According to the article, the hit rate of drones isn't all that amazing, either.

Artillery pretty much works by saturating the area with explosions until some of them hit something. So a low hit rate is expected. Maybe a decade after the war ends we'll get some actual numbers to compare to other theaters.

That is correct, though it doesn't seem to have affected the course of the war noticeably.

Source?

That's a bold claim.

The article I linked to speaks about that. Essentially: Yes. But: Not the cheap stuff used, and stuff like fiber optics come with their own drawbacks.

The article I linked to includes prices.

The COVID mRNA vaccines were the culmination of decades of research into genetic vaccines that could be in essence engineered to target a selected antigen without the years of trial and error that are required by the methods we have been using since the 1950s. Within days of the virus genome being published, they had a vaccine design, the months it took to get to the public were taken up with studies of the safety and effectiveness of the heretofore untested technology, ramping up production, and preparing for the distribution of a medicine that required cryogenic storage.

It would be unreasonable not to give the Trump administration credit for not mucking up this process. But the unprecedented speed of development wasnâ(TM)t due to Trump employing some kind of magical Fuhrermojo. It was a stroke good fortune that when the global pandemic epidemiologists have been worried about arrived, mRNA technology was just at the point where you could use it. Had it arrived a decade earlier the consequences would have been far worse, no matter who was president.

The lesson isnâ(TM)t that Trump is some kind of divine figure who willed a vaccine into existence, itâ(TM)s that basic research that is decades from practical application is important.

Meanwhile, some reports from the frontlines indicate that while drones are ubiquituous, they aren't the game-changer the tech-industry wants them to be.

tl;dr essential bits: a) most drone strikes could have been done by other, cheaper weapons. b) drones are an unreliable weapon due to jamming, dependency on weather and light and many technical failures.

I watch a lot of maritime disaster videos, so YouTubeâ(TM)s genius algorithm thinks Iâ(TM)d be interested in traveling on a cruise ship.

But it doesn't support insults! Obviously sudo-rs is just a sub-par toy implementation which can't be used in a professional environment until it supports insults. :p

It's like visual coding or RAD all over again. Whenever suits and PHBs are told there's a magic wand that'll allow them to do without paying people for the nitty-gritty bits, they get all excited and convince each other in their echo chamber that their dream of a company of all managers and no workers is just around the corner.

Then reality says "hi", the hype dies down, a few scam artists got rich and the world continues as it was, with a couple new cool tools in the toolbox of those who know how to use them correctly - which is generally the same people that were supposedly being replaced.

That's how I see AI. I've been writing software for the better part of 40 years. What I see from AI is sometimes astonishing and sometimes pathetic. I would never, ever, ever put AI generated code into production software without carefull checking and refactoring, and I would fire anyone who does.

Code completion is mostly in the "astonishing" part. If I write a couple lines of near-identical stuff, like assigning values from an input to a structured format for processing, the AI most of the time gets right the next line I want to write. Anything more complex than that is hit-and-miss.

Mostly, I use AI the way I would use an intern. "Can you look up how to use this function correctly? What are the parameters and their defaults?" or "Write me some code that's tedious to write (like lots of transformation operations) but not rocket science by far.
Essentially, it does faster and a little bit better what previously I'd have done with Google and Stackoverflow.

I have no fear it'll replace developers anytime soon. Half of the time the code is outright wrong, most of the time it has glaring security issues or isn't half as fault-tolerant as it should be, and for any case where I know how to do it without any research, I'd be faster writing the code myself then going through several iterations with an AI to get it done.

Well, your buying power would be crippled.

Knowingly.

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.

Of course you design your policies and procedures to protect against rogue employees, particularly in IT and especially with admins who have greater levels of access.

Suggesting otherwise exposes your own ignorance as to how IT security operates in companies ( or how it's supposed to ). Everywhere I've worked, suspended employees were treated as terminated as far as their access to resources were concerned ( up to and including email ). Most places would ask you to tell them if you were traveling out of country, and would suspend your credentials as a precaution if you were ( predominantly in IT and finance, oftentimes HR as well ).

It's a question of minimizing risk. Admins have enough access to shutdown operations for extended periods of time, so of course you would disable their access when the situation warrants it. You wouldn't trust them not to interfere with millions of dollars of productivity/day, and as an admin I wouldn't want them to.

But hey! I'm not sure why I'm wasting so much time trying to educate you on this; the less you know and the more you spread your "knowledge", the more work I get.

That is how companies see suspensions, at least competent ones. And here, with this story, we see WHY.

But by all means, continue to believe otherwise in the face of contrary evidence. My contracting rates are very reasonable ( considering the alternative of course ), so it's in my best interest that more companies think as you do instead of following my advice.

Suspension means the employee isn't performing their job duties; hence they don't need access to the system. Same thing applies, admittedly to a lesser extent, to when admins go on vacations.

On top of that, suspensions are not done with the assumption that the employee is coming back; it's more of a "get the person out of here NOW while we build our termination case" type of thing. Suspensions are almost always for ethical reasons, which is precisely the type of person who shouldn't have access, and therefore usually lead to terminations.

As we can see here, disabling his credentials was clearly called for, so between yours and my perspectives, which would you say is more correct?