I can't stand the way earbuds feel. That's why I wear over-the-ear headphones or bone-conducting headphones. There are so many options for personal audio. Even if you're truly allergic to all of them, that doesn't give you the right to inflict your noise on others.
Imagine if everyone decided they were entitled to play their music on speakers. The result would be a cacophony where nobody can hear their own music and life is worse for everyone. People who play music in public spaces are claiming a common resource for their own exclusive use.
Sincerely - someone who's lived with 7 other people in a 3-bedroom house.
Well you know, probably everyone is constantly swallowing some of their own dead skin cells. Nobody's perfect. So I'm not going to feel too guilty when I cheat and buy a human-balogna sandwich every now and then, especially if they're free range.
You're correct. The ban targets the supply chain and future imports/sales, not retroactive possession. New foreign drones cannot be certified for sale in the US market going forward. Existing drones you already own aren't being confiscated or made illegal to fly
The lesson learned from Ukraine is that importation of drones is a terrific asset, rather than a liability. Maybe you think that lesson would not apply to the USA, but that wouldn't be a lesson learned from Ukraine, rather the lesson learned would be the opposite.
The lesson learned from Ukraine is that a robust drone supply chain is very important. For some countries it doesn't matter if this supply chain is rooted in China, for others it matters a lot.
The lesson from Ukraine is the importance of having access to drones. It doesn't take any remarkable mental feats to realize that if your primary source of drones is China, then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China.
Reducing the diversity of your supply chain and instead making your self so incredibly vulnerable that all an adversary has to do is fubar your own domestic supply chain (because imports have long been banned) is way less robust than maintaining imports. If you actually wanted what you claim, you'd allow imports while taxing or subsidizing until they look roughly break even with domestic offerings.
Your position is completely untenable here and relies on it being easier to destroy multiple 'industrial bases' plus the US drone industry rather than your straw man of just the "entire" US industrial base.
Even going off your theory that the US drone industry is not easily sabotaged, it can't possibly be easier to sabotage the US drone industry plus all the import pathways (which you would otherwise have to re-establish). That is why you chose this dismissive fake-quote rather than address what I've said.
I am not arguing it is easier to destroy the world's industrial capacity than just the US industrial capacity. I am saying that in the situation where you have so utterly devastated the US mainland that it is incapable of producing drones, the war is over. If you defeat the US then you defeat the US.
Of course I am rather dismissive of the claim that this is a small feat. I accuse you of not fully thinking through what exactly it would take to fubar domestic drone production.
I see, you think my argument is moot because a successful sabotage or halt of domestic drone production is a victory condition for war.
It's an interesting strategy to sidestep the conversation; rather than acknowledging the superiority of having redundant international supply chain you can just suggest it doesn't really matter anyway if US drone capacity is gone because at that point the war is lost.
I don't see the evidence for why this must be true, whether you think it is a 'small feat' or not.
> I see, you think my argument is moot because a successful sabotage or halt of domestic drone production is a victory condition for war.
No, I claimed that to fubar the domestic supply chain was a victory condition of the war. Sabotage can be repaired or bypassed, halts can be unhalted. But to fuck up beyond all reason the US domestic industrial capacity, i.e. to render it so that it can not assemble basic electronics of the sort that are used in drones at all with no ability to get production back online within a strategically meaningful period of time, yes that means the war is over. At that point drones are the least of our concerns. Everything you are fighting for has already been destroyed, the death toll is already catastrophic, the enemy is clearly superior by a massive factor, continued fighting at that point would be suicide.
Now I am not arguing that a redundant international supply chain is a bad thing, I am opposed to banning all foreign drone firms. But that being said, the claim that it is obviously superior is the extraordinary claim requiring evidence. As we clearly saw in 2020, international supply chains are incredibly vulnerable to disruption. Can you be confident that a foreign nation supplying us drones would be on our side in the event of a major conflict? Would all of their suppliers be on our side? Even if they are all on our side, would they be able to ship materials and products between themselves and to us unimpeded? Would they still be able and willing to do so when we are being beat so bad that our domestic industry has collapsed? A strong international supply chain is a good supplement to domestic production capacity, but the claim it is a superior alternative can not be taken as a given.
Silly me, I thought we were talking about the supply chain of drones. You merely wanted to argue against a straw man that literally the entire US industry was destroyed. Since for some reason that is necessary to destroy the domestic supply chain of the thing we were talking about.
Again, not a straw man. It is necessary to destroy the entirety of US industry to destroy the supply chain of drones. Drones are incredibly easy to manufacture, among the very easiest. It does not require highly specialized machines or exotic skillsets. Components can easily be substituted and designs easily modified to match available resources. There are tens of thousands of manufacturers in the US with the capability to produce such devices. If something happens to a random electronics factory, that production can move to a different electronics factory.
To knock out out the domestic drone supply chain, such that it can not quickly be brought back online, you need to create a situation such that none of these manufacturers are able to make drones. Of course if there is no one who can make a drone, there's no one who can make a missile guidance system, there's no one who can make fighter jets, there's no one who can make radars, there's no one who can make radios, there's no one who can make spare parts for any of these systems and more out in the field. If you still had any of that capability, you would still be able to make drones. Losing the capability to make drones means you have been completely and utterly knocked out of the fight.
Again, I accuse you of not previously thinking through what the supply chain of drones is, and thus your argument is indeed quite silly.
> It is necessary to destroy the entirety of US industry to destroy the supply chain of drones.
