Bizarre to call this an F-35 problem, it's with the entire US supply chain and the F-35 is the least of it.
The F-35 at least has been produced in quantity and the unit cost has come down and they're finally rolling out some decent upgrades. Yes it's a messed up program in so many ways as its literal decades of history shows but:
The bigger issues is our industrial base cannot replace our many missile systems quickly enough, including surface to air, antiship, and surface to surface. We can't build ships or planes very quickly, either.
We are woefully low on stocks and can't meet commitments in NATO, mideast, and against China and N Korea. Taiwan is and has been waiting years on billions in backorders.
The other issues is everything is as expensive as f-ck. We're shooting down dirt cheap drones costing in the thousands with missiles costing in the millions. The article at least mentions this.
And what is the proposed solution to this? A giant, expensive, long range fighter that will coordinate expensive drone buddies (google NGAD). Because we think it's realistic to try and defeat Chinese forces when we're thousands of miles from base and they're at home.
First off we need to replenish systems we already know how to make and that are effective. We need to learn to build sh-t quickly, at home and with allies, and it's bizarre no politician has taken the lead on this because it involves popular stuff like spending government money, creating blue collar manufacturing jobs, growing small businesses with more reliable gov contracts, and so forth.
Then we need to develop cheaper systems including lots of drones, anti drone stuff, and low cost interceptors and antisurface missiles.
Then we need to reform contracting infrastructure and rules to move much much faster and with less cost to experiment and iterate more rapidly going forward like the Ukrainians (and even the Iranians) are doing.
We need to do all of this and quickly and no one from either party is providing leadership. This is the biggest reason the US and west are at risk of becoming paper tigers - we have cut our infrastructure and defense spending and microoptimized inventory to the point where we can't restock quickly enough to be a credible deterrent force.
What you say makes no sense by your own logic. 200 words can be wonderfully filled with wisdom or devoid of insight depending how much work and experience went into those words. So it is not appropriate to judge an author by the length of their text. You need length/wisdom but you can’t objectively or quickly determine the denominator.
I'm probably not the sort of person you're referring to, but I do regularly restart the REPL because
1. multimethods, if you change the dispatch fn you can't get it just with a recompile, there are tools to help with this but i'm not yet in the hang of using them after several years. (Many people don't hit this because they don't use multimethods. I love multimethods for the use cases I've hit so far with clojure.)
2. interceptors (pedestal) - I love this pattern and lib, and they've made moves toward improving repl friendliness, but I find I need to recompile two NSes typically to get a true reload even in dev mode (the one where my routes are defined and the one where a particular interceptor chain is defined). sometimes i lose track of what i've reloaded, and I dont know if a bug is "real" or just an artifact of forgetting to recompile - "f it, just restart the repl"
> What features postgres offers over sqlite in the context of running on a single machine with a monolithic app
The same thing SQL itself buys you: flexibility for unforeseen use cases and growth.
Your SQLite benchmark is based in having just one write connection for SQLite but all eight writable connections for Postgres. Even in the context of a single app, not everyone wants to be tied down that way, particularly when thinking how it might evolve.
If we know our app would not need to evolve we could really maximize performance and use a bespoke database instead of an rdbms.
It seems a little aggressive for you to jump on a comment about how it’s reasonable to run Postgres sometimes with “SQLite smokes it in performance.” That’s true, when you can accept its serious constraints.
As a wise man once said, “Postgres is great and there's nothing wrong with using it!”
I did Ctrl-F on "proof-of-work" in this thread to see if anyone had tried this, you seem to be the only one. Seems like a good precaution before sending even a verification email.
Did you have to roll your own or was there some proof of work library you were able to use?
Your pubs kindly return the favor when we order whiskey. As Hunter S Thompson is reported to have quipped in a bar your side of the Atlantic: "What is this, a sample?"
Personally I'd have us use what the Royal Navy used to serve its rum ration in, the half-gill. This is 1/8 of a British pint or 71 millilitres, and the rum would have been a minimum of 54%!
Fractional gills were the pre-metric shot measure in the UK, but they were still pretty stingy. 1/6 gill in England, 1/5 or 1/4 gill in Scotland, and 1/4 gill in Northern Ireland.
The place where I bought my knife offered a sharpening class and sold stones. It’s meditative to sharpen, keeps your knife in good condition (vs mechanized commercial sharpeners) and saves money (vs outsourcing it). But I don’t see these classes offered much. There are good tutorials on YouTube, if that works for you.
I’ll also say, “big” is not so important past a certain point. I have a 10 and am generally very happy with it but you do need to clear more space /above/ your cutting board the longer your blade is.
And if someone is buying their first chefs knife they generally (as you correctly note!) will want a larger cutting board than they likely have now. So having a super sized blade (vs a more reasonable 8) amplifies the extent you will need to learn to tidy up and clear space before and while prepping (chopping).
The F-35 at least has been produced in quantity and the unit cost has come down and they're finally rolling out some decent upgrades. Yes it's a messed up program in so many ways as its literal decades of history shows but:
The bigger issues is our industrial base cannot replace our many missile systems quickly enough, including surface to air, antiship, and surface to surface. We can't build ships or planes very quickly, either.
We are woefully low on stocks and can't meet commitments in NATO, mideast, and against China and N Korea. Taiwan is and has been waiting years on billions in backorders.
The other issues is everything is as expensive as f-ck. We're shooting down dirt cheap drones costing in the thousands with missiles costing in the millions. The article at least mentions this.
And what is the proposed solution to this? A giant, expensive, long range fighter that will coordinate expensive drone buddies (google NGAD). Because we think it's realistic to try and defeat Chinese forces when we're thousands of miles from base and they're at home.
First off we need to replenish systems we already know how to make and that are effective. We need to learn to build sh-t quickly, at home and with allies, and it's bizarre no politician has taken the lead on this because it involves popular stuff like spending government money, creating blue collar manufacturing jobs, growing small businesses with more reliable gov contracts, and so forth.
Then we need to develop cheaper systems including lots of drones, anti drone stuff, and low cost interceptors and antisurface missiles.
Then we need to reform contracting infrastructure and rules to move much much faster and with less cost to experiment and iterate more rapidly going forward like the Ukrainians (and even the Iranians) are doing.
We need to do all of this and quickly and no one from either party is providing leadership. This is the biggest reason the US and west are at risk of becoming paper tigers - we have cut our infrastructure and defense spending and microoptimized inventory to the point where we can't restock quickly enough to be a credible deterrent force.
reply