I would argue that no one sane right now would push for that much of de-americanisation that fast.
Reality is, you don't want to push a country with military that is more powerful and has more capability to project force over long distance than anyone else in the world to collapse quickly. That has a huge risk of military taking things in their own hands and everyone suffering for it.
By this logic, you should be complaining that every single crime investigator is guilty because he's going after most likely suspects instead of just investigating everyone even remotely involved. That makes no sense.
Personally, the first thing I usually adjust in game graphics after installation and selecting the correct resolution is turning off depth of field and motion blur.
Both make screenshots look nice and make actual gameplay look utterly terrible imho.
You know, you remind me of John Stewart and his hilarious take on Obama talking Russia down, like you just did.
"Our priority is not worrying about next Cold War with Russia, our priority is to make sure that no nuclear device goes off in Manhattan" Stewart (takes a long look at picture of Obama): "Oops, I think someone made a poo-poo".
It's pretty unlikely that US would have destabilized Ukraine to the extent it did in the first place if it had nukes. In this regard, Ukraine was a very good lesson in that if you're an independent country in which large empires have interests, you should probably get nuclear weapons and delivery systems sufficient to hit said empires.
So in your opinion, it's best to just surrender instead of trying to build defences one by one?
Apply that in real life and kill yourself then. I'm sure there are plenty of problems you can't solve in one swoop, and clearly since solving them piece by piece is a wrong approach, you should just end it now.
Desktop quality from 10 years ago. Sure, at low detail levels. Desktop quality from today?
Yeah, how about "no".
Not going into "ARM on servers" debacle. We've seen enough bankruptcies to show where imagining that ARM is as easy to get on servers as x86 leads to.
And the fact that people gaming on desktop are simply a completely different crowd with completely different needs than those gaming on desktops or consoles is well understood by the industry. That's why you get crappy shovelware by the thousands on ARM platforms with most predatory monetization policies. Something that is pointless to even try on x86, because it simply won't work. Audience for such suckery is simply not there. Instead you get what is often titled "core gaming" on those platforms, and shovelware on ARM.
Perhaps the best illustration of this is to take any major high quality AAA release and then compare it to titular sibling release that always makes its way to mobile. That is usually a good show of why ARM as a gaming platform is great for monetizing certain people. It's also terrible for actual core gaming.
You are viewing the problem in the capitalist light of "if we have the money, we can build better technology".
This angle has no roots in reality. This was shown in F-35 which attempted to implement one reverse engineered and one licensed piece of technology from Russians developed in 70s and 90s respectively.
In spite of massive cost overruns, they still don't work. Throwing money at the problem simply didn't solve it, because complex technological solutions cannot be in fact solved with money. Instead they need to be solved with human excellence, which money often cannot buy.
Educate yourself on the issue. US has no closed circuit engines. At all. Closed circuit engines are, by their very nature, significantly more efficient than open circuit which is what US uses.
The engines that you call "superior" are in fact vastly inferior but are designed for a different task, which is heavy lifting with just a handful of engines. Russian engine in question is designed to be used in combination of up to 30 engines per rocket for extremely heavy lifting, whereas US decided to go with 4-5 engines per rocket. Hence the engines are in fact bigger and produce more lift, but are far less efficient and vastly inferior when compared to Russian engines used as specified in similar task.
The potential answers to your question are "yes" "of course" and "how stupid are you to even have to ask?"
Because really, gaming on ARM has little to nothing in common with gaming on x86. It's not just the technology - vast majority of the game games are completely different and aimed at completely different audiences with completely different monetization schemes.
Russian engines are not cheaper. They are BETTER. Much better. So much better that Lockheed Martin engineers did not believe the specs they were presented when they were told about the engines and would not believe them until they test fired one engine in their own testing facility.
It wasn't even a generational gap. It was a technology that was deemed "impossible to build" by US rocket engineers.
They haven't. When closed circuit technology was discovered by US after Cold War ended, most rocket scientists simply didn't believe it was real. To specify: they thought that closed circuit liquid fuel rocket booster technology was impossible to build. Until they tested the engine in their own facility, many of them thought they were being lied to about specifications of the engine in question.
