Obvious prima facie. If we don't agree on this we don't inhabit the same intellectual universe.
Maybe your issue isn't the claim that the editorial slant is anti-white, but with my use of the term propaganda? Don't take that to mean much, I view most media as propaganda of one kind or another.
So that was definitely a bit of embarrassing, misremembered narrative overreach on my part. The point is that a lot of what these alt right guys are doing is a kind of cultural criticism, and if they can make a case for an overarching anti-white narrative in popular media it's a pretty short hop from there to the JQ.
Particularly when there are things they can point to and say "look, this is what your beloved minorities say about you behind your back" - it's a huge recruitment tool. That's why it's rational to hope that white people do not discover The Root.
Perhaps this was meant to be rhetorical but I'll spell it out. The site is a poster child for the alt right. It's quite literally a case of Jews funding blacks to churn out anti-white propaganda.
It's as though nobody remembers the Syrian ambulance boy who seemed to hit every single Western publication at once. Or the fawning PR pieces for the "White Helmets."
The insinuation that Forbes is not part of the propaganda conspiracy is absurd. This is exactly what it looks like when an NGO is peddling a narrative.
Auditing, perhaps? If someone manages to enter on a stolen passport I'm sure they'd like to be able to go back and see what image was captured and why the system returned a false positive.
Engineering is fundamentally about tradeoffs because you have multiple objectives (e.g. high performance and loose coupling) and it's not possible to be optimal in all of them simultaneously. However, it is easily possible for a poor design to be way, way off the Pareto frontier and not particularly good at anything. So everything is a tradeoff, but things can still be bad or good.
That's not even meant to be a comment one way or the other on Javascript, although I will not voluntarily adopt node.js for server side application development.
That is only what you are signaling to Leftist ideologues who take any departure from Social Justice doctrine as an excuse to construct straw man caricatures.
There are essential comms problems that will face any unmanned system that tries to take over the F-35's role. In the absence of a solution that is extremely low latency, immune to interference, and undetectable as radiated emission, you'd have to lean on computer AI to run the bulk of the mission autonomously. Nobody is ready to throw the switch on that.
A possible solution is to augment flights of manned fighters with unmanned drones as missile/bomb trucks. This gets you the force multiplier while keeping all communication short range and within line-of-sight. But you still need a stealthy, survivable manned fighter.
Overall it's a bit like saying why bother with a new generation of conventional cars when universal self-driving is right around the corner. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't quite as close as you think. These are questions that are more appropriately asked of the N+1 generation fighter that may or may not be on the drawing boards at this time.
P.S. I've noticed the F-35 takes flak from both the extreme technological pessimists (drones/fighters can't take over the A10's role, low & slow manned flight is the only way to do CAS) and the extreme optimists (drones will make all manned flight obsolete next year). Seems to me neither faction has a very strong grasp of the state of military tech.
For what it's worth, the F-22 has a similar system. Perhaps it's not such a problem because the aircraft is significantly larger.
I don't know why the cannon door issue is taking so long to rectify but I can guess: Whoever is responsible for the weapons systems can't fix this themselves, it requires a modification to the flight control law, which is handled by a different team and any modification to that system requires extensive testing. That team is likely to prioritize work items that actually impact systems they're responsible for, so the cannon languishes at the bottom of the queue, doing nothing but attracting a storm of blog commentary.
One ought to keep in mind when reading the DOT&E report that it's their job to tear the fighter limb from limb and take the program administration to task for every problem. Of course the general tone is going to be negative, we know the program is behind schedule and over budget. They still seem to be on track to build a multirole fighter that is at least tolerably competent at all of its assigned tasks (even CAS) and that's a win. Maybe it's not the best possible solution but it's what the Pentagon wanted.
I'll never understand the impulse to cancel programs when they're just turning the final corner to completion. I guess that's when they start to gain the highest public profile. There is no magical second system that will solve every problem, and at this point the thing to do is apply lessons learned from the procurement and R&D processes going forward, maybe plan a Block II to smooth out the rough edges. We're about a decade too late to flip the table in a fit of rage and start over.
It's very likely to be down to differences in temperament, although I don't think it's self-assurance precisely. Typically, men are more driven to compete for status and place their career at the center of their lives, while women evaluate their situation more holistically.
This means they're less likely to put up with bullshit, and are more likely to be lured away to places that are less prestigious/competitive but allow them to actually have a life.
Generally speaking! I enjoy being pitchforked and set on fire, pseudonymously at least.
After thinking it over a bit, I'm going to take the other side of the bet.
We agree that power consumption is a limiting factor no matter what. In my imagined system, only something on the order of 1W would be delivered to the glasses. Delivering 1W over 10cm with large-ish coil area at >50% efficiency using NFMR isn't really a breakthrough, but it's only a way of eliminating the LiPo bulk and nothing more.
The thing is, I don't think we're near the boundary of power efficiency even with today's silicon. The way forward is to push all the feature tracking and other low-level vision tasks down to the ASIC level, while accepting some strict limitations on the rendering side. So a lot of it comes down to scope of features. Its most immediately useful applications are little more than a glorified HUD -- project some GPS data here or an info overlay there. Blit a video source on top of a marker, that sort of thing.
This sort of practical product, by 2027, I'll say yes. Mindblowing, transform-your-world stuff? No. But let's see what happens...
What do you think about solving this with wireless power transfer? There has been some promising research recently into extending the range of resonant inductive coupling.
It's nobody's ideal, but a clip-on/necklace style power solution might be sellable to the public if the value proposition of the glasses is good enough.
I'd expect Snapchat users to discuss politics on the platform. I wouldn't necessarily expect Snapchat to expend their own resources to explicitly push an issue-driven political agenda that is unrelated to their own line of business.
Most people can decide whether to "continue doing consumer culture stuff" or to freak out about politics without the help of Snap or any other corporation. There's an odd sort of corporate worship/megalomania that makes people think they're morally obligated to "weigh in" on an issue. They're not, and their constituent individuals are more than capable of pursuing their own political activism and/or creating more appropriate vehicles for voluntary cooperation toward those ends.
The other employees in his business were donating the services of the business to their pet political causes. Saliterman was trying to make money for the shareholders. It's an advertising business: that means everyone pays.
If Snapchat's board are all in agreement that that's where they want the money to go, fine --- but they should also realize that Snapchat is a social network, and the appearance of fairness is probably a reasonable thing to aim at. If the DNC or RNC launched a social network, they would find themselves somewhat hampered in their ability to grow, and with good reason.
Maybe your issue isn't the claim that the editorial slant is anti-white, but with my use of the term propaganda? Don't take that to mean much, I view most media as propaganda of one kind or another.