bright

This is a much better response. In business you have to speak business-speak. This is the business-speak way of saying no.

Wolfenstein 3D seems more appropriate

I don’t know if that’s true, especially in comparison to ai. I think a competent random human would do research before taking charge of a coffee shop and be in reasonably good shape from day one. For sure some mistakes would be made, but i think generally the operation would run ok.

But all of that misses the key difference - a human doing this wouldn’t be a random person, they would usually have relevant past experience, like previously being an assistant manager at a coffee shop. So they would manage the shop way better than this ai did.

Maybe if they create an ai that has been specially designed to manage a business then it might perform as well or better than a human, possibly. But just throwing a standard ai in the role is gonna work much less well than a human.

Like, names of presidents? Dude.

.one

That already exists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.one_(domain)

Exactly. It’s weird to me that anyone doesn’t view posts this way. It’s the default. It shows you everything, and you just block the small number of communities you actively don’t want to see

Your confused about what I’m saying. The ARRAY OF RADAR STATIONS is emitters. I’m saying THE ATTACKERS AGAINST the array of radar stations only need to be passive detectors.

That’s the topic of the thread your replying in. Quote:

you could theoretically make a moderately large distributed array sprinkled over a few square kilometers

Your information about passive radar detection is not up to date. There are tons of passive detection of radar systems that by design do zero emission. The radar array stations will need to emit in order to function, but the enemy can find those radar emitters without emitting any energy of their own

https://daronmont.com.au/products/passive-radar

I’m not understanding. Let’s say army A has a radar array of 500 relatively cheap radar stations. They clump them all into a 1 square km area. So now army Z drives some howitzers nearby (which aren’t detectable by ground based radar), waits till a radar station turns on, the passively locates the radar base station, and shoots a cheap shell at it which destroys it.

But if you say army A has the level of military equipment that can locate and destroy howitzers up to 30 km away in all directions, then what benefit does an array of concentrated radar stations provide?

Locating radar emissions is a passive process, it doesn’t reveal your own location. That’s why i said the radar array would have to have very strong defenses extending out 30 km in all 360 degree directions from each individual radar station. And if a group has that strong a level of military equipment already then i don’t see why they would need this huge redundant array of radar stations all concentrated in a small area.

Locating the radar base station? No that’s the easiest part. Radar is like turning on a Hollywood style searchlight pointing up into the sky. The instant you turn it on its extremely obvious where the radar searchlight is coming from

Unless I’m missing something in your plan i don’t think that would work well. If these radar stations aren’t surrounded by very serious defensive systems for hundreds of miles in every direction, then they’ll simply be blown up by dumb howitzer shells that only cost around 2000 dollars.

Howitzers are cheap, relatively long range, mobile, and accurate enough. If you don’t have strong enough defenses to prevent the howitzers from moving into range, then they’ll just blow up all your radar stations with cheap shells.

A petabyte is 1000 terabytes. There are commercial hard drives that are over 30 tb. So 33 of these drives hold 1 pb. Times ten makes 330 hard drives to hold 10 pb. All of those drives together would take up just one third of a single full height server rack like this.

https://www.quantumtechnologyequipment.net/products/s6llst3137

So not only wouldn’t it need a whole data center, in fact it wouldn’t even need a whole server room, and actually wouldn’t even need a whole server closet!

I calculated this all out only because I’m procrastinating😆

How did this question never occur to me before? Now i need to know the answer too

Damn, capitalism is fucked up

FYI you can freeze most sauces. So use what you need now and freeze the rest

I specifically was using the word SOME people, because obviously there are a lot of bigots out there. Yes, everyone should always examine and reexamine their beliefs throughout their life

It’s very easy to think that there are people who are mainly attracted to some races but not others for non-bigotry reasons. Some people are attracted to fat people but not skinny people. Some people are attracted to short people but not tall people. There’s no reason to think that other physical characteristics can’t be in that same category of preferences

I specifically didn’t limit it to just sexuality. Some people are attracted to brunettes but not blonds, some people are attracted to people who are sarcastic but not people who are earnest, some people are attracted to people who want kids but not people who want to stay childfree - and that’s all perfectly fine. And unless you wanna become an incel, you should be ok with any particular person not being attracted to you for almost any reason

But yes to your other point. People should evaluate why they’re attracted to some things but turned off by other things. The things you’re attracted to can sometimes be a prison that keeps you repeating the same bad patterns, while the things you’re not attracted to might simply be due to societal pressures and you would actually like those things if you gave it an honest reexamination