Thanks, those are very interesting links with solid information.

There is no right to privacy.

There is no right to your image.

Government can TRY to make those rights, but the freedom of expression is superior to the idea that you can stop me from hand drawing your image when you're at the beach.

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.

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.

During WW II, Superman stayed neutral for the most part in the comics and funny papers. His explanation was that this was one problem it was up to mankind to solve for itself, one way or the other. The big exception was in the cartoons, that had him fighting in both main theaters as well as dealing with spies back home. Possibly the best of them, or at least the most dramatic, was Eleventh Hour,with Superman sabotaging Japanese warships and almost causing Lois to be executed.

Easiest way to fix that is to just use LibreWolf

Do yourself a favor and install LibreWolf

It is literally what you thought you were getting with FireFox: no spying, ublock preinstalled, no upsell.

My only gripe is the LibreWolf team will not accept money they do it gratis

This. Brave is for people who live advertising and do not care about truth or privacy. https://www.tomsguide.com/news...

Back in the day, card images were files consisting of a set of records of 80 characters or less. These could be used as input to a program that had been designed to work on punched cards or created as the output from such a program. The idea was that as long as you restricted yourself this way you didn't have to take the time tore-write working programs instead of expanding your system with new code.

My software development experience spans more than a half century. We have come a long way from the time when I was punching out FORTRAN and assembly language job decks on Hollerith cards.

You and I are probably roughly the same age as that's how I started off too, in my case an IBM 1620 with 20,000 digits of core memory. It could be expanded to twice or three times the memory, but was otherwise thoroughly obsolete. Just out of curiosity, do you still enough about card images to explain why they were once important, without looking the term up.

In the 1960s and 1970s a "real" programmer might have said that anyone using a compiler like FORTRAN or COBOL instead of writing assembly code wasn't doing "real" programming. In the 1990s, a "real" programmer might have said that anyone using an IDE with syntax highlighting and code completion instead of vi and make was taking a shortcut. Today, you're suggesting that using an AI assistant to handle boilerplate code, debug a tricky API call, or translate a Python algorithm into Rust is somehow not worthy.

So what you're saying is that back in the '50s, '60s and '70s a Real Programmer was somebody like Mel, who wrote code that was so compressed, so dependent on the computer's oddities that it could take years for another skilled programmer to figure out how it worked. And here I thought that the late Dan Alderson was a Real Programmer because he knew how to do pointer arithmetic and direct memory manipulation in FORTRAN77.

Now, if they displayed the alert on the signs over the interstate, they would better target people who might actually see it.

They do here in Colorado; I don't know about other states, but if they don't, they should. That doesn't mean that the Amber Alerts shouldn't go out to phones, because not everybody's going to be using the interstates at any given time, but it does help alert drivers who have their phones muted to avoid distractions.

I remember, once, getting alerts for a brush fire over 100 miles away, and it wasn't redundant. I don't remember the fire's name, but it was generating lots of smoke, the winds were very strong and heading in our direction. The alert wasn't about the fire so much as warning everybody in the wind's path to stay indoors as much as possible and to wear masks if they had to go outside. The air quality was so bad that you couldn't draw a full breath without coughing, which made it hard to sleep. There may not have been anything I could do about it, but I appreciated the warning.