Warl0k3
@Warl0k3@lemmy.world
- Comment on Apple has REMOVED the ICEBlock app from the App Store due to “objectionable content.” 11 hours ago:
since apps do have much greater access to the parent device then a website
I’m not disagreeing at all that this should have been a website as a backup, but you yourself are making some really good points about how apps aren’t the same thing as websites and the benefits to using an app in this situation. Leveraging user hardware without the intermediate layer of a brower’s sandbox is good for performance and makes a site much more robust in the face of things like DDOS, and having locally-hosted resources with which the user can interact without requiring an active TCP connection (because for example: ICE has geoblocked connectivity at one of their “enforcement actions” - but you can still document what’s happening and the app will automatically-and-without-user-interaction upload what you’ve given it once connectivity is restored) is an incredibly important feature.
Offline websites, while potentially able to exhibit similar behavior, rely on extremely hacky workarounds and cached data to be able to do it - and an app is a much less volatile way to store that data than relying on your browser’s cache reintegration (which will often be dumped if you’re hit with bad a DHCP config).
I think your spirit is in the right place, but you’re missing enough of the technical nuance that it’s really undermining your ability to convincingly make your point. And again, I 100% agree that not having alternative access to this service is a critical loss.
- Comment on Apple has REMOVED the ICEBlock app from the App Store due to “objectionable content.” 23 hours ago:
You’re just describing the MVVM design paradigm. That’s how everything that doesn’t benefit from locally hosted resources works. Host the database, shift processing to the user’s hardware (excepting hardware dependent tasks like LLMs or other compute heavy tasks). Websites, apps, even firmware can all use this – essentially anything that makes an API call in some way uses this basic structure. Even entirely local applications do it this way (albeit internally).
- Comment on Discord customer service data breach leaks user info and scanned photo IDs 2 days ago:
While those exist, those wouldn’t have been affected by this breach (or if they were it was only incidentally) - those communities are not using Discord’s age verification but are doing it through DMs (or a 3rd party service). Discord communities do not have access to age or ID verification tools, nor do they have the ability to impose restrictions based off age or ID verification (yet, there is rumored to be an age-verification access restriction beta going out, but it apparently doesnt use ID)
- Comment on Apple has REMOVED the ICEBlock app from the App Store due to “objectionable content.” 3 days ago:
Wait, where are you seeing a difference between that and how an app functions? Right now it feels like you’re abstracting a bit too far in order to make a point, but I’m deeply curious what you mean there.
- Comment on Apple has REMOVED the ICEBlock app from the App Store due to “objectionable content.” 3 days ago:
And websites are just little programs you can download at will, so who cares about them?
- Comment on AI Coding Is Massively Overhyped, Report Finds 5 days ago:
Dynamic SQL in of itself not an issue, but the consequences (exacerbated by SQL’s inherent irrecoverability from mistakes - hope you have backups) have stigmatized it’s use heavily. With an understanding of good practice, a proper development environment and a close eye on the junior devs, there’s no inherent issue to using it.
- Comment on AI Coding Is Massively Overhyped, Report Finds 6 days ago:
There’s some real perks to using AI to code - it helps a ton with templated repetitive code and setting up the tedious tasks. I hate doing that by hand, being able to pass it off to copilot is great. But we already had tools that gave us 90% of the functionality copilot adds there, so it’s not super novel, and I’ve never had it handle anything properly complicated at all successfully (asking GPT-5 to do your dynamic SQL calls is inviting disaster, for example…)
- Comment on Ukraine nuclear plant enters fifth day on emergency power as Zelenskyy announces $90B arms deal 1 week ago:
What does the arms deal have to do with this? It took WAY too long for them to clarify this plant is being occupied by Russia and has been for years, and that Russian artillery damaged the transmission lines that’s leading to this potential catastrophe. I don’t like to go “what the hell this is obvious media bias” but like guys, what the hell? What’s Zelensky supposed to do about this beyond like, buy more weapons and throw the idiots that are causing this situation (and who are trying to DIY plug a nuclear reactor into their own power grid… fuck…) out of the plant so competent operators can take over again?
