Yeah that was also just a shitty phone- big heavy phone that’s a mediocre phone but only needs charging once every few days.

I’m saying make a GOOD phone, maybe 10-12mm thick, and you can get a phone that lasts at least two full days.

For the batteries your outta luck for now due to a SOB called physics.

How so? Give the battery more volume. Bigger battery = more mAh = lasts longer.

Yeah but if you make the battery 3-4mm thicker you double its volume and then you have a phone with 5000-10000+ mAh.

You don’t think ‘this phone battery lasts a week’ is a selling point? Trust me, it is.

What bugs me about this is THEY ARE ALL THE SAME! Flat rectangular phones with no buttons and few ports. Where is the innovation? Where is the experimentation? Where are the different form factors?

Go back to like 2003 and you had all kinds of variety in the market. Some phones had slide out keyboards, some had physical keyboards like blackberries, they were all kinds of different expansion ports and slots and interfaces, and occasionally something totally different like Compaq had a gadget that took different backpacks that bolted on the back to give it extra capability.

Skip 20 years ahead to today, and every phone is the exact same fucking form factor. And so we obsess over millimeters and megapixels and software. There’s no innovation here. There’s no variety here.

The only even slightly interesting development I see is the new flip and book phones, but that technology is being used in the most boring way possible. I want to phone the size of a Snickers bar where I pull the screen out of it from the side and it unrolls as far as I want it to. I want a phone that flips open like a laptop to reveal a keyboard. Or even simpler, I want a phone that’s 4 mm thicker and has a battery that lasts all week. Give that phone a headphone jack and wireless charging, put a little rubber around it to make it indestructible, then you’ll have something interesting.

Until that happens, you have like six manufacturers that are basically building the exact same product. Boring.

And that’s exactly why Ukraine is kicking ass. Paying $20k or $30k for a single enemy casualty is a pretty good deal in warfare. But these drones aren’t going through some huge defense contractor, they’re being 3D printed and assembled from off-the-shelf parts. Basically a little army of logistics people building hobby drones out of consumer level equipment, just with an improvised explosive like a grenade or some similar impact explosive strapped to the bottom.
They aren’t even paying $20k for a casualty, they are paying $1-2k for a hobby drone and a grenade and many of them create multiple casualties.

The more expensive ones cost more, but those are the ones you see that are reusable and can drop several grenades in one flight. Those are more like $5k-$20k. Still an insane bargain even if each one only creates one casualty before it is destroyed.

It’s a good theory, but why were they shooting at civilian cars then?

I think your theory may make more sense than most (explains the abductions) but it still mostly seems nonsensical.

I think a broad look at Israel’s policies is long overdue in a few areas.
But this action virtually guarantees that won’t happen.

I only know some basics of the whole situation, but I really don’t get this attack. Israel is a modern Westernized nation and enjoys STRONG support, financial and military, from many/most other Western developed nations. They have modern weapons of just about all types.
Israel is accused of some awful shit and stealing peoples homes. From what I can see they’re probably guilty of this.

But I don’t understand how killing a bunch of civilians at a rave is going to overall help the cause. It seems to me like a. it’d give your better-armed adversary an excuse to smack you down once and for all, and b. a good way to make the rest of the world feel like they shouldn’t be stopped in doing so (and if anything, helped in their efforts).

So what is the goal? Is this just an expression of pent up anger? Because it seems a poor strategy to me.

(I thought I replied, but it seems to not be here, not sure if I forgot to hit Reply or what but trying this again)

Sadly not really.
Sometimes aftermath is used as a plot device- for example the Avengers series dealt with that a bit and who should be responsible for the actions of superheroes.

But for real ‘full picture’ it’s almost never shown because it’s messy and bloody and awful and really really sad. Think opening scene of ‘Saving Private Ryan’ just with a lot more feels. If those cars weren’t blacked out you’d see blood everywhere and the people in them would be either wounded and screaming or gasping for air as their lungs fill with blood or dead and mangled as bullets tore their bodies apart. And if anyone else was in the back seat and survived you’d have the terrified screams of a child who just watched as Mommy get turned into so much hamburger meat and then the driverless car crashed. And then, perhaps hours or days later, you’d have families that break down in panicked screaming-cries when they are told their wife/husband/mother/father/son/daughter is never coming home.
Ask any of THOSE people, and any of them would happily trade Joker’s life to get their loved one back.
The REALITY of serious violence can’t be shown in PG-13 movies and even R movies either can’t or don’t often show it. People go to the movies to have fun and feel good, not see a bloody mess that makes them want to puke and then cry as they experience the pain of a broken family.

