NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 08 2024 15:16 Velr wrote: Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take. It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome.
Yes and no. The plan was to transition to mostly renewables for electricity, with natural gas as a backup for slow days. Which would be great in terms of low emissions but of course came with the calamity of being dependent on (Russian, now LNG) imports.
I am very close to blaming German environmentalists for this war. If Germany had not phased out nuclear, Russia would have a much harder time still selling gas to pay off their troops.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Blaming them for the war is two steps too far. Phasing out of nuclear was and is a mistake though. I'm all for building 3-4 new and efficient nuclear plants as backup for renewables. That way people could be sure energy prices would be stable and could remodel their homes to use efficient electric heating systems
On October 08 2024 06:31 Gorsameth wrote: ... Renewable are not in a position to take over the full energy needs, even if the government would fully set their sights on it. Solar/Wind is bad at covering drops in productivity (from lack of wind/sun) and in covering peaks in consumption. While coal/gas/nuclear is much more scalable as energy demand fluctuates during a normal day. And battery tech is no where near being ready to cover the shortfall.
Even with the best of intentions we aren't moving away from fossil fuels. But yes we could, and should, be doing more.
A few suggestions I have seen for fixing the intermittent solution without batteries include: Tidal wave / normal wave power generation. Water pumps (pump to high spot during peak power generation, run a water plant during low periods). Sun mirror instead of solar cell plants. Basically melt salt or a similar mineral so it can keep running during night.
All three are being pursued by different countries.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, please look aside if this comment is moot.
> Tidal wave / normal wave power generation.
It's a dangerous misconception to think tidal waves are renewable. They aren't and would be catastrophic to harvest their energy. See this knowledgeable prof. discuss the question: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/pdf/tide.pdf
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
On October 08 2024 06:31 Gorsameth wrote: ... Renewable are not in a position to take over the full energy needs, even if the government would fully set their sights on it. Solar/Wind is bad at covering drops in productivity (from lack of wind/sun) and in covering peaks in consumption. While coal/gas/nuclear is much more scalable as energy demand fluctuates during a normal day. And battery tech is no where near being ready to cover the shortfall.
Even with the best of intentions we aren't moving away from fossil fuels. But yes we could, and should, be doing more.
A few suggestions I have seen for fixing the intermittent solution without batteries include: Tidal wave / normal wave power generation. Water pumps (pump to high spot during peak power generation, run a water plant during low periods). Sun mirror instead of solar cell plants. Basically melt salt or a similar mineral so it can keep running during night.
All three are being pursued by different countries.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, please look aside if this comment is moot.
> Tidal wave / normal wave power generation.
It's a dangerous misconception to think tidal waves are renewable. They aren't and would be catastrophic to harvest their energy. See this knowledgeable prof. discuss the question: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/pdf/tide.pdf
hm... yeah.. dunno. That seems really farfetched. There is a lot of stuff that we do right now that will kill us a lot sooner than 1000+ years anyway
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
Need somebody to pilot the drones.
My flippant joke about Russia using gamers to pilot the drone was more on the money than expected.
On October 08 2024 06:31 Gorsameth wrote: ... Renewable are not in a position to take over the full energy needs, even if the government would fully set their sights on it. Solar/Wind is bad at covering drops in productivity (from lack of wind/sun) and in covering peaks in consumption. While coal/gas/nuclear is much more scalable as energy demand fluctuates during a normal day. And battery tech is no where near being ready to cover the shortfall.
Even with the best of intentions we aren't moving away from fossil fuels. But yes we could, and should, be doing more.
A few suggestions I have seen for fixing the intermittent solution without batteries include: Tidal wave / normal wave power generation. Water pumps (pump to high spot during peak power generation, run a water plant during low periods). Sun mirror instead of solar cell plants. Basically melt salt or a similar mineral so it can keep running during night.
All three are being pursued by different countries.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, please look aside if this comment is moot.
> Tidal wave / normal wave power generation.