To quote Lockheed Martin engineer: "This discovery made us ask some very uncomfortable questions about our own development processes".
This sort of stuff is not something you can just copy. This is what Chinese discovered when they copied Russian aircraft. They could copy the airframes and the engines but... engines would only last a few flights and then break down. Because building extremely complex components like jet and rocket engines requires extremely complex understanding of the process itself as well as material technology. Something you cannot acquire through simply copying it. And Russians are known to have destroyed many, many rockets and spent many years perfecting that particular rocket engine before it would actually work instead of suffering a catastrophic failure of some kind. It was that difficult to get to work right. This is not something that you can just grab and reverse engineer. You'll have to blow up quite a few rockets, or do some very difficult simulation work to get to work.
This is a problem of metallurgy, process technology and construction process itself. Things you cannot copy just by reverse engineering the end product.
I suspect that safety inspections alone will run you far more than 200k. Then there's the fact that some parts cannot be reused and will be single-fire only, unless they want to build a rocket that keeps its entire structure throughout the flight, which sounds extremely wasteful. There's a reason why most modern rockets have several stages, all designed for specific part of the flight.
US military does not exist to defend US. It exists to attack foreign entities for US agenda. As a result, it needs a good number of spy and other military satellites in orbit to ensure it's intelligence gathering and other military purposes across the globe are as efficient as possible.
You colours are shining through. If you're going to be a long term about it, don't be an asshole and cherrypick - go all the way back to Kiovan Rus, and then to the history of said Khanate, which was basically about Tatar conquerors being dumped by retreating Mongols of Mongol-Tatar yoke and some of them saw Ottomans raping and slaving Slavic nations of the Northern Black Sea, so they moved there to help.
Defeat of Ottomans was a combined effort that galvanised Russian-Ukrainian alliance back then.
My desktop is 2500k/GTX 560Ti. Not exactly what you'd call "rooting for the red team".
Fact is however, that when it comes to bang for a buck or just plain bang in one chip, there really are no alternatives for AMD. That's why console manufacturers went with it.
You could put in a discreen nv card. But that would create a huge amount of problems in a portable environment, ranging from size to thermals.
I suspect it will be one of the more powerful AMD APUs under the hood. It's about the only way today to have a significant graphical power without having a discrete card.
Point 1 is a severe flaw. There is a reason why all large money transfers are tracked nowadays to best extent possible.
Point 2 is even more severe of a flaw. It means that currency itself becomes an enemy of any customer protections already in place. If bitcoin will ever advance as an actual payment rather than speculation vehicle it is today, this will endear it to the fradulent merchants and serve as a severe detriment to any customer wishing to make a purchase and honest merchants who won't want to associate their name with system that is at its core designed to ignore customer protection and in favour of fradulent merchants.
Point 3 is a severe flaw. Claiming "it's your fault because you didn't do your homework" when it comes to something as basic as a paying system is automatic disqualification from any kind of serious position in world of payment. People CANNOT specialize in things like extreme levels of data security you claim necessary. They have to live their own lives. They have to take care of having a special skills that enable them to earn money, they have to take care of their every day lives. Payment system needs to be easy and safe. If it's not, it's taxing the payer extremely and will never be adopted by most people simply because it will cost them too much time to learn one-use skillset just to be able to be reasonably safe with their payments. In the world were such a payment system has to compete with already functioning and EASY, even if slightly more costly payment systems, it has a snowball chance in hell unless this part improves.
Point 4: points 2 and 3 destroy any user friendliness for consumers in the root, even before all other problems.
Except that it's not a strawman. It's your exact statement in a nutshell. You try to soften the blow by skirting around it, but the rest of your post leaves no doubt to where you stand when it comes to democracy vs oligarchy argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that no one sane right now would push for that much of de-americanisation that fast.
Reality is, you don't want to push a country with military that is more powerful and has more capability to project force over long distance than anyone else in the world to collapse quickly. That has a huge risk of military taking things in their own hands and everyone suffering for it.
Current trend is to privatize dirty work so it doesn't have to make government look bad and can't be easily asked to be audited.
