You could. This type of gun is not intended primarily for use against people (although this particular gun might be modified to serve the role of a sniper rifle). It’s for shooting aircraft and lightly armored vehicles. By that I don’t mean cars; I mean armored personnel carriers. The bullets would go right through a building’s walls.

I can’t quickly find a photo of this gun’s 12.7 mm bullet doing its thing, but here’s what the very similar American 50 cal bullet does to six-inch-thick concrete:

Wow, I think that’s a modified DShK, which entered service in 1938. It’s not a museum piece - these guns are still in widespread use.

You hold the common belief that insurgency is motivated by revenge, but history does not support it. The historical record is full of extremely brutal conquerors who faced little to no sustained resistance after their initial invasion. It’s harder to say what does lead to insurgency but it appears to be simply the weakness of the central government, regardless of its brutality or lack thereof. (Local cultural factors are also important but they are not decisive.) The example of the USA in Iraq is illustrative: the USA overthrew Saddam Hussein with relatively little loss of civilian life and ended his brutal practices. One might think that Americans really would have been greeted as liberators, but in fact they faced a far more persistent insurgency than Hussein ever did.

The American victories over Germany and Japan in the second world war involved massive civilian casualties, including from deliberate indiscriminate attacks against population centers. Despite this, American occupation of both countries had none of the problems that the occupation of Iraq did, and in fact the USA was able to turn both countries into strong allies during the lifetime of the people who had experienced the war. The difference seems to be that the USA co-opted existing power structures in Germany and Japan, whereas it dismantled Hussein’s power structures and then failed to rebuild its own.

One relevant example of an invader actually triumphing over an insurgency is Russia in Chechnya, where Russia was extremely brutal. Israel faces a similar challenge but with far more restrictions on its treatment of the Palestinians (despite many critics’ foolish use of the word “genocide”). I’m not sure that Israel will succeed, but if it fails then that would not be because of the reason you expect.

It disrupts the ability of Hezbollah and its allies to respond to an invasion, but it also might be enough on its own to convince Hezbollah to back down. A simple ceasefire would accomplish Israel’s objective against Hezbollah (whereas it wouldn’t against Hamas) so an invasion of Lebanon isn’t inherently necessary.

It’s good to see Israel’s intelligence apparatus function effectively. I hope disrupting the chain of command starting from the top will make a ground invasion of Lebanon unnecessary. I also hope the conclusion that Iran’s leadership comes to is that they are themselves personally quite vulnerable in the case of a direct conflict.

licensing issues

I understand that the buyer doesn’t lose the de facto ability to install the game from a local copy of the installer, but is it possible to lose the de jure right to install the game in that way due to licensing issues on GOG’s end? I’m not saying it is, I’m just curious.

I agree that the offsets have exactly the problem that you point out. I think the value (moral value, not financial value) that this company has is that it is setting a precedent for the deliberate release of SO2 as a form of climate engineering. Going from “responsible experts oppose using SO2 but weirdos are talking about it” to “responsible experts oppose using SO2 but weirdos are doing it” takes us one step closer to “responsible experts are seriously working towards using SO2 (or finding that it really is counterproductive as opposed to simply saying that there isn’t enough evidence)”.

This couple of guys with their balloons got a critical article in the NYT about using SO2, but it’s still an article in the NYT about using SO2.

Sulfur dioxide added to the atmosphere through human action does contribute to reducing global temperatures. There’s a Nature article about it. From their abstract:

In 2020, fuel regulations abruptly reduced the emission of sulfur dioxide from international shipping by about 80% and created an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock with global impact.

Ships had been emitting a lot of SO2 and the effect of abruptly stopping that is apparently quite large:

a doubling (or more) of the warming rate in the 2020 s compared with the rate since 1980

In other words, the laws against SO2 emission by ships are making global warming twice as bad. It’s ironic that environmentalists are contributing as much to global warming as everyone else put together.

The guys running this company sound like loose cannons, but it may take a loose cannon to overcome the bias that institutions have towards doing nothing rather than taking an action that involves risks. It’s true that adding SO2 to the atmosphere may have serious unintended consequences, although the huge amount that ships had been adding until recently wasn’t catastrophic. However, doing nothing as the planet keeps warming will definitely have serious unintended consequences! It’s the trolley problem: these guys are pulling the lever and their critics are saying “They’re going to kill one person!” but if the critics had their way, five people would die.

Less documentation means more job security.

I’m not a fan. I don’t like looking at swastikas in any context. Sometimes it’s necessary as part of learning about history, but I would prefer not to see one twice a day if that was the metro station I used to get to work.

Also IMO it has little artistic worth; it’s not much more sophisticated than putting up a portrait of Hitler and labeling it “Bad Guy” would be. Something like this takes fundamentally the same idea (destroy the symbol of a hated enemy) but expresses it in a far more aesthetically interesting way.

Alanine. No baroque ornamentation, just the beauty of simplicity. A timeless classic.

Battletoads

literally impossible to beat (in 2-player mode)

not the herpetology-themed NES game in the meme

The US has never sent soldiers to fight for Israel during any of Israel’s previous wars, even when Israel’s continued existence was in extreme danger. Therefore I think American boots on the ground are very unlikely. Even in the case that the US military intervenes directly, that intervention will probably be limited to long-range aerial attacks.

And yet somehow I trust Google acting in its own self-interest to benefit Americans more than the government breaking up Google with the intent of benefiting Americans. American companies dominate the internet (outside of China), this is to America’s great advantage, and I don’t think the government should risk losing that advantage.

Children are killed even in a just war, so morality on the scale of nations is necessarily different than morality on the scale of individuals.

That’s true; I am assuming that the age distribution of dead civilians matches the overall age distribution of civilians. Maybe efforts to minimize child casualties skew the actual distribution one way, or maybe children’s greater frailty skews it the other way. I don’t know but I think that my assumption is reasonable as a rough estimate.

Let me try to explain it another way.

We know that 1/3 of the dead are children, according to the headline. We also know that children make up about half the population of Gaza. We assume that none of the combatants are children.

If a person is killed, that person is either an adult combatant, an adult civilian, or a child civilian. Since child civilians make up 1/3 of the dead and there are as many adult civilians as child civilians in Gaza, adult civilians therefore make up another 1/3 of the dead. That adds up to 2/3 of the dead being civilians. 2/3 civilian dead and 1/3 combatant dead is a 2:1 ratio of civilians to combatants killed.

That’s not what I’m saying - I don’t have a term that represents “#deadKids/#allCivilians”.

If I were to use your notation, I would write:

#deadKids/#allDead = #deadCivilians/#allDead * #allKids/#allCivilians

I recognize that it’s macabre to treat this as a word problem, but the math works out if you do. If out of 100 dead people, 33 are combatants and 67 are civilians (the 2:1 civilian to combatant ratio I have calculated) and half of the dead civilians are children, then there are 33 dead children, which is the “one third” in the headline.

Nothing can fix things because teenagers will not cooperate. If Instagram could identify all its teenage users, those users would move to a platform that couldn’t. The only thing the restrictions achieve is a reduction in the market share of the platform with the restrictions.

That’s not what I am assuming. My assumptions are only that none of the dead combatants are children and that the age distribution of dead civilians matches the age distribution of the civilian population.