It's a dangerous misconception to think tidal waves are renewable. They aren't and would be catastrophic to harvest their energy. See this knowledgeable prof. discuss the question: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/pdf/tide.pdf
That "knowledgeable" professor misunderstood entirely what is going on there. Right now, the tidal "energy" is already being "used". But instead of powering a turbine, the water just moves back and forth over the surface of the earth. Tidal generators have plenty of downsides, but accelerating tidal locking the earth to the moon is not one. The only thing he seems right about is that (1) tidal locking is happening, and (2) it'll be quite disastrous. Luckily the timescale is billions of years, and the death of the sun is a considerably more urgent issue!
I'm not a physicist and I've not checked any of their math but it just doesn't sound true.
Yes, on the face of it we can describe high energy and low energy use tides. I think it's easier if we imagine it not as the spinning of The Earth but rather as a pendulum. You can have a pendulum with extremely stable and consistent motion if you were to set it moving in a vacuum case using low friction bearings of some kind. It would preserve its energy for a very long time. Or you could have one with a dynamo attached to produce electricity but the extraction of the electricity would steal energy from the pendulum causing it to stop much more quickly.
Similarly an entirely ocean planet would be lower energy use each tide, the collapse of the bulge on either side of the planet would assist the creation of the bulge facing the moon, the water would rock back and forth but there would be lower resistance. Whereas if you were to throw a continent like the Americas into the mix then suddenly the tide collapsing following the moon is washing up against the shores while the new tide forming on the other side of the continent is getting no assist. More energy would be getting pulled out of the spin each day as the continents act as a brake.
So yes, on the face of it you can extract energy but by doing so you'd be acting as a brake. The theory is sound.
The problem to me is scale. The amount of water moved each day is gargantuan. Inconceivable amounts of energy. And the timescale for which this has been happening is just as inconceivable, billions of years. And there are already huge natural brakes such as continents that have been around for billions of years (albeit not in their present shape). The reason that The Earth still has so much stored energy in its spin is because the forces that set it spinning so quickly were, quite literally, astronomical. Enough that it melted The Earth.
If humans were to extract all of that energy in a thousand years then we'd need to somehow use millions of times more energy than all the energy currently used to lift all the water. Amounts of energy that would melt the earth again. The Earth is very big, very heavy, and spinning very fast (1000 mph at the equator). Slowing it down is not going to be easy.
Again, I haven't checked the math. But it intuitively feels like The Earth is pretty big and that if brakes were going to slow it down quickly then the last few billion years of braking would have stopped it by now. I also don't love that he misspelled the word Earth. That didn't fill me with confidence.
On October 10 2024 01:22 KwarK wrote: I'm not a physicist and I've not checked any of their math but it just doesn't sound true.
Yes, on the face of it we can describe high energy and low energy use tides. I think it's easier if we imagine it not as the spinning of The Earth but rather as a pendulum. You can have a pendulum with extremely stable and consistent motion if you were to set it moving in a vacuum case using low friction bearings of some kind. It would preserve its energy for a very long time. Or you could have one with a dynamo attached to produce electricity but the extraction of the electricity would steal energy from the pendulum causing it to stop much more quickly.
Similarly an entirely ocean planet would be lower energy use each tide, the collapse of the bulge on either side of the planet would assist the creation of the bulge facing the moon, the water would rock back and forth but there would be lower resistance. Whereas if you were to throw a continent like the Americas into the mix then suddenly the tide collapsing following the moon is washing up against the shores while the new tide forming on the other side of the continent is getting no assist. More energy would be getting pulled out of the spin each day as the continents act as a brake.
So yes, on the face of it you can extract energy but by doing so you'd be acting as a brake. The theory is sound.
The problem to me is scale. The amount of water moved each day is gargantuan. Inconceivable amounts of energy. And the timescale for which this has been happening is just as inconceivable, billions of years. And there are already huge natural brakes such as continents that have been around for billions of years (albeit not in their present shape). The reason that The Earth still has so much stored energy in its spin is because the forces that set it spinning so quickly were, quite literally, astronomical. Enough that it melted The Earth.
If humans were to extract all of that energy in a thousand years then we'd need to somehow use millions of times more energy than all the energy currently used to lift all the water. Amounts of energy that would melt the earth again. The Earth is very big, very heavy, and spinning very fast (1000 mph at the equator). Slowing it down is not going to be easy.
