The common approach is to take a photo of an object from above together with a ruler or something of a known size for scale, then import that directly into the CAD software, scale according to the scaling object, and create a cutout along the object's outline. No need for calipers, 3d scans, or other complex measurement procedures. There are a lot of videos and guides on how to do that.
What do you mean? The previous iPad Pros didn't have a home button either. The last iPad with a home button was the 9th generation iPad, released in 2021.
1. Current or future means of intercepting hypersonic missiles.
2. The ability to disable or reduce the enemy’s ability of launching hypersonic missiles, or of pinpointing and accurately tracking the exact location of aircraft carriers.
We don't have the capability currently to intercept Russia's hypersonic missiles.
We also have no defenses against 100 megaton underwater torpedo nukes that can be detonated miles from a carrier group and still wipe it out.
In an all out war with Russia, our carriers would be big, slow, sitting ducks against Mach 20 missiles with variable speed and high maneuverability as well.
"The missile flies with an advanced fuel that the Russians say gives it a range of up to 1,000 kilometers. And it's so fast that the air pressure in front of the weapon forms a plasma cloud as it moves, absorbing radio waves and making it practically invisible to active radar systems.
U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10 seconds, the Russian Zircon missiles will already have traveled 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast enough to catch up."
>We don't have the capability currently to intercept Russia's hypersonic missiles.
Say hello to SM-3. It has successfully intercepted hypersonic RVs in testing. Is it perfect? No. But if it done anything, the last month has made me feel more confident in what the US claims their weapons can do and dismissive for the Russians.
>We also have no defenses against 100 megaton underwater torpedo nukes that can be detonated miles from a carrier group and still wipe it out.
No such weapon exists. And if it did it would be wildly impractical. The largest nuke ever made was the Tsar Bomba and it was only 50 megatons and too large to be practical.
And we do have a counter to nuclear torpedoes. Its called the West's nuclear deterrence. Using a nuke on a carrier means nuclear war and nobody wants that.
Laws that make it illegal to sleep under bridges apply to everybody, not just the homeless. Does that mean a law against sleeping under bridges is not targeting the homeless?
It targets people who sleep under bridges. If, for example, there is a major safety hazard associated with sleeping under bridges, it would make sense to prohibit it, and it would be bizarre to criticize the law just because it affects mostly homeless people. If, on the other hand, the law prohibits only homeless people from sleeping under bridges, it becomes clear that the intent is discriminatory, and this becomes a valid criticism.
“There’s no need to shirk from the essence of this law. It is one of the tools to ensure a Jewish majority in Israel, which is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Our goal is for there to be a Jewish majority,” Lapid tweeted shortly before the law lapsed in early July. [0]
Yes — discussing the actual motivations for the law, as provided to us by Israeli politicians and previous Supreme Court decisions, is a good and valid starting point for discussion. Claiming that the law is bad simply because it disproportionally affects some subset of the Israeli population, is not. The argument I was addressing in this particular subthread is the latter, not the former.
Unfortunately politicians don't always tell you their true motivations.
These days I live in the Southeastern US. Since 2020 was a census year, states have been redrawing their electoral maps. Several states have made changes that reduce the voting power of non-white voters. If politicians say this had nothing to do with race does that make it true? Even if it is true that they didn't consider race at all in the decision making process, does that make it acceptable when the end result impacts people in a noticeable way based on their race?
> this is about Arab or Christian Israeli citizens
This is incorrect. There is no distinction in the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis. The law applies equally to Israeli Jews who wish to marry a resident of the WB/Gaza, or one of the other countries mentioned in the law.
Are you trying to say that there's something inherent to the Jewish population that they're less likely to marry a non-Jewish person than a Muslim is to marry a non-Muslim?
No. They're saying that a Jewish Israeli citizen is less likely to marry a Palestinian than a Muslim Israeli citizen. And given public statements from the lawmakers advocating for this law, they agree.
An arab israeli is very likely to marry an arab from Palestine. I'm guessing a number close to zero Israeli Jews are looking to marry an arab from Palestine (religion, hate, etc).
I am not sure, where you draw that conclusion from, but yes that would be correct.
Because the jewish religious law (which many jews have to follow to peer pressure, even if they are not religious by themself) explicitely forbids marrying non jews and no one can convert to the jewish religion.
Muslims on the other hand can marry non muslims, but are supposed to convert them. So this is indeed way more comon.
Ok, it seems I have been wrong about this as a general statement and liberal (or even most?) jew movements indeed consider it possible.
Last time I checked - it seems I read a viewpoint from a rather orthodox rabbi (but his article was the first one, that showed up in google at that time, now I cannot find it anymore), which clearly stated, this is not possible at all, with no exception.
The only way, would be to recognized as a "lost jew", meaning being of jewish origin, who lost connection to the tribe (even some generations ago). And the recognition would need years of devotion.
Maybe that is the case with some small, insular sects of Orthodox Jews? Some of the groups among those often referred to as the "Ultra Orthodox" - I don't know.
It is not aligned with the vast majority of Jewish views about conversion to Judaism.
In general, conversion is possible. As far as I can tell there are even clearly-enough defined requirements.
Jews are not supposed to treat converts any differently than non-converts. People being people, this doesn't always happen, but that is the reasonable principle.
Given that Jews for centuries have not proselytized to non-Jews, many believe you cannot convert to Judaism. You can.