I was hoping you'd say that, because it cleanly proves my case. Allowing importation of drones won't destroy the drone supply chain; in your own words that would require destroying the entirety of US industry, which importing drones cannot do even if Chinese drone imports or functionality is suddenly cut off.
You've thus crushed the premise and neatly rested the case in my favor. Because you can't possibly simultaneously argue destroying the entire US industry is required and also argue all it takes is flooding and then poisoning the market with import drones.
> then that access may not be reliable in the event of conflict with China.
Some might call that poor pre-planning. If you're about to go to war with your biggest supplier, you'd be well advised to stock up on supplies before firing the first shot.
I'm trying to square this guy's experience with all of the homeless people who don't seem nearly so lucky. Or perhaps they are being helped and supported and I don't see it?
I agree with others here that the notion of relying on others so completely makes me feel uncomfortable, like I'm a burden. But I think that's part of what the author intends to draw attention to. Wouldn't a world where everyone freely supports each other, even if it's not needed, be a more pleasant place, and a safer place, than one where everyone looks out for themselves? Is a community where each member is only kind to other members who can reciprocate really kind, or just cooperative? Each act of kindness was given freely, and I assume the more extravagant examples were unasked. When you give something to others, you gain something yourself. As long as he's not misrepresenting his situation (e.g. claiming to be a victim or refugee) I don't think he's really doing something wrong - just something that goes against highly competitive big-city western values, which neither he nor the givers seem to share.
>I'm trying to square this guy's experience with all of the homeless people who don't seem nearly so lucky. Or perhaps they are being helped and supported and I don't see it?
I get that, but I do witness a lot of compassion and help directed to homeless folks. However, even if they're regularly gifted by strangers, it's likely not enough to materially change their situation.
I would suggest that the staggering efficacy of panhandling does demonstrate how remarkably willing strangers are willing to help a rough looking homeless person on a street. And beyond that, there are a lot of invisible homeless (the ones not struggling with mental health or drug issues) that remain off the streets because people in their community will give them a few days on a couch here or there, or help fix their car, give them a place to park a trailer, etc.
In my neighborhood, there's a homeless man that lives in a camper trailer in the back yard of some neighbors. They just met him one day and offered him a stable piece of land to be and help him out as they can. He comes around asking us neighbors for lawn care work and such to earn some money, which is how I learned about the situation.
> I get that, but I do witness a lot of compassion and help directed to homeless folks. However, even if they're regularly gifted by strangers, it's likely not enough to materially change their situation.
When I've looked at the data, the majority of homeless people have been homeless less than 12 months. This means that the majority of homeless people who benefit from support will use it to get out of that situation quickly. And for the most part, if you give help it will be immediately and materially useful.
> I'm trying to square this guy's experience with all of the homeless people who don't seem nearly so lucky.
Although I don't think there's an image to confirm,
"Informed Attractiveness", aka "Pretty people are always happy to espouse how friendly strangers are to them" - probably applies. There's also simple charisma which carries a long way. I wouldn't say I was ever super hot (maybe a 7 at one point), but I can point to many situations where I benefitted from being attractive (in appearance, action, or mannerism). Some tangled beard doesn't change host most people perceive me.
Important point. AKA the halo effect, and it can have a significant influence. In general, I feel that this is a more widespread problem with stories and experiences such as these - there are simply too many "hidden" variables to take them at face value. Environment, genetics, circumstances, upbringing, cognitive biases and instinctual/biological human nature all work together to create a cocktail of unique experiences, leading to unique conclusions.
Speaking as someone who worked for the SF bay area's largest homeless shelter nonprofit:
People who end up homeless long-term usually have negative social behaviors that push others away. When you help them, they don't tell an interesting story, they act angry or yell at you. When you give them money, they don't make you feel you happy, they make you feel afraid or annoyed.
This is unfortunately often due to mental health issues or drug problems. It's very sad, and ends up completely isolating them from all friends, family, and strangers who could help them.
Edit: This article actually puts this into clear terms, long term homeless people are poor "kindees"
I expected the horse to move one tile for each block you placed. I had an elaborate plan to lure it towards one exit and then close it at the last minute... Nope!
I remember a game I played on my phone ~15 years ago called "Greedy Spiders". The spiders would move greedily towards something every move, but you could cut strings in their web so they would have to start a new route. So you would kinda have to lure them into going one direction while slowly chipping away at the web, until you could completely cut them off or force them to have to take a longer detour giving you more time to cut more of the web. Quite challenging after a while.
It matters what the tongue and voice box are doing in the surrounding sounds. The next letter (t) is voiced, and the prior sound is a vowel, so in practice many English speakers will continue to “voice” the c sound between e and d, the “g” is just a voiced “c”, which makes them homonyms in most speakers.
(This post brought to you by YouTube, who keep putting Dr Geoff Lindsey in my recommendation queue, and now I’ve become a part time linguistics enthusiast. Other interesting facts: “chr” and “tr” are also almost entirely homonyms in most speakers. Try saying “trooper” and “chrooper” and see what I mean. In fact my 4 year old, who is recently learning to write, drew a picture of a truck and wrote “chruck” on the paper.)
Imagine if everyone decided they were entitled to play their music on speakers. The result would be a cacophony where nobody can hear their own music and life is worse for everyone. People who play music in public spaces are claiming a common resource for their own exclusive use.
Sincerely - someone who's lived with 7 other people in a 3-bedroom house.