- Comment on Marvel’s Wolverine - Gameplay Trailer | PS5 Games 1 week ago:
Preanimated takedown moves, from the look if it.
- Comment on Dedicated mobile apps for vibe coding have so far failed to gain traction | TechCrunch 1 week ago:
It describes the act of using an AI as the primary method of writing code, as you’re going by the “vibes” you get instead of an actual understanding of what the code does.
- Comment on 'Windmill': China tests world’s first megawatt-level airship to capture high winds 1 week ago:
IDK, the benefit to the goofy kite design is that the aerial portion is far simpler - and there’s no massive energized cable hanging in the air. It’s a little… non-conventional, but it’s a great less complicated than floating a massive generator like the chinese solution. Downside is presumably lower energy density per unit, but the reduction in operational footprint might make the two designs competitive. It’s good people are exploring both options!
- Comment on New Syria leader warns of regional tumult without Israel deal 1 week ago:
From what I understand he’s standing up to Israeli aggression, is that being misrepresented in the news?
- Comment on The Secret Service traced swatting threats against officials. They found 300 servers capable of crippling New York’s cell system 1 week ago:
Why? Not disagreeing, just curious if there’s something to base this off of. It’s a whole lot of phones, but old phones are still perfectly functional and cheap as dirt in bulk.
- Comment on Every action has a reaction 2 weeks ago:
Man, I bet that’s gonna work out just great for you. Hopefully it’s just fraud and not a disability…
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
If you’re so certain in your victory, why not simply accept it and move on? Why is my ascension to your proposed scenario so important here?
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
(Taking faff is one of the cutest aphorism’s I’ve run across, thank you for that)
Anyways, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated a deeply fundamental lack of familiarity with the topic being discussed here. And you asserting that I agree with you, despite repeatedly explaining the nuance of my position and detailing how we disagree, is a pretty transparent attempt to establish a victory condition that has nothing to do with the content of your argument and everything to do with the submission of your opponent
which, listen, usually I’m all for that, but man when you’re just trying to demand it like this it’s a real turn off.It’s even wildly off topic - you still have done nothing to actually establish that your position is founded on evidence, you’re just asserting that you’re correct and ignoring the mounting evidence for my own position.
So, seriously, why would they slow down when assaulting a pre-prepared defensive position? Ordinarily, that’s what we’d call suicide.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
(Sorry slightly pressed for time this comment, I usually try to avoid quote-reliant responses)
I’m not sure where or why you have these cartoonish visions of how tanks go about things
Getting attached to armored regiments gives you a weird degree of insight as to how they do things, I’ll happily confess to that one.
or that it’s at all standard practice to just hurl yourselves barrel first into walls
You’re not quite understanding my argument, I fear. You can see in the vid I posted before that a tank will happily just shove it’s way through a berm of loose-packed dirt like this, it’s not like I’m trying to present that as a tank driving full on at a wall. I’ve also never presented that a tank would intentionally foul it’s barrel instead adjusting the gun lay to deflect damage (hell, turrets even have a system in place to allow free rotation in the event of strong impacts just to prevent damage to the barrel/sights/etc) because that’s the entire basis of my “just elevate over it” point from earlier.
what any force would do is cross once carefully and push entering in and then they can just drive across.
No, what? Rapid thrusts through enemy defenses is fundamental to maneuver warfare - it’s the basis of Blitzkrieg, it’s the basis of modern Disorganization in Depth, it was the cornerstone of Ukraine’s counter-offensive. It’s what any armored force would do - exploitation through rapid maneuver, consolidation by following forces.
Here, don’t believe me? While Army forces consolidate gains throughout an operation, consolidating gains become the focus of operations after large-scale combat operations have concluded. It’s very literally textbook maneuver warfare - it’s so basic it’s publicly available on the US Army website.
Because hitting a wall at 50 kph in a armored can is a stupid* fucking idea unless you’re currently being shot at
Isn’t the point of having a bunker every 60 meters that you’ll have lots of locations to shoot at people trying to cross the tank barrier? That’s kinda fundamental to the premise here.
You agree
But… no, I don’t?
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
I explained the context of the video, though - and my whole point has been “but why would they slow down”. Its not because of the trench, we’ve both accepted the evidence that it’s actively detrimental to them to do that. You keep saying they would slow, but not establishing a reason why they’d ever do that, instead lashing out at me.
