You know architect was an god you thought now
thebestaquaman
Just looking at the points makes this look very slim, but looking at the goal advantage makes Barca look supreme..
Isn't the idea of having an authority at all contrary to the anarchist ideology? Sounds to me like they were more "representative democratic brigades" than anarchistic brigades, since they elected officials that had full control until the next election.
I agree with the sentiment that different roles have different specific requirements- a tank driver doesn't need to be as strong or fast as an infantryman. However, there are some base requirements that apply to all front-line troops. No matter your role, if you are expected to see combat, you need to be at a certain level with regards to weapons handling, but also physical strength and endurance. Even a tank driver, medic or radio operator may need to fire a gun, carry wounded, or help push a jeep upright.
Still, I agree that there are different requirements for different specialities, and definitely think it is a good idea to have different requirements for these in the selection process. However, I can't see a compelling argument saying that the base requirements for male and female tank drivers, medics, infantry, etc. should be different. I think the tank crew is an especially good example here, because research on Norwegian soldiers has indicated that women are (on average) better suited to this role, because they are often better at handling high cognitive load while exhausted. Putting the same requirements for everyone, with requirements tuned to the specialisation, could very well lead to more women in certain roles.
Of course, for your second point, I think that falls under the category of "everything is bad if poorly implemented". I definitely agree that it's a bad idea to place very hard baseline physical requirements for all roles. That means the military will lose out on highly capable medics, tank crews, radio operators, etc. both male and female. But as you say, more of the capable people lost will be women, simply because of biology. However, I think that's more a question about how requirements for the military should be implemented, and not really a question of "should we place the same requirements on men and women in the same role?" to which I think, on general grounds, the answer should be yes.
To be clear - I have no doubts that the people pushing this in the current administration intend to leverage it to push highly capable women out of roles they are more than capable of filling, and that's an unambiguously bad thing.
I'm with you on this, especially with regards to RAM. Take whatever seems a bit overkill today, double it, and you have what passes as functional in five years (assuming you keep software updated).
Going overboard on RAM is likely the cheapest future-proofing you can do on a machine when you buy it.
It's a reference to "jet fuel can't melt steel beams", which is a quote commonly found in connection with 9/11 conspiracy theories.
There's been some similar videos lately where I've been speculating out loud where the interceptor drone was carrying some kind of EW equipment, to down the enemy drone. I couldn't figure out what it might have been. Perhaps this is what was going on?
Ok, so this guy is a known misogynist, and is likely to twist this into something that gives women an objective disadvantage. With that said, I want to ask what makes people opposed to the idea of actually gender-neutral physical requirements for military positions.
Personally, I served in the Norwegian army alongside a bunch of very capable women. I think women in the army bring a big positive contribution. There's even research suggesting that women are better suited than men for certain combat roles. With that established, is it not fair to require that a woman in the infantry is capable of carrying the same kit, or wounded partner, as her male counterparts? I've done my fair share of ammo runs, and the women in my platoon carried just as heavy shells as the men. If they hadn't been capable of that, I would say they simply weren't qualified for the job.
I don't know what current requirements are in the US military. What I'm questioning is why so many people here seem opposed to the idea that anyone in a physically demanding role meets the same base criteria?
I don't see how the "separate rooms" thing is positive in any way. Letting them actually sleep together is much more healthy for their relationship than forcing practically adult people to "sneak around".
Also, if you want your kid to keep letting you know what's going on, you shouldn't encourage or enforce a habit of "do whatever, just keep it hidden from me and it's fine", which is effectively what putting them in different rooms and expecting them to sneak over is.
Why would you "endorse" or "not endorse" your 17 year old sleeping with someone? It's none of your business, outside the fact that you should help them make good decisions. Even suggesting that two consenting 17 year olds shouldn't sleep together without their parents "endorsement" is really weird- like, wanting to check what strangers have in their pants kind of weird.
In general I agree with this sentiment, but let's be honest and remember that a lot of jobs are of the type "you are responsible for X, regardless of what time of day it is". In a reasonable place, that of course comes with the benefit that you can take time off whenever you want as long as X is handled, but I actually prefer the freedom/responsibility trade off of needing to handle shit in the weekends when required, but also being able to not come in to work when I know stuff is running as it should.
What you say is true, but doesn't really answer "Could someone take down Wikipedia [without completely shutting off the internet]". For obvious reasons, shutting internet access completely off isn't going to happen short of an insurrection or a war.
Shutting down Wikipedia specifically is much harder. As others have pointed out, there are many thousand copies of Wikipedia lying around on peoples private devices. If Wikipedia were actually taken down (blocked by the government in some sense) hundreds of mirrors would likely pop up immediately, and it would be more or less impossible for the government to go after each individual site that some person decides to host, short of just cutting internet access completely.