HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

smcnc

no profile record

Submissions

[untitled]

1 points·by smcnc·2 months ago·0 comments

comments

smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
One thing I noticed on the CS PhD side of the house is because many researchers don't want others to easily build upon their work (for whatever reasons), they don't often release the source code/data required to quickly validate it. This is a recipe for shortcuts, errors, and even in the worst cases, fraud.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
We’re both #DudesForKamala
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
I was merely responding to replies directed at me. But that is probably good advice. No opinion was ever changed online. :)
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
“Flee and reside in hotels” not equal to relocate and continue mission. The major operational staff at these bases still work there. Support was relocated not fleeing.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
US soldiers get hotels when fleeing? Wtf lol
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
[flagged]
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
[flagged]
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
US blew up C-130s stuck in sand. A few got shot up. Iranians on the ground got the brunt of the bullets, however.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
There’s a difference between occupation (where this wins) and deterrence (where they can’t attack your country). The latter was the primary objective.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
Define defeat here. I think everyone in this thread confuses actual defeat with indifference and political risk. If the US military could be defeated so easily America would cease to exist, no? It just loses interest and moves on. Nobody attacks the US because they would lose.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
This is now Vietnam with no boots on the ground or years of war? Wow! Thanks
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
More leverage with less conventional firepower? Objectives of reducing conventional military threats and nuclear weapons seem less now, no?
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
Uncertainty.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
> 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
Agree with same comment as above.

> This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
Cost of insurance for ships did.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
Search and rescue. Yes, it takes assets. Correct.
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
Insightful
smcnc
·3 months ago·discuss
[flagged]