I’ve demonstrated to both our satisfactions that this little ditch isn’t a notable obstacle to a modern AFV, and is only a minor one to the lowest-profile and longest-snooted MBT I know of. I’ve even laid out why this style of ditch is an important facet of a defense in depth strategy (easy for AFVs to cross, difficult for support, separates the two very nicely esp. if the tanks are moving at speed to avoid making targets of themselves).
So… what’s the issue? Is it just that I’ve expressed my position, that you’re intelligent but very unfamiliar with the topic? I really doubt that one, but I am curious about what your motivation is here.
- Comment on There is no meme 2 weeks ago:
I’ve learned never to let my guard down, but I just can’t figure out how this is Loss.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
Whait, when did it become about just the one issue you brought up? Are you really trying to leverage a single small concession into an ideological victory over an entire discussion, but playing it off like nobody could notice that?
This is… interesting behavior. And has nothing to do with the part where the initial claim was demonstrated to be correct. Why aren’t we talking about that part?
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
Correct me if I’m wrong but you’ve just admitted you were wrong.
so lets just go with you’re right
My god, you’ve broken my secret code.
Now you’ve proved visually by yourself that you are wrong
I’ve quite exhaustively shown that yes, at some speeds a T-72 would impact the berm without rotating the turret. I’m not… I literally drew you diagrams dude, I don’t think I could be more explicit about how this works out. But If they don’t slow down this won’t be the case. They will clear it without having to rotate the turret. They also, as you’ve claimed, will not have to turn the turret “away from the berm”. I couldn’t be more clear than this without a lego set and a mallet. I was provisionally wrong about the turret, unless you take it in the context of my earlier thing about not slowing down, where I would correct.
But I don’t really care enough, so have the win about the turret. It’s my little gift to you.
The issue is more complicated than you seem to present it, and I did my best to clarify that. Also, yes, I already acknowledged how the misclassification of things as MBTs is the source of popular Tanker drinking games. It’s common enough there’s a billion articles like this out there, clarifying things. It’s not a phantom phenomenon, are you really trying to turn that into the issue to litigate while glossing over the slow-down-an-attack aspects now?
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
Aight so that was sad enough I figured I’d do a couple physical sims just to answer the question definitively:
turns out a T72 would need +35° of elevation to clear this if you approached at 1kph
But at +14° elevation, it'll just barely clip the top at 30kph
And only needs to be going ~46.02kph to clear the berm
But to cross at 30mph, you’d only need to rotate the barrel ~20° off center-line to clear the berm (which if Warthunder is to be believed (hehe), will take 5/8^ths^ of a second to return to axial - this is as close as I could get to the actual figure but it’s probably closer to a full second, I couldn’t find acceleration curves for the T-72 turret traversal (go figure)).
So you’re right, most likely a T-72 crew would have to rotate the turret some to clear this berm unless they’re going flat-out across that field, which is possible for them to achieve but the offroad speed of the T-72 isn’t super reliably reported (again go figure) so lets just go with you’re right.
And with that side topic settled, back to my point: this ditch ain’t going to force an AFV to slow down. Like at all.
Disclosures:
I used the absolute shortest value for ground support length which is only 5.5m, used the common 106" ditch crossing value for ease instead of calculating it custom as soil dynamics sucks to define, used the most generous estimate I could for ditch dimensions (4m wide w/ 90° slopes) and just traced the outline of a T72 where I couldn’t find specific dimensions in the manual I’ll pretend I have sitting on my desk but which I just googled around to find, and I also just totally ignored ground compression for the same reason (but eyeballing it, it should roughly even out)
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
Riding in any AFV isn’t comfortable, Russian tanks especially. This sure wouldn’t be pleasant, but it’d be a great deal more fun than being hit with an AT round because you stopped in the middle of an empty field.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
Correct: AFVs aren’t tanks, but tanks are AFVs. Using the supercategory in this case is just a nod to actual tanks being pretty rare on a modern battlefield vs. the vast number of tracked armored vehicles.