Again, I haven't checked the math. But it intuitively feels like The Earth is pretty big and that if brakes were going to slow it down quickly then the last few billion years of braking would have stopped it by now. I also don't love that he misspelled the word Earth. That didn't fill me with confidence.
This is wildly off topic but the research in question assumed a constant 2% increase in energy consumption year over year (which is an average of the last decade orso) in 1000 years that would mean the world energy consumption would be about 400 million times more then today. At that point I can see it having a significant impact. But I think we're running into a lot of other issues by the time we consume 400.000.000 times more power per year on this little blue (probably not by then) ball of dirt.
without a compounding 2% increase it would take millions of years.
An example is the calculation of the rotational kinetic energy of the Earth. As the Earth has a sidereal rotation period of 23.93 hours, it has an angular velocity of 7.29×10^−5 rad·s−1.[2] The Earth has a moment of inertia, I = 8.04×1037 kg·m2.[3] Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.14×10^29 J.
For reference humanity used around 6.2*10^18J in 2023. There's so many orders of magnitude difference that it doesn't matter except for the case in the paper where we grow exponentially for a thousand years.
Back on topic though, keeping Nuclear online for an extra 2-3 years in Germany would've made a pretty big difference. It fills a huge gap in generation capacity and would've kept energy prices (especially gas prices) lower. There's a lot of processes where you can use electricity for initial preheat - ex: https://www.siemens-energy.com/us/en/home/products-services/product-offerings/heat-pumps.html - but you need gas to get higher temperatures.
What's done is done though, larger interconnected grids and renewables/storage is pretty clearly the path forward with how prices are scaling downwards. Nuclear would make sense if you're like France and never stopped building nuclear, but it is incredibly hard to regain the expertise if you go decades without building a plant.
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
Need somebody to pilot the drones.
My flippant joke about Russia using gamers to pilot the drone was more on the money than expected.
Omg. I admit I didn't think that much of it other than "That's stupid" when I shared the original link. But this is actually much more hilariously dumb than I thought. Completely on brand for Russia, whos consistently incapable of thinking in terms of consequences.
You just further alienated 40 million of your youth, and fucked up another avenue of communication for your own military. Well done
On October 10 2024 01:22 KwarK wrote: I'm not a physicist and I've not checked any of their math but it just doesn't sound true.
Yes, on the face of it we can describe high energy and low energy use tides. I think it's easier if we imagine it not as the spinning of The Earth but rather as a pendulum. You can have a pendulum with extremely stable and consistent motion if you were to set it moving in a vacuum case using low friction bearings of some kind. It would preserve its energy for a very long time. Or you could have one with a dynamo attached to produce electricity but the extraction of the electricity would steal energy from the pendulum causing it to stop much more quickly.
Similarly an entirely ocean planet would be lower energy use each tide, the collapse of the bulge on either side of the planet would assist the creation of the bulge facing the moon, the water would rock back and forth but there would be lower resistance. Whereas if you were to throw a continent like the Americas into the mix then suddenly the tide collapsing following the moon is washing up against the shores while the new tide forming on the other side of the continent is getting no assist. More energy would be getting pulled out of the spin each day as the continents act as a brake.
So yes, on the face of it you can extract energy but by doing so you'd be acting as a brake. The theory is sound.
The problem to me is scale. The amount of water moved each day is gargantuan. Inconceivable amounts of energy. And the timescale for which this has been happening is just as inconceivable, billions of years. And there are already huge natural brakes such as continents that have been around for billions of years (albeit not in their present shape). The reason that The Earth still has so much stored energy in its spin is because the forces that set it spinning so quickly were, quite literally, astronomical. Enough that it melted The Earth.
If humans were to extract all of that energy in a thousand years then we'd need to somehow use millions of times more energy than all the energy currently used to lift all the water. Amounts of energy that would melt the earth again. The Earth is very big, very heavy, and spinning very fast (1000 mph at the equator). Slowing it down is not going to be easy.
