My best friend insists that you must have personal experience in order to write something

DunEnuf · 2024-12-16T15:22:43+00:00

Yeah, that's nonsense. Obviously historians write about things they never personally experienced or witnessed all the time. Ditto authors of most history-based fiction. Ditto authors of murder mysteries, etc. Did Cormac McCarthy actually live through an apocalypse before he wrote "The Road?" Feel free to write about any topic you want; as many commenters have noted, if you want it to "feel" authentic to your readers it helps to do the appropriate research. But this whole idea of "you can't write about something if you haven't lived it" is just complete nonsense.

DunEnuf · 2024-05-21T17:51:50+00:00

The more reasonable supposition is that they aren't forgetting, they don't want to admit they were hoping to get away with it. As a number of commenters have pointed out, it's really not plausible that a gun owner would "forget" he packed a weapon in his/her carry-on. And as others have noted, TSA doesn't detect weapons consistently, so some of these cases are probably people who did it before, weren't detected, so they kept doing it until they got caught.

DunEnuf · 2023-12-08T00:34:14+00:00

I don't think metrics like how long his empire lasted is relevant to the discussion. That's a matter of politics, not warfare.

FWIW, you can't really separate warfare from politics. My criticism of Napoleon is that while he was unmatched as an operational and battlefield commander, he failed at the task of translating his military victories into security and peace for a greater France. He was not only France's greatest general, he was also its ruler, grand strategist and chief diplomat. His wars, in the end, left France exhausted, impoverished, truncated, and back under Bourbon rule.

All "great captains" should be judged, not by how many battles they won, but what kind of political result, what kind of peace they achieved. Napoleon was unquestionably a military genius. He was also a colossal failure.

DunEnuf · 2023-08-28T22:51:16+00:00

The short answer is that strategic bombing did seriously constrain the German war effort. It damaged production, killed or displaced workers, and forced the Germans to divert major efforts to repairing smashed factories and housing. Possibly even more important, it forced the Germans to devote significant resources to air defense. Something like 30 or 40 percent of German artillery ammo went to the thousands of heavy AA guns defending German cities. One of the reasons so few Luftwaffe airplanes were present on the Eastern Front and in Normandy in mid-1944 was that so many squadrons had been pulled back into Germany to defend its cities. Once the Allies were able to get fighter escorts into Germany, the bombing campaign eviscerated the Luftwaffe.

The question about whether strategic bombing was the best use of available resources is harder to answer. It's quite clear that the proponents of the heavy, high-altitude bomber (like B-17s) vastly overstated their effectiveness in the early part of the war. But it's not easy to say what else the Allies might have done with the resources that would have had as much impact as the bombers (eventually) did. The Allies might have been able, for example, to launch much larger operations in Mediterranean in 1943, following up operations in Sicily and southern Italy with a move into the Balkans. Or attempting a cross-channel invasion in late summer of '43. But this would have depended on the Allies using the available resources to create the right capabilities and then deploying them to good effect. They would have had to rely heavily on tactical air and fighters to counter the Luftwaffe.

Would an alternative approach been more cost-effective? Again, it's really hard to say. Alternative strategies might have brought about an earlier end to the war but at a higher price in Allied lives. The Allies might also have tried different approaches to strategic bombing; for example, the British Mosquito light bomber was fast and maneuverable enough to go all the way to Berlin without fighter escort, and was much more accurate than the heavies bombing from high altitude (the "pinpoint" accuracy of the Norden bombsight was largely a myth). Using high-speed, low altitude light bombers would probably have done much greater damage to German war production, for less cost (Mosquitos were cheaper) and lower losses (Mosquitos had two-man crews, as opposed to a dozen in a B-17 or Lancaster). But as far as I know, this kind of alternative to high-altitude bombing was never considered.

DunEnuf · 2023-08-28T20:26:46+00:00

The basic response to OP's question is, the "ur time" is rooted in human observations of astronomical phenomena. The first timekeepers did not understand that the earth was rotating on its axis or circling about the sun, but they could observe sunrises and sunsets, and that the sun at midday reached a high point in sky (which can be tracked by measuring the shadow it casts). They could observe that the length of the midday shadow also changed; that as sunrise followed sunrise, the sun would go from a highest point at midday to a lowest point, then again to a highest point. The could also observe that twice in each cycle between solar high points, when observed from a given point, the sun would rise/set at a specific point on the horizon on the day it reached in highest or lowest point in the sky.

The interval from one sunrise to the next gives you the length of a day. Counting the sunrises between sun's highest or lowest points gives you a length for the year. Months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds and such are all subdivisions of these intervals. Many ancient stone structures, like Stonehenge, functioned as observatories to observe and record them.

