I came here to point out exactly this: If you only shrink the ball, without reducing its size, well... you're gonna have problems carrying the ammo.
As a DM, I think I would let them both shrink and reduce the mass, and wait till they fired the weapon before invoking "conservation of momentum" and declaring that the cannon ball drops to the ground after about a meter.
I would say there's a massive difference between maintaining a mule corps so that in the rare event you want/need to transport heavy supplies through terrain where vehicles can't go, you have the option, versus using mules as an alternative to vehicles.
The former gives you an element of surprise and/or the possibility to resupply an otherwise cut off unit, much like the capabilities granted by special forces. The latter is a sign that you don't have enough vehicles, and that your industrial base isn't able to keep up with losses.
I've thought about this, but then I've also noticed that the soldiers say they prefer cloudy/foggy weather because there's far fewer (almost no) drones active in those conditions. So if the primary target of the lasers is consumer grade drones, that that might not be a problem.
It's not just me right: We've definitely seen a systematic fall in daily casualties from the ≈ 2000 we were seeing a little while back, right?
I'm wondering what this means: Is russia slowing down the pace of attacks? They haven't been making any gains that would suggest the defence is faltering as far as I can tell, and it's not like they're suddenly using more armour, so the only explanation I can see is that fewer people are dying because fewer are assaulting in the first place.
You keep saying this "power vacuums do not exist" line, and I'm wondering what you mean by it, because it's used to refer to a phenomenon that we can observe everywhere, all the time.
Do you mean that the situation in which no person or group has the power to control the people and resources in a region has never existed? Because that's what a power vacuum is: When no person or group has the power to make and enforce a set of rules in a region.
The first example that comes to mind of a power vacuum is when the substitute teacher leaves the fifth graders alone for fifteen minutes, and comes back to find the class playing "tag-but-the-floor-is-lava" on the tables. Of course, the fifth graders have an internal hierarchy, so they've already established some new norms and rules with some unofficial leaders to bout that have filled the power vacuum left by the teacher when they left the room. Regardless, this serves as a great illustration of the concept of a power vacuum: When the teacher is in the room, they are the centre of power. When they leave, the students take on the role of making and enforcing their own rules, thereby filling the power vacuum created by the absence of the teacher. The short in-between period from when the teacher has left until a new set of rules and enforcement mechanisms has been established is typically referred to as a "power vacuum".
Saying "enforcement never prevents any crime" is just naive. Say what you want about the american justice system, but even over there, they've incarcerated repeat offenders of assault, robbery, etc. where the incarceration itself most definitely prevents them from harming more people.
If you're talking about actual prevention, just look to the programs enforced in several European countries that have provably been very effective in taking people who have been living off crime and turning them into productive citizens of society.
Yes, it's been shown several times that fear of punishment is extremely ineffective at preventing crime. That doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't prevent crime. Putting a person that abuses their family in jail most definitely prevents them from continuing to abuse their family.
You say they're arguing against strawmen, but do nothing to refute the arguments or show why they're strawmen. Let's say you have what you want: Rules but no rulers, direct democracy, and government but no state (please explain the latter in more detail).
The local hospital needs to decide how much money (read: resources) to spend on constructing a new wing, and who should do the job. A power line has to be built to replace the one that just fell down, and your direct democracy decided last week that you want to do something to incentivise the farmers to produce healthier and more sustainable food, rather than easy to produce and unhealthy food, but you haven't ironed out the details yet. The next option you have to affect these decisions is later today, when you'll have some kind of meeting or vote to decide on the matters. How you will find a time and place that allows everyone to have their say is an obvious issue, but I'll leave it to you to explain how to overcome it.
These decisions need to be made, and when everyone doesn't agree, there needs to be a mechanism to get stuff done regardless. I haven't even gotten started on how to deal with internal groups or outside forces that want to exploit the system or the society as a whole.
Please explain how this is solved without some kind of hierarchical system where some people make decisions and enforce those decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. These are the roles we typically assign to "rulers" or "the state" (i.e. the bureaucracy).
I seem to remember that what the EU did to good effect last time this asshat was president was to place extremely directed tariffs/taxes on specific goods from Trump-friendly areas. Essentially saying "we're going to toll oranges from this specific county in that specific swing state in order to drive a couple specific producers out of business", and then did that across the country. The advantage being that WTO agreements allow you to answer tariffs dollar-for-dollar, so you can respond to wide-reaching tolls that amount to X USD (e.g. tolls on the entire European aluminium industry) with extremely hard-hitting tolls on very specific producers.
We should be doing that again. Don't touch the wider American population, but put all our weight into hitting hard against cornerstone businesses in pro-trump counties. Make them regret voting this guy in thinking it would better their economy.
At this point I have a hard time believing that anyone can buy a Chinese product and then talk about there being a "secret backdoor" in seriousness.
Come on: We all should know by now that if it's Chinese, there is more likely than not some way for Xi to use it for something other than what you want the product to do. There's nothing "secret" or "back" about this door. It's more like an open front gate with landing strips and a "welcome home Pooh bear" sign.
To be fair: A lot of people don't hate their jobs. Of course, if someone asked me the question in the panel, I'd think they were over-doing it, but it's a completely fair question to ask someone why they think this job could be something they enjoy.
Specifically, employees that enjoy their work are less likely to leave the company at the first opportunity. Hiring people costs money, so it makes sense to choose a candidate that is at least to some degree passionate about what they'll be doing.
Completely unrelated to the meme: Whenever I see this picture I just can't help thinking about how it must have felt to be literally Elvis in that moment. It's honestly an awesome photo in the way you can tell that this guy feels like the king of the world right there.
In addition to causing issues for the war machine, causing a fuel shortage also hurts civilians (in a way that is not a war crime). In fact, because the war machine has top priority, a fuel shortage will probably hit civilians first. Frustrated civilians that don't like fuel shortages are more likely to be a nuisance, which is nice.