Again, I haven't checked the math. But it intuitively feels like The Earth is pretty big and that if brakes were going to slow it down quickly then the last few billion years of braking would have stopped it by now. I also don't love that he misspelled the word Earth. That didn't fill me with confidence.
This is wildly off topic but the research in question assumed a constant 2% increase in energy consumption year over year (which is an average of the last decade orso) in 1000 years that would mean the world energy consumption would be about 400 million times more then today. At that point I can see it having a significant impact. But I think we're running into a lot of other issues by the time we consume 400.000.000 times more power per year on this little blue (probably not by then) ball of dirt.
without a compounding 2% increase it would take millions of years.
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
Need somebody to pilot the drones.
My flippant joke about Russia using gamers to pilot the drone was more on the money than expected.
Omg. I admit I didn't think that much of it other than "That's stupid" when I shared the original link. But this is actually much more hilariously dumb than I thought. Completely on brand for Russia, whos consistently incapable of thinking in terms of consequences.
You just further alienated 40 million of your youth, and fucked up another avenue of communication for your own military. Well done
Normally, blocking Discord would be exactly the same as Brazil blocking Twitter: you accept that some part of the population is inconvenienced in order to get the platform to comply with local laws. Whether those local laws are just is a separate discussion. What makes it dumb is if discord is used for military purposes. That is dumb in and of itself (on par with the use of other unsecured channels that the Russians have been using another war begun), but it's even dumber to then just shut that down with no warning nor alternative.
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
Need somebody to pilot the drones.
My flippant joke about Russia using gamers to pilot the drone was more on the money than expected.
Omg. I admit I didn't think that much of it other than "That's stupid" when I shared the original link. But this is actually much more hilariously dumb than I thought. Completely on brand for Russia, whos consistently incapable of thinking in terms of consequences.
You just further alienated 40 million of your youth, and fucked up another avenue of communication for your own military. Well done
Normally, blocking Discord would be exactly the same as Brazil blocking Twitter: you accept that some part of the population is inconvenienced in order to get the platform to comply with local laws. Whether those local laws are just is a separate discussion. What makes it dumb is if discord is used for military purposes. That is dumb in and of itself (on par with the use of other unsecured channels that the Russians have been using another war begun), but it's even dumber to then just shut that down with no warning nor alternative.
Because it's used unofficially by local commanders, or do you think Russian military would allow for some foreign gaming messenger to be an official communication tool? Discord is best at giving stable and quality videofeed and, supposedly, quite secure, which allowed for huge UAV HQ to operate (unlike some people using WhatsApp on the frontline, and being blown up by UA drones and arty within minutes). And since it's used unofficially, and few people actually knew about it outside of those who used it, Roskomnadzor didn't have any problem closing it down. Even if higher-ups in Ministry of Defence knew that their local subordinates are using Discord, I doubt they could widely announce it, plus Roskomnadzor is a civil government body and doesn't particularly keep in touch with MoD. Also I don't think that there is even that much of an evil incenitive to "suppress the flow of evil Western information to millions of people". Older people (who are in charge everywhere) in general didn't even heard of Discord, and those who did, only knew it as some nerd gaming tool. So I believe in two possible reasons for blocking: 1) simple bureraucracy, since Roskomnadzor is supposed to block illegal content if they recieve a formal complaint, and some people send such complaints by hundreds. And considering what I said above about perception of Discord, they just didn't give it a second thought. 2) unfair competition from VK, who are making the similar functions for their VK Messenger. VK is currently at huge loss and since it's owned by Gazprom (in majority shares through other companies) and its CEO is a son of Sergey Kirienko, who is a first deputy of Presidential administration, they have quite an administrative resource at hand.
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
Need somebody to pilot the drones.
My flippant joke about Russia using gamers to pilot the drone was more on the money than expected.
Omg. I admit I didn't think that much of it other than "That's stupid" when I shared the original link. But this is actually much more hilariously dumb than I thought. Completely on brand for Russia, whos consistently incapable of thinking in terms of consequences.
