this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2026
557 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

88443 readers
4070 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
557
NASA mysteriously trying to pull world’s fastest plane, SR-71 Blackbird, out of retirement — and won’t say why (nypost.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
339 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Seeing Blackbird fly again after all these years would be incredible. I'd love to know what NASA has planned for it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Any country involved in a shooting war is within their rights to shoot at any object they have reason to believe is a military target, regardless of where that object is.

Outside their airspace, in international waters, inside another country, on the fucking Moon - the limits are technological, not legal.

If the object isn't a military target, then they aren't within their rights to shoot at it no matter where it is. Not that that has stopped attacks on civilians in the past (e.g. Russian ballistic missile attacks on apartment blocks, US drone strikes of fishing boats), only that the laws of war forbid such things.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Didn’t you hear? The war is over. We “won”….. TACO sez, “ I didn't say it, I declared it”

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I chuckled the other day when I heard that the planned attack on the UK airbase used by the US for attacks on Iran, is being blamed on Iran, and also being called terrorism.

I don't think it's terrorism when it's a legitimate military target that takes place during war time. While it is possible for terrorism to exist during a war (you know, something like bombing schools, hospitals, residences, etc), an attack on an enemy's base doesn't fit.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

All the Arab countries condemning Iran for attacking US bases and US military personnel conducting the war on Iran from their land is just as comical.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

Terrorism is, by definition, by a non state actor. If a government does it, it's just a war crime.