First of all, they did shoot down several aircraft. They also hit some that were stationed at airbases across the region.

We had air superiority in Afghanistan for 20 years. And Vietnam before that.

Being able to make the enemy's thing on the ground explode can help you win, that's true. But when they have millions of things on the ground, and you only have ten thousand explosions, the math doesn't work. Let's say you take out 10% of their capability, how do you deal with the other 90%?

Moreover, your explosions are not all powerful. Some things will be underground. Other things will be hidden or camouflaged. You're bombs (and the intel that guided them) are not perfect. Your actual kill rate could be only 10%. So taking that into account, if you destroyed 1% of their capabilities, which they will rebuild in 3 months, what did you actually accomplish?

The definition of winning is not landing some hits. It's to achieve your goals. Of course you can be obtuse and argue that exploding things is the goal, but let's be real, the goal should not be a participation trophy. It should be something that benefits your side.

We have not accomplished any of those in Vietnam or Afghanistan, and probably won't in Iran either.

For me it was when China locked down Wuhan, a city of 12 million people.

This level of lead is unavoidable. Crops are grown on the same lead-containing soil (all natural soil contains lead). If you eat plants at all, you'll eat lead. If you eat animals, it's even worse because they bioaccumulate it.

As long as you grow the trees, it's miles better than coal in just about every way. Trees are cheaper but less efficient solar panels. What they take out of the ground ends up mostly as ash, which is not that harmful. Coal ash on the other hand is highly toxic.

Let me guess, you bought a house 30 years ago and it has tripled in price since.

Notice how all of the luxuries have dramatically come down in price, while the cost of essentials like home ownership and healthcare, has become unreachable for many. Appendectomy for example, costed about $400 in the 1950's, which is about 30 days of income. Today it costs about $20,000, which is closer to 80 days of average income.

You're also not being completely honest with some of the characterizations. Lead paint was common, but not because they couldn't afford better or safer paint. They simply thought lead paint was better. We might find out that some of the things we use today, such as non-stick pans, are very harmful as well. It has nothing to do with affordability. A uncoated stainless steel pan is the same price.

What matters is not when we understood the problem scientifically, it's when the public understood the problem and viable solutions exist.

1988 was when most Americans learned about global warming, while solar electricity became consistently cheaper than natural gas and coal plants in most countries around 2020. Before 2020, we signed the Paris Climate Accords, we mandated gas mileage, and we got off coal. Things that were possible given to technology at the time. Then between 2020 and 2024 under Biden, we made huge investments into renewables. So it is 100% Trump's fault that since 2024, we canceled those investments and are moving back towards coal.

There's basic engineering concepts such as "separation of concerns" and "redundancy", which the average Slashdot reader should be aware of.

That's a small price to pay when 90% of people are not going to notice the extra $1 tacked on. You only need to screw 2 people to make up for the cost of the cashier's time, and you'll succeed a lot more often.

99% of people will not bother.

Intra-day price changes for consumer products should be banned.

As long as they have the original text, it's only a matter of telling the future AI "hey, improve these translations by redoing them" and you'll have the new stuff in a few minutes. If at that time you still cared enough to complain, you can care enough to retranslate it.

The real question is, is it better in the meantime to have a possibly poor translation, or not have it at all. To me it's pretty obvious. Nothing's stopping you from ignoring what you think is a bad translation. Worst case you just learn to read the Japanese version yourself.

If I were the journalist, I would post "after numerous threats to my personal safety, I retract my earlier report. The incoming missile was intercepted successfully."

Before, they had "think of the children". Now they have "Russia" and "China".

They really never needed any reason to assert control over people. They only needed the excuse.

Offensive ability is always ahead of defense. Stick requires another stick to defend against. Arrows require shields. Guns require heavy armor. Bombs require bunkers. Every step, offense moves further ahead of defense.

At the limit of offensive tech, you have bioweapons, which are nearly impossible to defend against, and relativistic impactors, which have no defense at all. It's physically impossible to predict the impactor's course because it's outside your light cone (i.e. it doesn't exist yet in your frame of reference). Nor is it possible for you to move a black hole into place quickly enough to block it even if you magically detect its approach.

No. One side definitely starts more wars than the other.

Yes, China and Europe. They buy off-the-shelf parts and assemble it themselves. There's plenty more where that came from.