You just further alienated 40 million of your youth, and fucked up another avenue of communication for your own military. Well done
Normally, blocking Discord would be exactly the same as Brazil blocking Twitter: you accept that some part of the population is inconvenienced in order to get the platform to comply with local laws. Whether those local laws are just is a separate discussion. What makes it dumb is if discord is used for military purposes. That is dumb in and of itself (on par with the use of other unsecured channels that the Russians have been using another war begun), but it's even dumber to then just shut that down with no warning nor alternative.
Because it's used unofficially by local commanders, or do you think Russian military would allow for some foreign gaming messenger to be an official communication tool? Discord is best at giving stable and quality videofeed and, supposedly, quite secure, which allowed for huge UAV HQ to operate (unlike some people using WhatsApp on the frontline, and being blown up by UA drones and arty within minutes). And since it's used unofficially, and few people actually knew about it outside of those who used it, Roskomnadzor didn't have any problem closing it down. Even if higher-ups in Ministry of Defence knew that their local subordinates are using Discord, I doubt they could widely announce it, plus Roskomnadzor is a civil government body and doesn't particularly keep in touch with MoD. Also I don't think that there is even that much of an evil incenitive to "suppress the flow of evil Western information to millions of people". Older people (who are in charge everywhere) in general didn't even heard of Discord, and those who did, only knew it as some nerd gaming tool. So I believe in two possible reasons for blocking: 1) simple bureraucracy, since Roskomnadzor is supposed to block illegal content if they recieve a formal complaint, and some people send such complaints by hundreds. And considering what I said above about perception of Discord, they just didn't give it a second thought. 2) unfair competition from VK, who are making the similar functions for their VK Messenger. VK is currently at huge loss and since it's owned by Gazprom (in majority shares through other companies) and its CEO is a son of Sergey Kirienko, who is a first deputy of Presidential administration, they have quite an administrative resource at hand.
Good to know the more in-depth reasoning. I think we agree on the key points that (1) it was dumb to use unsecured communication for military purposes. I know discord does really well with video chat, I use it myself, but to play games, not control military drones I'm not entirely sure how an enemy could use this info, but I'm sure military strategists have better ideas about that than I do. At the very least, watching along would allow them to understand the things the drone operators look for, and hide telltale signs of their targets better.
(2) shutting down a communication platform without some interagency communication is dumb. You explained why this probably happened, but that doesn't excuse it. It means the government is very siloed off into independent departments with insufficient communication among them.
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
Need somebody to pilot the drones.
My flippant joke about Russia using gamers to pilot the drone was more on the money than expected.
Omg. I admit I didn't think that much of it other than "That's stupid" when I shared the original link. But this is actually much more hilariously dumb than I thought. Completely on brand for Russia, whos consistently incapable of thinking in terms of consequences.
You just further alienated 40 million of your youth, and fucked up another avenue of communication for your own military. Well done
Normally, blocking Discord would be exactly the same as Brazil blocking Twitter: you accept that some part of the population is inconvenienced in order to get the platform to comply with local laws. Whether those local laws are just is a separate discussion. What makes it dumb is if discord is used for military purposes. That is dumb in and of itself (on par with the use of other unsecured channels that the Russians have been using another war begun), but it's even dumber to then just shut that down with no warning nor alternative.
Because it's used unofficially by local commanders, or do you think Russian military would allow for some foreign gaming messenger to be an official communication tool? Discord is best at giving stable and quality videofeed and, supposedly, quite secure, which allowed for huge UAV HQ to operate (unlike some people using WhatsApp on the frontline, and being blown up by UA drones and arty within minutes). And since it's used unofficially, and few people actually knew about it outside of those who used it, Roskomnadzor didn't have any problem closing it down. Even if higher-ups in Ministry of Defence knew that their local subordinates are using Discord, I doubt they could widely announce it, plus Roskomnadzor is a civil government body and doesn't particularly keep in touch with MoD. Also I don't think that there is even that much of an evil incenitive to "suppress the flow of evil Western information to millions of people". Older people (who are in charge everywhere) in general didn't even heard of Discord, and those who did, only knew it as some nerd gaming tool. So I believe in two possible reasons for blocking: 1) simple bureraucracy, since Roskomnadzor is supposed to block illegal content if they recieve a formal complaint, and some people send such complaints by hundreds. And considering what I said above about perception of Discord, they just didn't give it a second thought. 2) unfair competition from VK, who are making the similar functions for their VK Messenger. VK is currently at huge loss and since it's owned by Gazprom (in majority shares through other companies) and its CEO is a son of Sergey Kirienko, who is a first deputy of Presidential administration, they have quite an administrative resource at hand.