So NSC. National Security Company. Aka Whitewater, because what could possibly go wrong!
By this logic, you should be complaining that every single crime investigator is guilty because he's going after most likely suspects instead of just investigating everyone even remotely involved. That makes no sense.
Try the hack mentioned in the story. Among other things, many have reported significant performance improvement.
It seems that the decision to gimp the PC version came at the last minute and they didn't have enough time to properly optimized the gimped version.
Not much of a spoiler. Even the most cursory reviews of the title clear state that plot is throw away material.
Not our asses?
Personally, the first thing I usually adjust in game graphics after installation and selecting the correct resolution is turning off depth of field and motion blur.
Both make screenshots look nice and make actual gameplay look utterly terrible imho.
You know, you remind me of John Stewart and his hilarious take on Obama talking Russia down, like you just did.
"Our priority is not worrying about next Cold War with Russia, our priority is to make sure that no nuclear device goes off in Manhattan"
Stewart (takes a long look at picture of Obama):
"Oops, I think someone made a poo-poo".
It's pretty unlikely that US would have destabilized Ukraine to the extent it did in the first place if it had nukes. In this regard, Ukraine was a very good lesson in that if you're an independent country in which large empires have interests, you should probably get nuclear weapons and delivery systems sufficient to hit said empires.
So in your opinion, it's best to just surrender instead of trying to build defences one by one?
Apply that in real life and kill yourself then. I'm sure there are plenty of problems you can't solve in one swoop, and clearly since solving them piece by piece is a wrong approach, you should just end it now.
It means you only need to build that fourth wall, instead of third and fourth.
Desktop quality from 10 years ago. Sure, at low detail levels. Desktop quality from today?
Yeah, how about "no".
Not going into "ARM on servers" debacle. We've seen enough bankruptcies to show where imagining that ARM is as easy to get on servers as x86 leads to.
And the fact that people gaming on desktop are simply a completely different crowd with completely different needs than those gaming on desktops or consoles is well understood by the industry. That's why you get crappy shovelware by the thousands on ARM platforms with most predatory monetization policies. Something that is pointless to even try on x86, because it simply won't work. Audience for such suckery is simply not there. Instead you get what is often titled "core gaming" on those platforms, and shovelware on ARM.
Perhaps the best illustration of this is to take any major high quality AAA release and then compare it to titular sibling release that always makes its way to mobile. That is usually a good show of why ARM as a gaming platform is great for monetizing certain people. It's also terrible for actual core gaming.
You are viewing the problem in the capitalist light of "if we have the money, we can build better technology".
This angle has no roots in reality. This was shown in F-35 which attempted to implement one reverse engineered and one licensed piece of technology from Russians developed in 70s and 90s respectively.
In spite of massive cost overruns, they still don't work. Throwing money at the problem simply didn't solve it, because complex technological solutions cannot be in fact solved with money. Instead they need to be solved with human excellence, which money often cannot buy.
Educate yourself on the issue. US has no closed circuit engines. At all. Closed circuit engines are, by their very nature, significantly more efficient than open circuit which is what US uses.
The engines that you call "superior" are in fact vastly inferior but are designed for a different task, which is heavy lifting with just a handful of engines. Russian engine in question is designed to be used in combination of up to 30 engines per rocket for extremely heavy lifting, whereas US decided to go with 4-5 engines per rocket. Hence the engines are in fact bigger and produce more lift, but are far less efficient and vastly inferior when compared to Russian engines used as specified in similar task.
The potential answers to your question are "yes" "of course" and "how stupid are you to even have to ask?"
Because really, gaming on ARM has little to nothing in common with gaming on x86. It's not just the technology - vast majority of the game games are completely different and aimed at completely different audiences with completely different monetization schemes.
You are making one HUGE mistake in your rant.
Russian engines are not cheaper. They are BETTER. Much better. So much better that Lockheed Martin engineers did not believe the specs they were presented when they were told about the engines and would not believe them until they test fired one engine in their own testing facility.
It wasn't even a generational gap. It was a technology that was deemed "impossible to build" by US rocket engineers.
