this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
5236 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 children)

This is what international law has to say about incendiary weapons:

  1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
  1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
  1. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
  1. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

This treeline is clearly not located within a concentration of civilians and it is concealing (or plausibly believed to be concealing) enemy combatants and therefore the use of incendiary weapons is unambiguously legal.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

The United States and the UK successfully blocked attempts to outlaw all use of incendiary weapons, and all use of incendiary weapons against personnel, and all use of incendiary weapons against forests and plant cover.

This is an area where it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with how the US watered down this convention, to push for stricter rules on this, and to condemn the use of thermite as an anti-personnel weapon and the use of incendiary weapons on plants that are being used for cover and concealment of military objectives.

So pointing out that this might technically be legal isn't enough for me to personally be OK with this. I think it's morally reprehensible, and I'd prefer for Ukraine to keep the moral high ground in this war.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fire is a weapon of war. There is nothing immoral about employing it as such.

[–] Aradina@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

"Mustard gas is a weapon of war. There is nothing immoral about employing it as such."

I honestly hope you never have to experience war.

[–] dulce_3t_decorum_3st@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Whereas you have no issue with people who agree with you having to experience war?

[–] Aradina@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't know how you got that from my comment.

[–] dulce_3t_decorum_3st@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I was being mildly sarcastic, not antagonistic

[–] Aradina@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Sorry, that didn't come across well via text I guess

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why is it even morally reprehensible? If you you blow the guts out and faces off Russian soldiers by more traditional means they are just as dead and if dozens of Ukrainians die in the course of digging the Russians out of cover do you account that a superior outcome? If so how?

If a burglar strode into your home with a gun and you believed that conflict was inevitable how much risk and or suffering would you tolerate from your wife and children in order to decrease the chance of harm or suffering by the burglar? Would you accept a 3% chance of a dead kid in order to harm instead of kill the burglar? Would you take a 1% in order to decrease his suffering substantially?

My accounting is that there is no amount of risk or harm I would accept for me and mine to preserve the burglar's life because he made his choice when he chose to harm me and mine. I wouldn't risk a broken finger to preserve his entire life nor should I. That said should he surrender I would turn him over to the police. I should never take opportunity to hurt him let alone execute him. Should I do this I would be the villain no matter what had transpired before because I would be doing so out of emotional reaction I wouldn't be acting any longer to preserve me or mine.

We should expect Ukrainians to take any possible advantage for in doing so they preserve innocent life. Preserving the lifes or preventing the suffering of active enemies presently actively trying to do harm is nonsensical.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The moral high ground doesn't work in war.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The moral high ground is absolutely critical in war. War is politics by other means, and being able to build consensus, marshal resources, recruit personnel, persuade allies to help, persuade adversaries to surrender or lay down their arms, persuade the allies of your adversaries not to get involved, and keep the peace after a war is over, all depend on one's public image. There are ways to wage war without it, but most militaries that blatantly disregard morals find it difficult to actually win.

In this case? The entire military strategy of Ukraine in this war is highly dependent on preserving the moral high ground.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I understand and agree with your point, but the fact that people are worried over whether Ukraine is killing nicely enough is ridiculous to me. It's a defensive war of survival. The moral high ground is already theirs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Apart from that, their Russian attacker does not give a flying f-ck about international law from the start either, so after quite some illegal events (rape, torturing/killing POWs, shelling and bombing hospitals and schools), there is no reason to hold back any longer. It would just enable the Russians to maim and kill more Ukrainian civilists.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] hydration9806@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (13 children)

2,204 degrees Celsius in non-freedom units

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

so you think that inches too is a freedom unit?

[–] shadowedcross@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I mean, it isn't metric, so yes..?

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

...being in nursing school is giving me a strong hatred for the imperial system.

The doctor ordered 35mg/kg Watdafuqenol IV QID. Available is a 2' by 15" section of torn out carpet soaked in spilled Watdafuqenol; when wrung out into the patient's left shoe, you get 97 chipmunk-mouthfuls diluted to a concentration of 24 Watdafuqenol to 1 tow jam. How many shot glasses do you administer?

[–] proctonaut@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a trick question. How many pound-feet of torque did you apply to the carpet?

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

1.15 pallets of spent 12-gauge casings over over the course of 2.3 standard breakfasts.

[–] proctonaut@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget to round to the nearest liquor store!

[–] proctonaut@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Yea I need a drink

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You might've already seen this, but try using the method of dimensional analysis where you work backwards on a single line and you'll never get one of those problems wrong again.

The key is just working backwards by units using the equations you have available. I know somebody that only got one of the questions on his MCAT correct bc he used this method lol.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I use dimensional analysis, but it's over two lines... and not sure what you mean by working backwards, since the order doesn't really matter so long as every value is in the correct line.

Since typing it out would be ugly as sin, example image stolen from google:

...they like to give us things like pt weight in lbs and oz, and ask for final product of tablespoons or some shit cuz they enjoy wasting our time, lol.

That the type you mean?

I know there are a few different ways to crunch the numbers, but DA is my favorite so far cuz it's so consistent.

*edit, example pic changed, first one put mcg twice in the same line, which is a weird move. /shrug

[–] oldfart@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

So USAnian drugs are in metric units? I hope in actual work nurses get to use a phone app or something because this asks for mistakes

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

99% of it is metric. I think the biggest outlier is home care, where you go visit some grandma who's actively offended by metric, so if you tell her to take 7.5mL of something she'll just do the deer in the headlights thing, then shove the bottle up her ass.

Tell her instead that she needs to take 3 Mountain Dew caps full and suddenly she can follow instructions enough to not kill herself.

[–] oldfart@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I thought everything is bigger across the ocean but your Mountain Dew caps are tiny over there! ;)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Metric is excellent until it gets into data units. There shouldn't be a difference between 4T and 4TB, but it's actually a (1024^4^-1000^4^) ≈ 92.6G (99.5GB) difference because of the fuckers who decided to make data units metric and rename the base-2 data units to "kibibyte"/"mibi*"/"gibi*" (KiB/MiB/GiB)

[–] megane_kun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I think the biggest mistake there is using SI prefixes (such as kilo, mega, giga, tera) with bytes (or bits) to refer to the power of two near a power of ten in the first place. Had computer people had used other names for 1024 bytes and the like, this confusion between kibibytes and kilobytes could have been avoided. Computer people back then could have come up with a set of base·16 prefixes and used that for measuring data.

Maybe something like 65,536 bytes = 1,0000 (base 16) = 1 myri·byte; ‭4,294,967,296 bytes = 1,0000,0000 (base 16) = dyri·byte; and so on in groups of four hex digits instead of three decimal digits (16¹² = tryri·byte, 16¹⁶ = tesri·byte, etc). That's just one system I pulled out of my ass (based on the myriad, and using Greek numbers to count groups of digits), and surely one can come up with a better system.

Anyways, while it'd take me a while to recognize one kilobyte as 1000 bytes and not as 1024 bytes, I think it's better that ‘kilo’ always means 1000 times something in as many situations as possible.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

There is no reason whatsoever to use base 16 for computer storage it is both unconnected to technology and common usage it is worse than either base 2 or 10

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›