This makes sense. I am reading though that now Steam is also supposed to be banned. Or at least partially? I don't see the connection to usage in field there. This seems much more like a censorship effort.
On October 09 2024 05:45 ZeroByte13 wrote: As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
Need somebody to pilot the drones.
My flippant joke about Russia using gamers to pilot the drone was more on the money than expected.
Omg. I admit I didn't think that much of it other than "That's stupid" when I shared the original link. But this is actually much more hilariously dumb than I thought. Completely on brand for Russia, whos consistently incapable of thinking in terms of consequences.
You just further alienated 40 million of your youth, and fucked up another avenue of communication for your own military. Well done
Normally, blocking Discord would be exactly the same as Brazil blocking Twitter: you accept that some part of the population is inconvenienced in order to get the platform to comply with local laws. Whether those local laws are just is a separate discussion. What makes it dumb is if discord is used for military purposes. That is dumb in and of itself (on par with the use of other unsecured channels that the Russians have been using another war begun), but it's even dumber to then just shut that down with no warning nor alternative.
Because it's used unofficially by local commanders, or do you think Russian military would allow for some foreign gaming messenger to be an official communication tool? Discord is best at giving stable and quality videofeed and, supposedly, quite secure, which allowed for huge UAV HQ to operate (unlike some people using WhatsApp on the frontline, and being blown up by UA drones and arty within minutes). And since it's used unofficially, and few people actually knew about it outside of those who used it, Roskomnadzor didn't have any problem closing it down. Even if higher-ups in Ministry of Defence knew that their local subordinates are using Discord, I doubt they could widely announce it, plus Roskomnadzor is a civil government body and doesn't particularly keep in touch with MoD. Also I don't think that there is even that much of an evil incenitive to "suppress the flow of evil Western information to millions of people". Older people (who are in charge everywhere) in general didn't even heard of Discord, and those who did, only knew it as some nerd gaming tool. So I believe in two possible reasons for blocking: 1) simple bureraucracy, since Roskomnadzor is supposed to block illegal content if they recieve a formal complaint, and some people send such complaints by hundreds. And considering what I said above about perception of Discord, they just didn't give it a second thought. 2) unfair competition from VK, who are making the similar functions for their VK Messenger. VK is currently at huge loss and since it's owned by Gazprom (in majority shares through other companies) and its CEO is a son of Sergey Kirienko, who is a first deputy of Presidential administration, they have quite an administrative resource at hand.
This makes sense. I am reading though that now Steam is also supposed to be banned. Or at least partially? I don't see the connection to usage in field there. This seems much more like a censorship effort.
That would be great! I would make playing CS2 and other games much more tolerable without beeing called cyka blyat and other things every two minutes :D
You'd think they cannot get any more depraved but Russians will always find a way to express their sadism. I'm sure our local fascists will find countless excuses. Assuming there are still some who haven't been banned.
On May 23 2024 07:58 KwarK wrote: The Russian glide bombs have been a game changer in terms of heavy bombardment. They’re much more powerful than regular HE shells and are lobbed high up and far behind lines by Russian planes that aren’t meaningfully exposed to Ukrainian anti air. There’s no counterbattery fire etc., there’s nothing Ukrainians can do but spread out and dig deeper bunkers. One side can leverage air power and the other can’t.
F16s will hopefully redress the balance by giving a much larger air denial range.
I'm honestly quite impressed. If true, it's something I didn't expect to happen for another 6mo-1y. It's probably quite a high risk operation to do it, similar to the patriot ambushes.
Here's to more shootouts and the first Ace since Vietnam.
EPT
I'm not entirely sure how an enemy could use this info, but I'm sure military strategists have better ideas about that than I do. At the very least, watching along would allow them to understand the things the drone operators look for, and hide telltale signs of their targets better.
