I assume you are referring to yourself? It is well know that none of the semiconductor equipment manufacturing is not in Asia due to the PRC. So you get fabs, but not equipment to produce fabs or keep fabs running (all by design, so China doesn't gain much if they take over Korea, Japan, or Taiwan).
Another aspect to mention is games can add a marketplace directly to the media. Paying extra to change the costume a character wears in a TV show wouldn't work, but paying to change a costume of a game character is something people do every day.
Could you expand on this? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where visual confirmation of a target would be a requirement. I also don't see why an F-35 is at a major disadvantage inside visual range of a target. (FYI Visual range is farther than short range air to air missiles and much farther than gun range.)
The AIM-54 Phoenix was used 2 times with exactly zero kills, because of ID concerns[1]. You don't just go around firing missiles to radar tracks you can't identify.
[1] by the US, Iran has used it more with more success.
The article you linked makes it sound like sensor and rocketry failures on some platforms that were retired 15 years ago, nothing to do with a general fear of BVR missile use. Also I believe the willingness to engage unidentified radar tracks has more to do with the nature of the conflict. I doubt the same restraint would be shown in a war against a near peer foe.
The point was not the zero kills, the point is that the US navy decided to use them in only two occasions.
In the case of the US involved conflicts it was working with allies and fighters lacking modern IFF that made the likelihood of friendly fire or collateral losses unacceptable to them.
It's a matter of acceptable risks. The AIM-54 was designed with a world war III in mind, employed in the middle of the ocean in closed airspaces were unidentified contacts could be treated as hostile with minimum political consequences.
The point I was making is here is an example of a time a major force decided not to use their prime BVR missile because of target identification concerns.
The Phoenix was never the prime BVR for the US. It was a niche weapon for the USN, to combat the Backfire/Bear threat. Even for the USN, it wasn't the prime; the AIM-7 Sparrow was the primary AAM carried. Tomcats rarely carried Phoenix except when qualifying. It was too heavy, and the F-14 couldn't bring back all 6 to the carrier due to weight. If the Tomcat had stuck around longer, the AMRAAM would have been qual'd for it, and the Tomcat would probably have lost out to it.
And the reason it wasn't used much wasn't just ID issues, but cost. It was supremely expensive, in limited stocks. Why use it against an Su-22 in the Gulf of Sidra? Or waste it over Iraq?
As a counter example, the US has continued to use the BVR AIM-120 even after accidentally shooting down one of their own helicopters in an IFF failure. [1]
In the particular case the missile was used after visual identification [1].
> The two F-15s now initiated a visual identification (VID) pass of the contact.
> Wickson's VID pass was conducted at a speed of about 450 knots (520 mph; 830 km/h), 500 feet (150 m) above and 1,000 feet (300 m) to the left of the helicopters.
Now I am not saying there is no room for BVR, ofcourse there is. The 2 tracks in formation coming from Russian airspace pinging you with their Russian military radars are definitely Russian fighters. But there are also a lot of times where there has to be a visual id.
A military jet with it's radars turned off is almost impossible to tell apart from a civilian jet based on radar data alone, and everyone errs on the side of caution, of course the side of caution occasionally is to fire first and id later[2][3].
> A military jet with it's radars turned off is almost impossible to tell apart from a civilian jet based on radar data alone
The F35 can identify the type (and multiple times the model) of a specific aircraft in passive mode. Forget in active radar mode.
You are right that regardless of the reasons for phasing out AIM-7, there are reasons to take a look at your target before firing at it. I suppose I was only thinking about "hot war" scenarios, not police actions in civilian airspace.
Roughly, because the stealthier an aircraft is the less maneuverable it an be. Also, you need ammunition for a dog fight, which is mostly carried on the wings negating any stealth characteristics. And large internal bays make an aircraft less maneuverable.
IRST can help, but it's like viewing the world through a straw. It works best when cued by other systems. I'm unaware of any telephoto systems in use since the F-14 was retired (obviously excluding the few airframes Iran might still be using).
Unaided pilot vision is unlikely to spot a target at 22 miles without some type of guidance.