And also yeah, no argument about gun elevation. Which is why you just go fast over a trench like this, and rely on it being < 1/2 the length of your vehicle (ex: the T-72 has a ground support length of around 9m for this roughly 4m trench) for added stability while crossing. Which totally ignores that you’d only get to where a 90° elevation would be relevant if you go so slow you’re pointing directly down into the trench, which wouldn’t happen if you impacted the angled far wall (which is why real tank ditches are shaped like the dunning kruger graph or the trench in the vid I linked - a sharp vertical wall to prevent climbing combined with an angled ramp to direct the bulk of the tank downwards before it’s feasible for the gap to be jumped)
Keep in mind that tanks initially existed for the sole reason of crossing tanks like this. While warfare has evolved and tanks no longer have WWI / Warhammer style gigantic climbing tracks, the basic use of a tank as an obstacle-crossing fire support vehicle has not changed.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
… Right, which is why I said you’d need to elevate the barrel, my point being that such a maneuver is not a tactical disadvantage.
A small stone wall will stop a Cupra and this ditch sure would be annoying to cross with a bicycle, but while all ditches could be anti-vehicle ditches, very few ditches are anti-tank ditches.
Really though, I’m trying to figure out how to phrase ‘how does physics factor into this’ in a more useful way, because obviously molecules stay together and gravity works, but do you have anything more than that? You can poke a tank barrel through a cinderblock wall without taking it out of battery, it’s a massive tempered steel bar, and barrel obstructions are extremely difficult to get In modern modern tanks, tho iirc not on the T-72, soft barrel obstructions like dirt/mud/water/gravel/etc. can be cleared automatically from the breach controls by diverting pressure from the pneumatics. IIRC the T-72 had to use a squib to achieve the same result, which was stupid dangerous for russian-engineering reasons.
::: spoiler Ps
Buddy that was only evidence for not having to slow, not having to turn the turret. This is starting to feel like you’re just lashing out because your preconceptions are being challenged, not you having a genuine intellectual objection to what I’m saying. You’re clearly unfamiliar with the topic, and you’re butting up against the big dunning-kruger trench (which ironically would make a much more effective tank defense than what’s picture in the OP).
Please just go do a little bit of your own research instead of lashing out with random objections like this, then come back. Even on it’s own it’s a potentially important topic to be familiar with, what with the rise of far right nationalism the world over, and it’s getting clear you don’t have much theoretical (let alone practical) familiarity with the capabilities of AFVs.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
At the very least you have to slow and turn your turret away from the place you want to go
You don’t, though, not in this case - because this isn’t an anti-tank ditch. You might have to elevate to prevent sticking your snoot in the berm, but (and not to go all war-thunder here) it’s two button presses and at most a second’s delay in motion to get back on sight, and thanks to the stabilization the turret is still tracking the entire time you’re doing that. And that’s just if you don’t blast the berm out of the way. And this doesn’t apply to most AFV’s, since they don’t have protruding barrels that might foul while crossing this.
There’s lots more here about the way static defenses factor into defense in depth and how modern improvements to the strategy incorporate information warfare to improve the cost/effect ratio, but I’m lazy - if you want to learn more look up Ukraine and Russia’s current anti-tank policy or Russia’s counter-counter-strike preparations from last year. At the very least though it’ll give you some photos of what a legit anti-tank barrier looks like, which isn’t this goofy thing designed just to deter the so horrible “migration offensive”.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
Whoops, I was curious - turns out the estonian military did dig them, but they’re anti-migrant ditches, not anti-tank ditches. From the source article:
Yeah, your first impulse was right on the money with this one.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
it’s just an irrigation canal. A BMP could cross that without having to slow down, it can’t be more than 3m and has such beautiful ramped sides. The biggest threat might be getting stuck in the loose dirt of the spoil berm, but really there’s not enough there to trouble a hilux let alone an AFV or true tank.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
Here’s what they probably used to dig it, you see things like it all the time in agri-heavy areas.
spoiler
Rule of thumb, if it has two sloped sides it’s not going to stop an armored vehicle.
- Comment on Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next 2 weeks ago:
That’s a stock photo of an irrigation or utility trench, I suspect - it wouldn’t stop a 4x4, let alone a tank.