I really cannot find that article anymore, but yes, it seems it must have come from an ultra ultra orthodox section and who knows why it ranked number 1 on google at that time (some years ago), fooling me. Because apparently yes, you absolutely can convert to judaism. It just isn't easy, like it is with other religions.
It would be interesting to see the ration between the Arab Israelis wishing to marry an Arab from WB/Gaza and Jewish Israelis wishing to marry a Jewish from WB/Gaza. Laws make sense in a context of a society.
There is a fundamental difference between a law that prohibits a specific ethnicity from doing X, and a law that prohibits everyone from doing X, but a specific ethnicity/minority is more affected by it than others. The former is pretty much never legitimate, while the latter is often unavoidable, and I imagine exists to some extent in any country with minorities.
This law very explicitly discriminates against non-Jewish Palestinians (and Lebanese and a few others). It also disproportionately affects Israeli Arabs and others who are much more likely than Israeli Jews to have spouses who would be discriminated against by this law.
> The law applies equally to Israeli Jews who wish to marry a resident of the WB/Gaza
There is no problem for Israeli Jew to marry a resident of WB/Gaza who is also Israeli Jew. This happens all the time (except Gaza, no Israeli Jews live there).
Concept of Israeli Jew marrying a non-Jew (no matter the residency) doesn't exist in Israeli law.
The state may (but not obliged to) recognize the marriage registered abroad.
For non-Muslim non-Israeli spouses of Israeli Jews there is a 5+ year naturalization procedure where outcome is not guaranteed and every half a year one has to recount all the spots and birthmarks of significant other in front of state official to prove the marriage is not a fake.
This specific law is for Muslim non-Israeli spouses. Instead of 5+ year procedure it's just a firm "No".
Israel has neither an authoritarian nor a semi-authoritarian regime. From your analogy I think you are misunderstanding NSO and its relation to the Israeli government. NSO is not a civilian cover for government operations. It’s an Israeli arms manufacturer. Its foreign sales require approval by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and as such can be facilitated by the government based on diplomatic considerations. This is not unlike other arms manufacturers in the US or in western countries in general.
In my experience people who dislike subtitles are mostly native English speakers living in English-speaking countries, who are used to the fact that almost all the media they consume is produced in their native language, and so they’ve never developed the ability to read subtitles comfortably.
When the occasional rare case arises where they need to watch a foreign film/show, they find it straining to both read the subtitles and watch the film, and so they conclude that subtitles are bad or “not for them”. In practice this stems from lack of practice — the perceived conscious effort of having to read subtitles while watching a film disappears entirely after you have done it a few times with sufficient regularity, and becomes completely effortless, subconscious, and automatic. But this is a skill that needs to be developed. Saying that subtitles are bad because they distract from the film is like saying that riding a bicycle is bad because you fall all the time, when in reality you just haven’t learned to ride one.
Satellites in general aren’t maneuverable. The camera angle can be changed to point at, and capture, a region of interest when the satellite passes over it, but the satellite’s orbit is determined on insertion and doesn’t change on demand.
Satellites can be moved, for example to avoid a collision with another satellite or debris, or to semi-permanently change the orbit. They have some sort of propulsion to allow this, and also counter atmospheric drag etc.
However, the lifetime of the satellite is generally limited by the amount of propellant (or whatever), after it's run out the satellite is useless. So it's not done on a whim.
They have a very limited amount of hydrazine, used for small course corrections for drag compensation and debris avoidance. It's not used, nor can be used, to "change orbit" in the sense of redirecting the satellite to look at some specific location on demand, outside of the satellite's original orbit.
Parent post is correct. Raising and lowering the orbit is a matter of burning a reasonable amount of rather limited fuel. But making a left hand turn at 17.5 km/h is incredibly energy intensive.
Look at the SpaceX launch of DART. They needed a whole rocket to lift a tiny payload due to needing to turn roughly 45 degrees
GEO satellites never move. Only times they are moved out of its longitude is when they are decommissioned or relocated when absolutely necessary, which by the way takes months.
> ... when the satellite passes over it ...
GEO satellites don't "pass over" anything by definition. They permanently float in the air 35786km above a designated spot along equator(complicated). So GP is clearly not talking about GEO satellites.
HIV transmission is partially related to attributes that are correlated with sexual orientation, the most prominent of which is the fact that the chance of transmission is much higher for anal sex than it is for vaginal sex.
From personal experience, anal sex is definitely not limited to sex between men. I'm going to guess that there are entire websites dedicated to that, and there are definitely sections of porn websites dedicated to it. Additionally, sex between men encompasses much more than anal sex.
Which all goes back to teh point: HIV transmission isn't related to sexual orientation, even if some sex acts are traditionally attributed to one specific sort of orientation.
I feel like you aren’t queer because this isn’t what we think about it.
I’m bi, and hiv is a big deal in the gay community. I know people who have it, we have clinics around dedicated to treating people with it. Straight people can do anal, straight people can get it otherwise, but this is hitting gay/bi men way harder. It’s okay to acknowledge that
The argument you are addressing is a strawman. Nobody claimed that anal sex is limited only to sex between men. Anal sex is, however, far more common in frequency among homosexual men than between heterosexual couples, and significantly increases the risk of HIV transmission compared to vaginal sex, therefore it is a risk factor that is strongly correlated with sexual orientation.
