Hopfgeist

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's a trap. If the House changes the bill, it has to pass through the Senate again, which is not guaranteed. This talk is intended to distract from the Discharge Petition that was initiated by a Democrat to approve the Senate's bill. The hardliner Republicans, first and foremost Mike Johnson, have made it crystal clear through their actions that they have no intentions of helping Ukraine. The Democrats built golden bridges by agreeing to border security measures which many of them find abhorrent, and by agreeing to combine it with help for Israel, which some Democrats also don't like at the moment. And still Johnson flatly refused to even consider it.

Speaker Johnson says the right things ("No one wants Vladimir Putin to prevail. I’m of the opinion that he wouldn’t stop at Ukraine … and go all through the way through Europe. There is a right and wrong there, a good versus evil in my view and Ukraine is the victim here"), but his actions speak louder with a very different message.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Saying it hasn't been built in 30 years is a bit misleading. Although the base Il-76 airframes may be that old, the latest substantial avionics upgrade (designated A-50U) is less than 15 years old or so (first delivery in 2011), which isn't too bad for military and aircraft systems. A lot of the E-3 equipment is older. That is not to say it is more capable than the E-3, it probably isn't, but I'd say a fully functioning A-50U should not be underestimated. It's even got toilets! Then again, it is also not clear to me that any "U" models are currently airworthy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Also, for some comedic relief, there is a "Combat Approved" episode about the A-50. "Combat approved" is a youtube channel making unbelievably (though unintentionally) funny parodies of documentaries. Everything Russian is the absolute best, the old Russian stuff is decades ahead of anything the west is currently developing, etc. The impressive thing that they can say all this with a straight face. They have lots more of these hilarious episodes, plus dozens of short clips of aircraft landing and taking off, and some live-firing exercises.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I guess the question "why wouldn't they just build the A-100 instead?" has about the same answer as "why don't they just build thousands of T-14 tanks?". They can't. Partly perhaps because it needs Western electronics, which are difficult to obtain.

That aside, restarting production of a large and complex aeroplane is going to take years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

True, some will probably have survived, and some of those may even fly again (some percentage usually sustain disqualifying injuries during ejection). The A-50 crews probably had no way to bail out, though, regardless of where they were shot down.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is in such stark contrast to Russian soldiers, who capture and disarm Ukrainian soldiers, who have surrendered, and then shoot them. Yes, not all Russian soldiers, probably a minority, but still, there are now several documented cases (and almost certainly many undocumented).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yes. And unlike foot soldiers, and to some extent tank crews, pilots cannot be replaced in a few weeks, or even months, if you want them to be halfway competent in operating a complex weapons platform. Then again, given the number of pilots who have "accidentally" dropped munitions on Russian towns, "competent" seems to be relative. The alternative explanation is, of course, that the pilots knew what would likely happen over Ukraine, and did the prudent thing, "losing" their ordnance before flying into range of Ukrainian air defence, and then returning safely to base.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Going on an aerial sortie against Ukraine now seems to be just as dangerous as it was to be sent into one of the meatwave attacks on Avdiivka.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ever since the last A-50 was downed, it has been open Sukhoi season.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

IF Putin can get troops there. Through Ukraine, where the current velocity of the Russian army is roughly 1 km/month (because of massive ammunition shortage on Ukraine's side, otherwise it would be negative). That's going to be a decade or two, then.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

Did the author just lazily substitute "gasoline" for "fuel", or is it really specifically a ban on gasoline? I cannot find out exactly what it is. Because farm equipment generally runs on diesel, not gasoline, would have less of an impact, if it's really specifically only about gasoline.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Missing coordination, and no early warning, because they have no A-50 on station any more. Just speculating.

8
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I know that for decades now, hard disks don't really reveal their actual internal geometry (which is complicated anyway, since inner cylinders may have fewer sectors than outer cylinders, etc.), and present fictional geometries to satisfy legacy software, but I found it weird anyway.

I have a ZFS raidz2 NAS which originally consisted of 8x2 TB SAS disks and is now in the process of being live-upgraded to 8x4 TB (change disks one by one, resilver, change, resilver, etc ...)

I now have four of the disks replaced, and in NetBSD they all report different geometries. They all report the exact same number of total blocks, so it's not actually an issue, but still strange.

sd0 at scsibus0 target 0 lun 0: <SEAGATE, ST4000NM0023, GE11> disk fixed

sd0: 3726 GB, 330809 cyl, 10 head, 2362 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

sd1 at scsibus0 target 1 lun 0: <SEAGATE, ST4000NM0023, GE11> disk fixed

sd1: 3726 GB, 348145 cyl, 10 head, 2244 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

sd3 at scsibus0 target 3 lun 0: <IBM-B040, ST4000NM0023, BC5P> disk fixed

sd3: 3726 GB, 342419 cyl, 10 head, 2282 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

sd7 at scsibus0 target 7 lun 0: <IBM-B040, ST4000NM0023, BC5P> disk fixed

sd7: 3726 GB, 341874 cyl, 10 head, 2285 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 7814037168 sectors

Two of them are IBM-branded (although they are in fact all Seagate Constellation ES.3), so I might expect slight differences, but even those with the same branding and the same revision present different geometries.

Anyway, probably just a curiosity, it will be interesting to find what the remaining four disks will show.

I might add that the older 2 TB disks (Seagate Constalleation ES, IBM-branded) all show the exact same geometry:

sd2 at scsibus0 target 2 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd2: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

sd4 at scsibus0 target 4 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd4: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

sd5 at scsibus0 target 5 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd5: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

sd6 at scsibus0 target 6 lun 0: <IBM-ESXS, ST32000444SS, BC2D> disk fixed

sd6: 1863 GB, 249000 cyl, 8 head, 1961 sec, 512 bytes/sect x 3907029168 sectors

 

I have two Dell T320 servers, which work great. But I'd like to have some more CPU power, so think about upgrading to the T420. It is almost the same, except that on the T420 main board, which seems to be otherwise the identical PCB, the second CPU socket is actually installed. (In the T320 it's just empty soldering points.) My question is: Is the air baffle the same, or do I need a new one if I swap out the main board? I am aware that I will need a second CPU heatsink.

Thanks.

 

What's the general opinion on the BSDs? Are they just Unix-Like (like Linux), or are they really Unix?

Some call them "heritage Unix", because, although they no longer contain a single line of AT&T code (and haven't for over 40 years), they were ultimately derived from the original Unix.

This is a bit tongue-in-cheek, because I wonder, if you consider BSD to be "true Unix", what other "Unix-like" operating system besides Linux kernel-based systems there are. Or are "real" Unices also considered "unix-like"?

As an aside, what about macOS, if you use the command line a lot?

view more: next ›