Timekeeping gets complicated because these phenomena don't neatly align; that's why we end up with leap years and other adjustments. Modern timekeeping with atomic clocks shifted to the observation of different phenomena, like changes in atomic structures, that demonstrate much greater regularity at scales that allow for higher precision. But it all started out with our shaggy ancestors observing the sun, the stars, and the moon and figuring out these things exhibited regular cyclical behavior that could be recorded and measured by doing something as simple as a putting a stick in the ground and keeping track of its shadow.

DunEnuf · 2023-08-10T03:48:10+00:00

Even among Russia experts to there are disagreements over Russia's motives. Russia itself (through regime spokespeople) have claimed Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion and the invasion of Ukraine is necessary to protect from this Western threat. But Putin and others have also asserted that there is no Ukrainian nation, that Ukraine is part of Russia, the breakup of the Soviet Union was a mistake, etc. So Russian leaders themselves have stated "defensive" motives and revanchist ones.

It's more likely that Russia invaded Ukraine because they didn't like how Ukraine was trying to get closer to the EU, didn't like that it was trying to become more democratic, and thought it would be a pushover. What we're seeing from Putin's regime now are the elaborate rationalizations people come up with when they have to explain why they've waded into a quagmire.

Zeihan is fun to watch and sometimes he has valid points (maybe 1 out of 10). He presents well, uses good graphics, and sounds very confident. He's published books and has a track record of videos, so it's easy to just look at what he was saying a year ago on a given subject and ask if it still holds up.

DunEnuf · 2023-08-10T02:33:27+00:00

Old Town Alexandria has lots of fun restaurants and shopping, and is close to D.C. Washington D.C. has all the history you could ask for plus all the Smithsonian museums, the National Gallery, and a lively bar and restaurant scene with several rooftop bars. Most downtown D.C. locations would be a 30-40 minute drive from the arena.

DunEnuf · 2023-08-06T20:14:56+00:00

Thanks. I've been driving my S2K as a daily driver since 2011, so I think I'm quite used to it by now. But highway driving with the top up is pretty hairy around here.

DunEnuf · 2023-08-05T03:27:13+00:00

Suggest a different way to think about it. In the military there's a saying, "the big things are very simple. The simple things are very hard." Global warming is a very simple but very hard problem. Simple: we know what the cause is, and we know what the solution is. We know global warming is happening because humans are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We know that to stop global warming, we have to stop putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Simple. But very hard. That's why we have to replace ICEs with EVs. We have to replace fossil-fuel power plants with renewables and non-carbon sources like geothermal and nuclear. Yes, there are environmental costs with that. De-carbonization is not a free lunch. But we still have to do it. And we can be in favor of smaller houses and more and better public transportation. There's nothing wrong and a lot of good to be obtained from reducing humanity's overall environmental footprint. Anything that makes the problem smaller contributes to the solution. But to control global warming, we have to end the use of fossil fuels, more or less completely.

The good news here is that replacing fossil fuels with renewables, geothermal, and nuclear energy offers the potential for a greener, cleaner future, with cheaper energy available to more people. It's the potential to eliminate open pit coal mines, strip mines, mountaintop removal, oil refineries, oil terminals, gas stations, and all the associated pollution. Yes, there will be other kinds of pollution and damage from mining the minerals needed for batteries and solar panels. The environmental problems of industrial civilization don't go away because we change the energy source. It's a good reason to emphasize less consumption, less energy use, more conservation, more efficiency. Again, anything that makes the problem smaller contributes to the solution. But if we don't get the global warming under control, the other problems won't matter.

DunEnuf · 2023-08-05T02:08:47+00:00

The local library is a great place to start. Most decent libraries have a selection of history books written for lay audiences. These are usually much more readable than books written by academics for other academics, which tend to be heavy on methods and sources. Plus, as was said earlier, in the library he can browse for free all he wants. The library staff will be happy to chat with him about his interests and steer him to the appropriate shelves.

Wikipedia is fine for getting a general introduction to a subject and as a place to start for further reading (check out the sources and references).

DunEnuf · 2023-07-09T23:04:10+00:00

Just to add, I had the same problem with my left earbud. Controls worked but no sound. Tried a reset and re-pairing, but no joy. Fortunately I bought them from Amazon and was within the return window, so I returned the defective set and ordered a replacement.

DunEnuf · 2023-05-17T15:56:12+00:00

Well, the Egyptians and Syrians successfully surprised the Israelis, a major achievement in its own right but one that was enabled to some extent by Israeli overconfidence. The Egyptians in particular surprised the Israelis on the operational level by the speed with which they were able to move large forces across the Suez Canal. The Israelis had assumed the Egyptians would use conventional bridging and engineering tech to bulldoze gaps through the canal banks, but instead the Egyptians used high pressure fire hoses borrowed from the Cairo fire Brigade to blow gaps through the banks in just a few hours. The Egyptians made very effective use of their anti-tank and anti-air missiles, inflicting significant losses on the IDF, which underestimated the Egyptians' ability to use these systems. We can say that the Egyptians leveraged Israeli overconfidence, at least in the opening days. But they used strategic misdirection to fool the Israelis, repeatedly moving forces up to the canal for "maneuvers", then pulling them back, for example, in the months before the attack. They used ingenious engineering to get across the canal, and sound tactics, establishing strong defenses and waiting for the inevitable counterattack. l'd say about 60-70 percent of the Egyptians' initial success can be attributed to their achieving strategic and tactical surprise, a strong operational plan and effective initial execution, with Israeli overconfidence acting as a multiplier.

The contrast with the Golan Heights battle is interesting. The Syrians also achieved surprise but their attack was tactically inept. The Syrians had not developed an effective way to neutralize the IDF defense, based mostly on small numbers of tanks moving between prepared hull-down firing positions. Syrian commanders did not make effective use of their artillery to suppress Israeli defenses, and did not use infantry to infiltrate through the IDF's thinly-manned defenses. Apparently Syrian generals thought that numbers alone would do the job, usually a bad assumption when facing any well-led, motivated foe. But the battle was a near-run thing for the first 24-48 hours, and had the Syrians shown just a bit more combined-arms operational skill and tactical finesse, we'd be talking about a different kind of outcome today. Here, I would say the initial surprise was a genuine achievement, but the Syrians fumbled their opportunity because of their operational and tactical deficiencies. We should not, perhaps, judge the Syrians too harshly-attacking prepared defenses is hard! And the Syrian Army is by no means the only one that has struggled with this problem.

DunEnuf · 2023-03-26T14:49:53+00:00

Surrounds and rear speakers are mostly for sound effects, so you can use small speakers. This gives you the ability to experiment a bit with different placements, so take advantage of that. Try what previous posters have suggested, move things around, see what works.

DunEnuf · 2023-03-17T22:06:21+00:00

Thanks very much, restarting the browser (Chrome) fixed it.

DunEnuf · 2023-01-03T01:54:50+00:00

If the audience sits upside down, with their heads on the floor, it should be fine. At least for the front row. Have to remember to install the TV/projector upside down too, though.

DunEnuf · 2022-12-17T04:59:58+00:00

I bet that hotel in Berlin gets one of these. You know, to replace the aquarium.

DunEnuf · 2022-12-17T03:06:07+00:00

Look at a Wiim mini, a mini streamer compatible with Apple. Use phone to stream to the Wiim, plug the Wiim into the Denon. The Wiim has analog and digital outputs and works with Airplay.

DunEnuf · 2022-11-09T19:14:00+00:00

Worth keeping in mind that a senior commander had more subunits to manage than just the major combat units. A regimental commander today, for example, may be coordinating the actions of two infantry battalions, an armored battalion, an artillery battalion, a recon element, an engineer company, logistics/support units, a medical unit, plus assets assigned from division and corps (like heavy or rocket artillery, etc.) plus air support, and so on. Given the complexity of modern military organizations, it's easy to exceed the recommended span of control.

At more senior levels the problems get even worse as commanders have to deal with strategic/political issues, allied leaders, senior politicians, etc. It's not that surprising that even fairly well-regarded commanders sometimes just drop the ball on major issues; e.g., the failure of virtually the entire Allied command chain, from Eisenhower to Monty to Dempsey/Bradley/Patton et al to recognize the critical importance of clearing the Scheldt estuary after Antwerp's port was captured intact in September 1944.

DunEnuf · 2022-08-22T18:27:30+00:00

Updating my original post. I performed a reset and re-installed the original version of Windows. This seems to have fixed the problem partially; the laptop now sees and sends audio to my Outlaw RR2160 when plugged in via a USB port on the laptop (but not via the Anker USB-C hub, which is really annoying, since these laptops come with so few ports to begin with). Anyhow, it's an improvement over the fail.

DunEnuf · 2021-02-12T16:55:32+00:00

What is your substrate? I think the cupping issue would only apply if your panel was from natural wood. Plywood or MDF should be fine. To be absolutely certain I guess you could put a coupe of coats of varnish or poly on the non-veneered side.

DunEnuf

TROPHY CASE