Perhaps this bothers me more than most because I HAVE seen what the real result is like. I was around for the shock video era in the 2000s and saw some really awful stuff from Chechnya. There’s a bunch of combat footage coming from Ukraine. And closer to this subject, I’ve seen a lot of videos of defensive shooting incidents. It’s not like movies, it’s not fun. It’s just brutal and sad.

I am blaming Batman for his choice and for his reasoning.
He pulls the trigger, Joker (a psycho who’s killed dozens/hundreds already and will kill even more) dies.
He doesn’t pull the trigger, 3-4 innocent people die now and Joker goes on to kill scores more.

I argue Batman can’t just wash his hands of responsibility because he CHOSE to put himself in that position. He decided to be the one with a motorcycle cannon pointed at Joker’s face. If he didn’t want to be responsible for life and death, he should have stayed home and gotten a massage. But no, he chose to be the city’s defender, so there he is.

Perhaps it helps to drop the movie and pick another analogy. Imagine there’s a mass shooter psycho walking around shooting children, and there’s a police officer with weapon drawn and pointed at the psycho. Police officer decides not to shoot the psycho because his conscience says he doesn’t want to kill anybody. And because he doesn’t take the shot, the psycho kills 3-4 more kids.
Do you argue the officer is blameless for those childrens’ deaths?

Yes, this absolutely. But it’s also one of the serious flaws of action films that show good/bad guys- you never see the aftermath.

Take this scene from Dark Knight. Batman is on his ARMED motorcycle thing, Joker’s sitting there shooting at cars driven by innocent people. So at least 3-4 innocent people are now dead because Batman wouldn’t take the shot.

But you don’t see that- the cars windows are blacked out. You don’t see the innocent people torn apart and splattered all over their cars. You don’t see the little kid sitting in the back seat screaming as Mommy is torn to shreds by automatic rifle fire and the car crashes. You don’t see the family that no longer has a mom or dad or son or daughter. And because you don’t see that, our presentation of Batman’s ‘ethics’ is fake.
Ask any one of those families if they’d trade the Joker’s life to get their family member back. You won’t find a single one that says ‘I’m glad the Joker is alive, it was worth my daddy getting shot to avoid killing him’.

The fact is- Batman is selfish. He ALLOWS 3-4+ innocent people to die, to save his own conscience

Do you see him thinking about them in bed at night? The people he COULD have saved, that WOULD be alive if he just pulled the trigger? Of course not. Because the writers only show us half the story. They black out the car windows, so we don’t see the consequences.

And if you’re all ‘Batman isn’t a vigilante’, well sure. But even for a civilian, there’s rules of engagement. Even in the anti-gun state of California you’re allowed to use deadly force to save the life of yourself or another from a violent psychopath posing an imminent threat. Especially after Joker shot up the first car and showed he was going to do it again.

The dude picked a fight with a mouse and lost. When one of the largest employers in his state that is also the largest driver of tourism, voiced some opposition to a pet policy of his, he used his political position to punish them. And it didn’t even work. That tells me everything I need to know about the guy, that he is vindictive, cronyest, and ineffective. Not the sort of guy we want in the White House.

Ukraine successfully defends against Russia because the rest of the world sends them tons of weapons. And because the famous ‘second best army in the world’ turned out to be a paper tiger. Poland does not want the same thing to happen. They don’t want to have to get weapons after invasion, they want to have the weapons beforehand to hopefully prevent the invasion from ever happening.

You are also thinking logically, like look at our military and look at their military and figure out if we can beat them or not. Dictatorships don’t always work that way. If delivering bad news to the great leader has negative consequences, everybody’s going to come up with good news whether it’s real or not. ‘Oh yes great leader, of course great leader, yes our military is strong sir, we stand ready to crush them like a small insect and there is nothing they have that can possibly stand up to your glorious military sir.’. It works until Great Leader actually orders a fight, and then when said fight goes to shit some people accidentally shoot themselves twice in the back of the head before tripping and falling out an unlocked window in tragic freak accidents.

Point is, Russia has shown that logic is not feeding their decisions. So when faced with an illogical enemy, Poland wants to arm up to dissuade any attempts from being made and fight them off if they happen anyway.

I miss Messenger with XMPP

Yup this is the answer. Without Putin keeping him in power Lukashenko won’t last long.
Also hilarious that we haven’t heard much from Belarus about the recent Russian Duma comment that ‘all neighbors are up for grabs, the ones that cooperate like Belarus will just be last’.
‘We’re gonna conquer you, just not today’ is the sort of thing that SHOULD be turning allies into enemies…

TL;DR that everyone seems to have missed:

Poland isn’t sending weapons to Ukraine because they are arming up themselves instead.

“We no longer transfer weapons to Ukraine because we are now arming Poland,” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki

This is exactly it. Their young population is heavily overworked and underpaid. There is no work life balance, there is only showing dedication to the company. And for this you often aren’t even paid enough to move out of your parents house.

To put this in perspective- in Japanese offices there is a thing called hanko. It’s a small stamp that is unique to each person. Memos are often printed on paper, then circulated, then each worker stamps it with their hanko to indicate they’ve read it. This caused huge problems during COVID and many offices refused to close simply because the management didn’t want to try any sort of ‘digital hanko’.
The obvious answer to a Western culture is ‘that’s fucking stupid, replace that with any sort of e-document manager that tracks access and save a ton of time and paper and money’. But in Japan, the gray-haired manager gets respect and is not questioned so the hanko continues. The worker does not stand up and say ‘I demand more money and better working conditions’ because that is not how things work.

So of course the overworked, underpaid, 20something year old who is just scraping by has no time to go out and try to meet a partner, let alone start a family they won’t have time for.

As a nation, they will reap what they sow. The nation is turning gray and there will be nobody to care for them, or replace them. I think they will come out stronger- perhaps in 10-20 years when more of the older traditional people die, some of the younger folks can make serious changes. But for now they need radical reform if they want to avoid a very unhappy decade.

You make a good point- along with term limits there has to be something to prevent a revolving door of people going between government regulating industry and the industry they regulate. An insider trading law for Congress is a good start- if not requiring investments to go into a blind trust, to at least require Congress representatives and spouse to publicly declare all holdings and trades so insider trading would be obvious.
I’d really like to make elections publicly funded though. Get the money out of Washington.
And while we’re at it, let’s reform primaries by removing them entirely. Let anyone with some number of petition signatures get on the main ballot, and use ranked choice voting so you can vote ‘for’ the best guy without losing your vote ‘against’ the worst guy. Then we might actually get some GOOD politicians.

Amen to that.

There’s a few good dynasty reps, but for every one good one it seems like there’s 4-5 bad ones.

Being a representative is not supposed to be a career job. You can’t represent the people if you haven’t been one of the people for 20+ years and you have no idea what life in your district is actually like.

Plus there’s a natural predisposition to re-elect incumbents. Thus you get dinosaurs like McConnell and Pelosi who both should be in nursing homes but they stick around because they have seniority. These people are not doing a good job of representing the will of their constituents, if only because it’s been longer than anyone can remember since they’ve been one of those constituents.

With respect- that is not accurate.

Airsoft guns use spring-pistons or compressed air tanks to fire little plastic balls that don’t generally pierce the skin. They are NOT accurate at all. Airsoft guns are used for gaming and recreational activities- like paintball, just no paint. It’s very much a team sport with honor system, because if you don’t call your hit (loudly say HIT and put your hand up and exit the field when hit) there’s no obvious way to tell you’ve been hit.

Air rifles and pistols are sometimes used for certain target competitions. These use air pressure from a tank or hand pump to fire a lead pellet at energy levels that WOULD pierce the skin or kill a small animal like a squirrel. The air rifles are generally quite accurate.

However due to the mechanics of how they work, air guns are not usable for many target sports like 3-Gun.