They haven't. When closed circuit technology was discovered by US after Cold War ended, most rocket scientists simply didn't believe it was real. To specify: they thought that closed circuit liquid fuel rocket booster technology was impossible to build. Until they tested the engine in their own facility, many of them thought they were being lied to about specifications of the engine in question.
To quote Lockheed Martin engineer: "This discovery made us ask some very uncomfortable questions about our own development processes".
This sort of stuff is not something you can just copy. This is what Chinese discovered when they copied Russian aircraft. They could copy the airframes and the engines but... engines would only last a few flights and then break down. Because building extremely complex components like jet and rocket engines requires extremely complex understanding of the process itself as well as material technology. Something you cannot acquire through simply copying it. And Russians are known to have destroyed many, many rockets and spent many years perfecting that particular rocket engine before it would actually work instead of suffering a catastrophic failure of some kind. It was that difficult to get to work right. This is not something that you can just grab and reverse engineer. You'll have to blow up quite a few rockets, or do some very difficult simulation work to get to work.
This is a problem of metallurgy, process technology and construction process itself. Things you cannot copy just by reverse engineering the end product.
I suspect that safety inspections alone will run you far more than 200k. Then there's the fact that some parts cannot be reused and will be single-fire only, unless they want to build a rocket that keeps its entire structure throughout the flight, which sounds extremely wasteful. There's a reason why most modern rockets have several stages, all designed for specific part of the flight.
US military does not exist to defend US. It exists to attack foreign entities for US agenda. As a result, it needs a good number of spy and other military satellites in orbit to ensure it's intelligence gathering and other military purposes across the globe are as efficient as possible.
You colours are shining through. If you're going to be a long term about it, don't be an asshole and cherrypick - go all the way back to Kiovan Rus, and then to the history of said Khanate, which was basically about Tatar conquerors being dumped by retreating Mongols of Mongol-Tatar yoke and some of them saw Ottomans raping and slaving Slavic nations of the Northern Black Sea, so they moved there to help.
Defeat of Ottomans was a combined effort that galvanised Russian-Ukrainian alliance back then.
My desktop is 2500k/GTX 560Ti. Not exactly what you'd call "rooting for the red team".
Fact is however, that when it comes to bang for a buck or just plain bang in one chip, there really are no alternatives for AMD. That's why console manufacturers went with it.
You could put in a discreen nv card. But that would create a huge amount of problems in a portable environment, ranging from size to thermals.
I suspect it will be one of the more powerful AMD APUs under the hood. It's about the only way today to have a significant graphical power without having a discrete card.
Point 1 is a severe flaw. There is a reason why all large money transfers are tracked nowadays to best extent possible.
Point 2 is even more severe of a flaw. It means that currency itself becomes an enemy of any customer protections already in place. If bitcoin will ever advance as an actual payment rather than speculation vehicle it is today, this will endear it to the fradulent merchants and serve as a severe detriment to any customer wishing to make a purchase and honest merchants who won't want to associate their name with system that is at its core designed to ignore customer protection and in favour of fradulent merchants.
Point 3 is a severe flaw. Claiming "it's your fault because you didn't do your homework" when it comes to something as basic as a paying system is automatic disqualification from any kind of serious position in world of payment. People CANNOT specialize in things like extreme levels of data security you claim necessary. They have to live their own lives. They have to take care of having a special skills that enable them to earn money, they have to take care of their every day lives. Payment system needs to be easy and safe. If it's not, it's taxing the payer extremely and will never be adopted by most people simply because it will cost them too much time to learn one-use skillset just to be able to be reasonably safe with their payments.
In the world were such a payment system has to compete with already functioning and EASY, even if slightly more costly payment systems, it has a snowball chance in hell unless this part improves.
Point 4: points 2 and 3 destroy any user friendliness for consumers in the root, even before all other problems.
In my country in EU, we don't even use pennies. Smallest coin is 5 eurocents and all purchases are rounded up or down.
Except that it's not a strawman. It's your exact statement in a nutshell. You try to soften the blow by skirting around it, but the rest of your post leaves no doubt to where you stand when it comes to democracy vs oligarchy argument.