Comment Re:Bill Nye the Science Guy in 1998 (Score 1) 23
But if I seal you in a tank and start filling it with water, you're not going to be very excited about how amazing it is in very short order.
The European Model [wikipedia.org] is considered to produce better forecasts. For US weather.
There are a few asterisks needed to make that claim true, but with those asterisks it is- and I do agree that's not a great look for us.
The GFS is generally inferior to the IFS. These are both global models.
The HRRR and NAM have no analogues- and the IFS doesn't come anywhere close to doing what they do, so it's not accurate to say that "The European Model is more accurate for US Weather.".
It is more accurate than the GFS for US weather- that much is true. But US forecasts aren't using the GFS.
If they did, then they were quite wrong.
Huh? Wrong about what?
First, because the hate of trump for Ukraine predates the start of putin's hot war against the West by two years.
Oh I'd say it far predates that, lol... but that's also entirely irrelevant.
Second, because IRL it was the other way around - the Trump party's operatives, driven by trump's hate for Ukraine amplified ruzzkie propaganda and gradually changed the opinion of their moronic electorate.
That link doesn't say what you dream that it says. You're projecting a weird fantasy.
Better red than dem is a decade old, now.
MAGA voters are very pro-Russia, and a healthy enough amount of independents simply aren't as virulently anti-Russia as in past times.
You have very passionate partisan opinions. It's too bad. It makes you dumb.
Which above?
You know which above I was speaking of.
Further above where you said America wouldn't even defend TW?
Then who would China even be at war with at that point?
Nobody- I agree. Unless they were stupid enough to directly attack US assets in the area, which I don't think they are.
America is scared of escalating with Russia. But they're going to step up and defend TW against China?
Nope.
Not over an island, that's for sure.
Everyone compromised speed for security without realizing it if they went for an out of order processor.
Intel did it much worse than AMD, and about the same as IBM in terms of vulnerability and performance impact of mitigation.
Core 2 was pretty decent, that's fair. But by the time the i7 came around AMD was kicking their ass at everything but single thread. Even though I am a gamer that's never been the only thing I cared about, and I've also always been cheap, so to have AMD provide dramatically more ops per buck and have very competitive processors which were outright faster in many situations has had me an AMD customer solidly since Athlon. AMD never was able to keep up with Intel's process technology, but by the time that ceased to be a thing, all Intel had left was inertia and skullduggery.
My last non-netbook Intel-based system that I bought with my own money (I had an Elitebook with a Core 2 Duo for a moment) was a P2 400 because AMD has kicked Intel right in the goodies in the market segments I care about since right around then. Only Hammer has even been slightly disappointing since Athlon, and it was still an absolute value for money champ.
You are such a pedantic cunt you came back to fix a typo in your own post?!
Absolutely! It's how I distinguish myself from people who can read, and like you- not.
You don't sound very busy for a clever network engineer or whatever you bragged about, I may have forgotten.
The higher you get, the less busy you are. It's an ironic thing about how the world works.
When you move up from fryer-jockey, you'll start to get it.
But seriously- have you figured out the difference between 10 and 100 yet? Asking for a friend.
That's what you said about Trump's ear, and how did that turn out?
It turns out there's still no evidence that he was ever shot.
Carriers won't get close enough to be useful. Or they'd be sunk instantly.
Complete bullshit.
A carrier group can swat ballistics and anti-ship birds out of the air all day long while sipping tea on the decks, and in this regard, China isn't particularly advanced.
America doesn't have enough prepositioned supplies and fuel. And not enough ships to move them even if they were there.
Was the question whether or not the US could deploy its Navy right now at the coast of China and succeed? I don't recall ever making that claim... but that being said, US standoff weaponry alone could likely sink just about all of the Chinese fleet without ever coming within visual range of it.
America would easily win a war just about anywhere in the world. But not anywhere close to China. Logistics don't come close to allowing it.
The South China Sea is quite literally encircled by US naval bases.
American boats ran out of drone defense fighting the Houthis. Let that sink in.
They ran out of missiles. They then proceeded to shoot the fucking things out of the sky with good old fashioned guns. Not a single drone hit its mark. Let that sink in.
That wasn't even a prepared US defensive array. That was just teh shit the Gulf boats had on hand.
This whole thread was started with America not having enough that they had to renege on missiles and ammo already promised and almost delivered to Ukraine (currently sitting in Poland).
For me, it started when someone claimed tonnage was a useful comparator between navies in 2025.
Actually tonnage is a pretty good indicator of capacity to make war.
No, it is not.
It is in a symmetrical comparison. There is no symmetrical comparison between the US and any other power on the planet, currently.
This report is pretty detailed. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/RL... [fas.org]
Like where it says:
As a result, as discussed in further detail in Appendix A, comparisons of the total numbers of ships in China’s navy and the U.S. Navy (or aggregate displacements) are highly problematic as a means of assessing relative U.S. and PLA naval capabilities and how those capabilities compare to the missions assigned to the two navies.
One day, a tonnage comparison with China will be apt. Today is not that day.
They are won largely with numbers, but you ignored that part.
Wrong.
All the dinghies in the world don't take down a carrier group with CIWS, cruise, and theater ballistic missiles, regardless of tonnage or numbers.
Anyway wars between superpowers are going to be won with drones in the future (as they are shaping up to be already) and nobody has more manufacturing than China.
This is bullshit.
Drones are useful for picking on someone who can't defend themselves, nothing more.
Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce