Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: Sheb on February 10, 2017, 05:06:03 am

Quote from: Sergarr on February 09, 2017, 02:27:46 pm

Russia's new tank. It's also known by designation "T-14". Is a lot more advanced than other Russian tanks, and among other advantages - can be operated remotely/fully automated, which could be very good with the future AI technology.

I though only the turret was remotely operated, and from within the tank itself.

That's like calling a plane that is flown by fly-by-wire remotely operated even though the pilot is the one doing the controls and inside the plane.

So, I've accidentally stumbled on a "source" of slightly questionable veracity which describes something a bit more advanced than "fly-by-wire":

In T-14 "Armata" on an initial stage of design has been implemented a capability of remote control. Also, tank T-14 has a very serious potential for modernization to transition to a fully robotized tank. Main obstacle to achieve full robotization at the moment of creation of test vehicles are not the technical obstacles of tank's production, but absence of developed mathematical software of artificial intelligence.

Nevertheless, in tank "Armata" there is a capability of remote control for independent evacuation of the tank in case of loss of ability to control the vehicle by the crew.

So, it can be driven around remotely, like an RC car.

I wonder if John Schindler is a reliable source, because if yes, then holy shit is Trump in trouble something may probably happen:

AHEM: US IC has considerable SIGINT featuring high-level Russians talking about their collusion with Team Trump.

You heard it here 1st.

Mind you, it doesn't actually disprove said theories, exactly. There's plenty of reasons _{(*coughcorruptioncough*)} something that doesn't really work could be being developed.

Well yeah, but then said conspiracy theories would need to presuppose that Putin is an agent of the West and is planning to sell us all to Americans, and those are way too silly to be real.

Quote from: heydude6 on March 05, 2017, 08:57:59 pm

I don't get it. It's a white stealth bomber. What's so special about that?

I think what Sergarr meant was "stealth technology (as in radar-absorbing materials and angled surfaces)". An idiot would claim that a black stealth bomber is stealthy because it's harder to see in the night sky, but a white stealth bomber that's still sneaky would disprove that hypothesis.

While this is a good version, what I've actually meant, if you look at the picture's file name, you can see that it's a mock-up of PAK-DA, i.e. Russian super-bomber in development. And it is made for stealth. There has been this persistent conspiracy theory in Russia that stealth doesn't work against long wavelength radars or some shit and is thus completely useless, but, well, if Russia itself is building stealth bombers, this disproves said conspiracy theory.

Quote from: http://russian.stackexchange.com/questions/1734/what-does-the-phrase-%D0%94%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-mean

Russian 'да' means "I agree with what you say, you are right", Russian 'нет' means "I disagree with what you say, you are wrong", while English 'yes' means "What you say reflects the actual state of things" and English 'no' means "What you say does not reflect the actual state of things." On the surface, there may seem to be no difference between the approaches of the two languages, but, actually, that is not so. In Russian, if I ask you, "Ты его не знаешь?" and you answer "Да." it means you do not know the person. But in English, if I ask you, "Don't you know him?" your "Yes" answer would mean you do know the person. Am I right? In Russian one can say "Да, я его не знаю," but in English one cannot say, "Yes, I don't know him," one has to say, "No, I don't know him." This means sometimes Russian 'да' is translated to English as 'yes', but sometimes, when it is the confirmation of a negation, as 'no.'

what
the
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Huh, never noticed that difference before. Interesting.

Quote from: Frumple on March 05, 2017, 07:32:52 pm

Quote from: Baffler on March 05, 2017, 07:19:02 pm

By the way, the investigation turned up nothing.

Just to check, but you do realize that article is not saying that, right?

Quote

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.

Seems to pretty clearly be nothing to me.

And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

This particular part was proven wrong later. There was a whole joint CIA-FBI-NSA report on how Russian efforts were actually aimed at electing Trump.

So, while the investigations "so far" have not turned up anything, later investigations did turn up something.

The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? The party was behind him on it...

Sounds like a good policy to me. Can't wage an effective war against terrorism without having a few civilian casualties, and civilian casualties apparently trigger American population waaaay disproportionate to their real impact.

I recommend Hearts of Iron for learning geography.

In Russia, AFAIK, there are two separate history courses (both of which are taught to everyone, unless they've fucked that up in the recent education reform) - Universal and Domestic. International one starts from Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, then Medieval Europe, the Age of Discovery, and up to modern times. Domestic one is all about Russia, from the Kiev "inviting" vikings to rule them and the forward through the Mongols, the Empire period and to modern times, again.

I'm not all too qualified to say how it goes in normal schools, though, because most of the time I was on domestic education, and for the rest of it I was in a Lyceum, which is like high-intensity school. Most of the stuff I've learned from laaaaarge encyclopaedias "for children", massive tomes describing almost literally everything, with many sub-article on interesting trivia details, and lots of other more specialized books, like a book that was all about the development of artillery in the world, with lots of highly detailed pictures describing their construction, from the earliest ones and later on, or a book about development of fortifications in Russia, with about same detalization. Or a book about tanks.

I don't think many people in Russia have had the fortune to read so much stuff, to be honest.