The double tap to me is really what is cruel. I understand americans don't want to hear it, because they need to believe their military is moral, but a double tap to me show cruelty and willingness to target doctor, nurses, firemen and any person courageous enough to help.
The US military and its sailors already showed me everything i wont to know about them when i saw the report on them shooting torpedoes at capsized boats.
Well the current leaders of the US Government have demonstrated that they believe that people of certain races, sexual orientations, and genders are less than human - and enthusiastically engage with other leaders who have similar beliefs. It’s because of this, along with their arrogance and incompetence, that I am personally not the least bit surprised that they have committed and will continue to commit war crimes.
I guess the trick for me is (1) convincing others and (2) convincing others to give a shit.
The intent is to kill doctors, firefighters, first responders. In pretty much all situations this is considered an atrocity, morally repugnant, evil, etc.
These are civillians putting themselves in danger for the express purpose of helping other civilians. I shouldn't have to explain that killing civilians is a bad thing.
Are you really splitting hairs about this? Does it matter if it was 20 minutes and not 30? Does that exculpate them for bombing a school?
I find your line of questions repugnant, in the sense that it would seem you're examining it from every angle possible to find one tiny weakness that could help you dismantle the simple fact that they bombed a school full of children.
Yeah, the whole thing is based on armchair assessments to begin with.
1) I dont think all the involved military leaders are such cartoon villians that they would intentionally strike a school full of kids
2) I especially dont think they would do so with the intent of a follow up strike exclusively for killing the first responders to the atrocity from (1)
Delivering two bombs to a military target doesn't seem unreasonable. The fact that two missiles struck the school is not evidence of (1) OR (2). If there were significant intentional delay, that would change my assessment. There doesn't seem to be, in this case.
These same people under both Biden and Trump murdered thousands of children and bombed many hospitals and schools. This act was insanely evil but the same thing had already been happening in Gaza for 2 1/2 years.
Hegseth said loud and clear that they wouldn't be a pussy ass weak ass bitch ass military anymore.
What the hell do you think he meant by that? Because this is the exact thing he meant by that.
Note that this kind of "Double tapping" was commonly done in strategic bombing in WW2! It's done because it's a very effective thing to do! Or at least, it usually is if you have an actual plan and strategy.
reverse question: Why does everyone assume that only one missile is justified per target? I think this line of reasoning came out of the "double tap" strikes used in Gaza where a five to 30m wait allowed a crowd to gather.
The first strike heavily damaged the building. Teachers and surviving students rushed to a prayer hall for protection but about 40 minutes after the first strike, a US airstrike hit again and killed all survivors.
A double-tap strike is often legal basis for war crimes already as the primary purpose is to hit first responders and avoid any survivors being saved.
Well that's exactly what happened. US hit the building and many died. All the surviving students and teachers rushed to a prayer hall for protection but almost exactly 40 minutes later US airplanes (not surface missiles) hit the building again.
All of these facts are outlined in US' own internal investigation and in the UN's fact-finding mission.
That’s not a contradiction, since missiles are one of the weapon types carried by aircraft. Unless you mean it was literally hit by aircraft in a sense that aircraft were flown into the building.
Does the first missile kill the targets? Do the launchers know, for sure, before they launch the second?
Or are they launching two for redundancy, like often happens in military situations? Planes and missiles can break down or get shot down. If you want the target destroyed, you send more than one.
Actually, I agree about the timing if you're right that it was minutes apart (which I haven't confirmed). Hate to say it this way, but they did kill the initial targets, not first responders. The targets were school children maybe negligently flagged as military, but that's separate from the double-tap strategy itself.
It is different when they wait longer, which you mentioned was happening in Gaza. IDF waited for paramedics to arrive before striking again.
The double tap to me is really what is cruel. I understand americans don't want to hear it, because they need to believe their military is moral, but a double tap to me show cruelty and willingness to target doctor, nurses, firemen and any person courageous enough to help.
The US military and its sailors already showed me everything i wont to know about them when i saw the report on them shooting torpedoes at capsized boats. Like i said before, if any US person is on a boat and need help, i will still do it, because anybody not helping on the sea is an inhuman piece of shit, but i will keep my distance.
Do you resolve a difference between a double tap attack (one in which a delay is inserted to hit first responders) and just hitting the target twice in one salvo? What duration means "double tap" vs "ensure destruction of target".
depends on the product and when its applied.
for potatoes sprout inhibitors, the old product you definitely needed to remove the skin and every touched part. For the new stuff (i think its ethylène or something like that), washing it is enough (so you can now eat potato skin in europe). I would still wash my fruits just because of the transport though.
That's quite untrue. I taught my (adult) brother the moves, the only illegal move he ever tried against me (over his 6 first games) was a castle with a rook that already moved twice. Within a few hundred games (less than 500 for sure, he played 3 minutes blitz but always took at least 10 minutes analyzing his games) he was rated 1100 on lichess (which is like 1050 on chess.com and unranked in the real world).
So your brother tried to make illegal moves while learning the game and it took your brother hundreds of games to get to be a decent player? I don't see how this contradicts anything I said...
The _only_ illegal move a human might make as a beginner is a failed en passant or a bad castle. And yes, a few hundred games is all it takes to be better than any publicly available LLM at the moment.
...and mistakes like not seeing discovered checks, castling into check, trying to castle out of check, castling through a check, missing checks when promoting a piece, misunderstanding how stalemate works, etc?
If you compared a human after hundreds of games to a SOTA LLM that was also trained on the output of hundreds of chess games that it played, I suspect you would notice similar improvements.
We're obviously using different meanings for "good" here. But aside from that, it took 100's to 1000's of reinforcement iterations for your brother to play competently. While certainly impressive, that is still an entirely different category from piecing together disparate facts learned during training (LLMs aren't analyzing a board as they're learning the rules or ingesting PGN files), to executing a competent performance in one shot.
1100 lichess/chess.com does not represent real elo. I'm around 1400 online, I would still be unranked in the real world. The fact that I easily beat any model publicly available is not a great look for AGI.
The issue is that they never expended the infrastructure, never exploited new fields, their old oil field started giving less, so they pumped more water in, which probably lowered the quality of oil, and made it harder on the refineries.
Venezuela oil also need a lot of refinement in any case, and this is where the US made a mistake, because they could just have insisted on refining Venezualan oil rather than directly taking a cut, which will be seen worse by the locals. Basically help more venezualan crude oil to get out of the field than their refinment capacity can afford, and loan them tankers to sell the crude to US refineries. US corpos could have profited a lot more (and if the US could tax them, the US government could have taken a cut) than this weird, dumb and aggressive position of taking a cut.
Some countries rely on oil imports to produce agricultural products, and suddenly cutting them off the global market would kill hundreds of millions from hunger over the next year. Look at what happened in Cuba. Without china giving them old solar panels and used batteries, they would have revolted already. They still have a huge food insecurity issue for next year, especially if the huricane season gets bad.
The US military and its sailors already showed me everything i wont to know about them when i saw the report on them shooting torpedoes at capsized boats.
reply