True overall, (although don't discount the effect of a pair of binoculars in the cockpit) but in this case we're talking about intercepting a radar target for visual confirmation. If you have a radar track, by definition you would have the type of guidance you need to put other sensors on target.
A Yacht is a large pleasure boat. There's no exact definition, but you wouldn't call a 15 ft motor boat a yacht or a 40 ft work boat. Any well maintained 30 ft plus boat that's not used for commercial purposes could reasonably be called a yacht.
Edited to add: The structure in the article is in my opinion, not a boat: Boats have a means of propulsion, (sails, oars, motor) this floating school is a barge.
As far as I know (which isnt that far), it's pretty well known that "things people build" + water leads to impermanence. Anything on the water continues to exist because of constant maintenance. This thing didn't look painted.
Millions of years? Agriculture is less than 120,000 years old by most accounts. Are you suggesting the bulk of humanity returns to hunting and gathering? Even then accounts of early human history have us emerging less than a million years ago. I think permaculture practices have their benefits but that kind of hyperbole doesn't help the cause.
If you read a decent bit of WW2 history, incidents like this are fairly common. A bunch of young men in a high-stress situation open fire on phantom targets. Once one person / group starts shooting everyone else tends to join in unless command prevents it.
The founding of the United States of America was an experiment in the practical application of political philosophy. Without major philosophical disagreements between the Government of England and the colonies, the nation that sent men to the moon would not exist.
A "left-wing activist" actually shot the house majority whip in 2017, and he was actively trying to assassinate other republican politicians as well. [0]
I'll never vote for another republican for as long as Trumpism remains a part of the party, but we can't pretend that only one side has been radicalized to the point of violence.
To be fair, a difference here is that it was one sole person committing that act, and they generally were not paraded around as heroes by people of similar political leaning. One-off stuff like that happens all the time and is not necessarily indicative of any kind of trend.
> I'll never vote for another republican for as long as Trumpism remains a part of the party
As someone who used to vote for the occasional republican, neither can I. In fact, as far as I am concerned the republican brand is now unsalvageable and any sane conservative would have to be running under a different label since I can't trust the reasoning of anyone who'd run under that one anymore.
I agree that the lone wolf nature of the attack makes a difference, but if we are going to paint other lone wolf shooters as products of their political beliefs then we have to apply the same standard in this case.
>they generally were not paraded around as heroes by people of similar political leaning
I would invite you to look at discussions of the incident on reddit, it might change your mind. That said, I agree that the celebration of politically motivated violence is despicable, and the unwillingness of some the members and supporters of the republican party to condemn the recent riot is a terrible mistake.
My main goal with my first comment was to remind everyone that painting the people we have political disagreements with as irredeemable monsters can drive people from both sides to violence.
I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to reply instead of downvoting and moving on, this is a tough subject and I don't think my hasty 1st comment was sufficient to the task.
Well you have to consider that this is the "one hobby" for a lot of people, so your own division of brain cycles leaves room for a group who works on things like this for fun.
Here's my take on your questions. Anecdotes [1] generally aren't the focus of academic philosophy. Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom [2] where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument. Responses to the piece of philosophy then take the form of criticism of the logic of the statements contingent on the axiom, or as arguments based on different axioms.
In other words an anecdotal argument is "I've seen and heard x, so I believe y" an axiomatic argument is "If x if true, we should believe y".
The important difference is the accessibility of each to logical analysis and discussion. Anyone can engage with an axiomatic argument by considering its premise and following statements. Anecdotal evidence relies entirely on personal experiences that another arguer may not share.
Training in academic philosophy prepares a person to engage in logically consistent criticism of existing philosophy and the production of well argued original works of academic philosophy.
You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think.
> Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument.
What this means is that philosophy ultimately becomes an extended argument over which propositions to take as axiomatic. One commonly-used technique in this is the thought experiment, and some well-known, much-debated examples, such as Frank Jackson's "Mary's Room", are not even anecdotal evidence.
While, I suppose, analytical philosophy could always be presented in the form an analysis of what follows from a given set of axioms, what almost invariably happens in practice is that individual philosophers act as advocates for the particular axioms that they believe actually hold.
