I would call bs. I know for a fact that I was not teleported 2 feet to the left 10 minites ago. I ain't demented yet, darnit.
Rednax
joined 2 years ago
And that is why you don't read lemmy while driving!
In that case, the bridge in OP's image is currently just an airduct.
Interesting. I did not know that!
Correct. But integrating over multiple pulses, and using the latest Tx and Rx modules, sensitivity is not the problem anymore. Radars can easily see every damn bumblebee in a 100km radius. The problem is filtering data, so that processing and/or the user is not overloaded. For example, if you track every single bird with a radar that has a 100km radius, you will not be able to see anything on the operator screen other than birds.
Doppler is easy to filter on early in the processing stage. Meaning that if you can detect the aircraft, you can still separate it from all other bumblee like objects. Clutter tends not to move that fast.
That is called passive sonar. I suspect that it is kinda hard to hear from the missile. Anything behind you is certainly not hearable, since the missile goes faster than sound. I have no idea if you could measure the sound coming from the front. You also have to take into account that you are chasing an after image, since the plane is also faster than sound. But torpedoes use this, so the idea is valid.
Radar is echolocation with EM waves (low frequency light) instead of sound waves. And there are already plenty of radar guided missiles.
Do note that the this claim comes from the same people who don't hand out any actual specs and always fly with an additional reflector. The latter makes it easy for radars to see them again. This is helpful in allied airspace, but it also makes it impossible to verify the claim.
Also note that modern radars are sensitive to how fast an object approaches (or leaves) the radar. Bumblebees don't break the soundbarrier usually, so it is possible to see these planes, but you do have to tweak your radar for it. (Hence why the US doesn't give specs.)
It doesn't even make sense. Hypersonic missiles are good at being hard to take down themselves. But you don't need that to take down an aircraft. You need super sensitive radar systems, since the claim is that these aircraft reflect about as much energy as a bumblebee would.
There is a subtle, but important, difference between letting people know your product exists or improved, and brainwashing people into buying your product.
Is a grocery saleman at the local saturday market allowed to shout about the sale he is doing on strawberries? Because that is also marketing.
I fully agree that the average advertisement you see on youtube is pure cancer. But what about an advertisement for an emergency fund for a disaster?
What about a sponsored video of a game?
Where do you draw the line?
Nobody dies of "old age". As you become older, it is becomes harder to survive various diseases or afflictions. But where do you draw the line? If someone was to weak and fragile to leave their bed, and died due to no longer getting any energie from food, is that dying of old age? And what if they are to fragile to leave their cage?
If one is allowed to set timespan for "execution" to "however long it takes me to die of old age", then I argue it is also perfectly fine to take some liberty with the definition of "die of old age".
I remember CCleaner being good. But that was a long time ago. Looking at the site now, I feel like I wandered into a Tel Sell advertisement.
I was gonna ask you what made CCleaner bad before I took a look at the sites. But CCleaner literally sells you privacy as a pro feature, whereas BleachBit puts privacy in the second sentence as a core aspect of the tool.