to Baldur's Gate 3 to the recently released Slay the Spire 2 and more) are available on macOS. But one wouldn't know that from listening to people whose impression of both gaming and Macs is stuck firmly in ~2015.
What on earth are you talking about? In the US (which seems to be the context in question), Actual Registered Nurses™ are not by any means "scarce" and in fact make up the clear majority of all nurses. Nor do they get "paid a lot" compared to the demands of their jobs, especially considering this is a country that throws the same salaries at people for the mighty skill of writing JavaScript for a SaaS.
Perhaps in a couple of centuries when a tube of nutrient slurry is the standard meal, people will be equally proud of not spending 15% of their salary on food...if salaries even exist by then.
reply