There also seems to be a pervasive shared assumption in current analytical philosophy that analysis of the use of language can be the ultimate arbiter on questions of how the world actually is - a questionable belief that is not questioned as much as it should be, or so it seems from my very limited perspective.
>What this means is that philosophy ultimately becomes an extended argument over which propositions to take as axiomatic.
I agree. It also involves extended arguments over the statements that follow from these axioms even amongst philosophers who agree the axioms are true.
>[W]hat almost invariably happens in practice is that individual philosophers act as advocates for the particular axioms that they believe actually hold.
I agree with this as well. My main point was about the structure of the arguments. I don't think arguing from an axiom you hold to be true turns the argument anecdotal.
> It also involves extended arguments over the statements that follow from these axioms even amongst philosophers who agree the axioms are true.
It is certainly not that uncommon for people to publish claims arising from mistakes in logic, but it is rare for any dispute over them to become extended, as they can be resolved by reason. While it is possible to disagree over the meaning of words, or even of which axioms of logic to accept (such as over axiom B in modal logic), these are still issues of what to take as axiomatic.
Edit - On reflection, I can think of cases, such as Searle's non-sequitur of a response to the 'systems reply' to his 'Chinese Room' argument, that have not been promptly eliminated. In the cases I can think of, however, there are unstated assumptions being made - and any such assumption is implicitly axiomatic, as, being unstated, it could not have been derived from other axioms.
> I don't think arguing from an axiom you hold to be true turns the argument anecdotal.
Indeed - nominally, one is merely presenting a deduction of what a set of propositions imply - but no-one persues philosophy just to do that.
When reading papers, I have learned to make note of the points where the language turns to what is likely, plausible or conceivable, as this is often close to the crux of the matter. It is here that one might find what Daniel Dennett has called the Philosopher's Syndrome: "mistaking a failure of the imagination for an insight into necessity."
I find it very often that these types of "numbered premises and consequences as natural language statements" analyses become "not even wrong", moot and missing the point.
The actual meat of the problem gets stashed away in what you exactly mean with your natural language sentences and "suitcase words". You may pronounce that Statement A is in contradiction to Statement B but it my be only true in some sense and the whole thing collapses because you made a hidden implicit assumption that turns out to ruin the whole nice house of cards.
Its easy to come up with those logical games, see proofs of God's existence.
If you can make those statements precise enough you get mathematics. If you cannot, you're better off doing empirical work and leaving the possibility open that you're wrong in some fundamental way. You my proclaim that either A or B is true and in 20 years it turns out that "hmm, things don't really work like that, neither A nor B is really true or it depends on how we look at it but generally this just wasn't a productive way to approach the issue in hindsight".
Its a bit like presenting a measurement result with too many decimal places, giving the impression of high precision when it's unwarranted. In the same way the principled structure of philosophical musings makes them look more definite than they actually are.
"You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think."
Thank you. But are these comparable? Is thinking competitive and there's a winner? What is it to be trained to think? If that training hadn't happened, would the un-trained person not be thinking? Or, would you be thinking along a more natural way? Is it more akin to building one or other type of sandcastle, rather than to be a better fighter?
The way I view it, the only thing an individual can do is try to be the winner for themselves - they need to progress their understanding of themselves as much as possible. In nature there's no competition - there are needs that might or might not be met.
But, if you want to harness or direct individuals into a collectivised state, yes, you need to train them, and they will produce what you call 'original works of philosophy' on the basis of all the thought that has preceded them. As if 'a body of original works' is important to an individual. They may be renumerated for their trained thinking. As if renumeration is something the individual would ever want.
Let me ask you some questions to zero in on your issue here.
Is coding competitive? Is cooking? Is reading? Do you think that training does not help you become a better cook or coder or reader? Were you able to read without training? Do you think the fact that you had to be taught to read poisoned the well and you cannot trust anything you have read since?
The questions about fundamentals - cooking, reading. I would of course agree that these are useful to the individual. Now coding - again the skill is neutral. But what you code might not be. Why do you code what you code? Should you code in a bank, a facebook algorithm, etc? Are you actually undertaking your life in a positive way, or are you making gains at another's expense?
