archonet

fair enough, goes to show the gaps in my knowledge -- but after seeing one guy desperately trying to crawl away with his legs blown off before being blown up by a second drone, I decided that was all the Ukraine footage I needed to see.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but: has anyone in Ukraine actually tried a shotgun?

I generally try to avoid watching anything that'll scar my psyche, but, as far as I'm aware soldiers in the field don't usually carry shotguns, but rifles, in the anticipation of dealing with enemies wearing body armor/at some distance. And hitting a moving drone with a rifle, yes absolutely that'd be a bitch -- one projectile is not enough, especially for an erratic moving target.

Police (and I'm assuming ICE as well), generally dealing with people not equipped with body armor, tend to keep shotguns handy for a multitude of reasons (breaching doors, not overpenetrating through walls, etc), and skeet shooting is already a thing (though admittedly it would still be harder if the drone was moving erratically).

All this is to say: I don't know anything for a fact, because I've tried to avoid watching anything that'll scar me, but has anyone in Ukraine on either side had access to a shotgun or two before getting turned into gibs? because I can absolutely believe that soldiers with rifles would fail to shoot a drone, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount a couple people with shotguns unless that's already a solution the Russians tried before the cope cages. Especially in the context of just filming them, your drone probably isn't moving very fast or flying very high if you're trying to get a good shot.

That sounds like a fine way to have your (presumably expensive) drone carrying your (presumably also expensive) camera hit with buckshot.

I'm not saying don't try anyways. But there's a good chance the gestapo just starts blastin'.

I'm not exactly an expert either, but as far as I know there's nothing stopping you from modifying your own kernel on Linux if you're a hardcore enough Linux dork who knows how to. This is part of the reason anti-cheat developers love Windows and hate Linux, the Windows kernel is practically considered a black box that no normal user is ever supposed to touch, and Microsoft tries reasonably hard to make sure it isn't (I had to disable Secure Boot and virtualization in my bios, and add a sketchy looking second boot option to the Windows Boot Manager, back when I paid for cheats in games). This doesn't really work (as evidenced by the existence of kernel level cheats), but that's the philosophy.

On Linux, there are no "normal users". Some people run Arch for fun. Some people run Gentoo for fun. It's the Wild God Damn West. Ergo, you can say "well the kernel will have this functionality built in", and that's all fine well and good -- but there is nothing stopping someone else from coming along, yanking it out (or better still, modifying it to always pass "yep no cheats here" to any anti-cheat, even when there are), and recompiling their own kernel; because the design philosophy in Linux (for the most part) seems to be that the meatbag sitting at the keyboard is God, not some corporation. Which, considering how Microsoft is enfuckening Windows, I consider a good thing.

Kernel anti-cheat is a bodge, a stopgap, a last-ditch effort to save money instead of hiring staff that actually give a shit about supporting a game for people who've already parted with their money and moderating it properly. You know the only games I was never able to cheat in/didn't see many cheaters in/didn't ever really want to cheat in, for that matter? The games where the developers actually gave a shit, made a good game that didn't exploit the player, and paid moderators to do a good job keeping it free of other shitheads. Kernel anticheat wasn't even a speedbump, not then and I doubt it would be now. It's a shortcut taken by lazy and/or greedy companies who would rather compromise user security and eke out a few more percentage points of net profit up-front instead of investing in the long-term health of their community.

disclaimer: I am not a hardcore linux dork. I like Linux Mint nowadays and have for the past couple years because it just works and doesn't give me shit. I could be wrong, but that's the gist of it as it is understood by me.

... a solution, you say?

Why do I get the feeling this "solution", for these people you have in the country but don't want, will be very... final?

Notice how the states you'd be trying to leave or drive through as fast as possible are all grouped at one end of the scale?

I'm not saying this is the only reason. But it can still be a reason.

keep me in the screenshot unless you want your subscriber base to know this guy from the past thinks you suck.

also, we're so sorry. not all of us, but some of us.

but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

...

you know, there is a difference between "getting published in Nature" and "submitting your work to Nature". It's subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.

I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren't well substantiated enough to publish.

Also, one field. Lmao.

Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I'm genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?

it's not about a takedown, really, I'm not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they're just having a bad day they oughta just say so.

that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I've ever heard of, both because an educational journal is built on its reputation, and because even if it were true, you'd still be wrong to imply that's a bad thing for a different reason: proving some other guy wrong is part of the process.

let's assume -- even for a brief moment -- you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.

You're almost definitely not, but hey, let's assume.

scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don't believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because "I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we're all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim". Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that's what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn't be going "nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!"? And at that point it's two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they're right and the other guy's wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don't publish horseshit.

in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is... a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice -- there's always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters -- but that's part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers and generally make sure that nothing they publish is outright bullshit.

now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going "fuck you I'm gonna find out if you're wrong" is literally part of the job.

Are you just, like... not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?

And that any evidence of the zombie eating brains is simply Western propaganda.