Do you think training is a neutral act? Is it possible that training can be subversive to the trainee?
Perhaps you will see my position as a political, anti-statist one. I see it as an individualistic perspective. If an individual is trained in academic philosophy, in order to provide 'production of well argued original works of academic philosophy' why is that valuable? To me, there is no value there at all. As an individual, I want to uncover the innate understanding we all already have.
Have you ever heard about people who go through half their life, having trained to be doctors, or solicitors, only to then realise that they didn't want to do that? I would say that these are the lucky ones - they have wasted only half their lives, and though they have much to undo, they at least they are honest enough to change their position and try to find something authentic and innate to them. Most people do not do that. That is the power of training and education, IMO. In it for the money, sell your granny.
In my view, this is what training at a higher level is to train people NOT to look inside themselves for answers, but to refer to an external authority. This applies to academic philosophy as much as any other area. Love of wisdom, becoming oneself, makes way for the production of 'original works of academic philosophy'. Beyond the basics, education seems to me about disempowering the individual, for the benefit of some imagined 'collective'. In fact, that collective is so individual who has their hands on the levers of governance, but let's not think too closely about that.
Who decides what is neutral? What if you are trained by masters or schools with conflicting thoughts? What if you read all sides of an argument? Is this information not valuable to the informed choices of an individual?
How can you be certain that individuals have the tools to "look inside themselves" without any training?
Also I would appreciate a deeper response to the question of reading and language. The very language(s) that you use to "try to find something authentic and innate" were not the result of an individual choice, but of training to an agreed societal standard during your youth.
Do you think that you would be better able to understand your true individual self if you had been raised without any training in a language or the other aspects of your culture?
Once again I am getting the message that I am posting too fast. I think its when I am flagged for my 'contentious viewpoints'. Last time it was 3 hours before I could post, but I will submit this when I can. HN can be very frustrating.
Whether we agree or not, if you appreciate my taking the time to reply and provide you my thoughts, feel free to upvote me - I think a higher score may help in allowing me to respond in a more timely manner!
Back to your post.
Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely given my 'feralimal' handle) I was thinking about feral children and their inability to speak.
I think you would say they live a worse life than you. But why? How do you know? You do not.
You and I live in our classification systems - we probably share a very similar type. We were taught our classification systems at school and they are self-evident, right? Eg: "A whale is not a fish, its a mammal.", "this is a tree, not a bush", "tomatoes are a fruit", "peanuts are a legume", etc. This is an example of how we live in the ideas that we were given.
Think now about the feral child. This child will also have some sort of system to interpret the world. But its system would be very different to ours. It would have developed it on its own. The feral child wouldn't necessarily see a distinction between itself and the nature it lives in.
Now step back and apply some value to that. Which is the better way of living?
Is it better to live in your head, with layers and layers of classification systems filtering your engagement with the world? Going to work, coding, making some money to be able to pay your mortgage, and afford some takeaway?
Or is it better to feel a connection with the external reality, even if you can't talk about it?
I honestly don't know.
I can say that trying to engage more deeply with 'reality'. I suspect I am forever separate. Maybe feral children are too. But, I think innately, connecting to whatever is the source is what I yearn for. And I suspect it is the same for everyone else.
And then, my assessment is that the education we receive is about making that possibility almost impossible to even conceive of.
I just realised I didn't answer your question: "Who decides what is neutral? What if you are trained by masters or schools with conflicting thoughts? What if you read all sides of an argument? Is this information not valuable to the informed choices of an individual?"
You decide. You are free to view all information, and consider it. You can judge for yourself whether the argument you are presented with is sound or not. Whether all the assumptions are stated and whether the conclusion that follows is rational. If you don't have all the information, that is fine - you can work with your best hypothesis. I think the key thing is whether you are acting in good faith. If someone presents some information that you can't reconcile easily, that is likely an indication that you need to investigate further. You may get some data that will better inform your understanding.
Because the Taiwanese government paid for it to be there in the 80's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History