Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

heise.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 585 posts

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#481

Post by breppp »

immibis wrote: post #451
breppp wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, people are very persistent about this specific incidence. If I understand correctly this is a family that drove around tanks and were shot as something that unfortunately happens around live active war zones. Your depiction of "precise aerial bombing" is wrong Let's say for the sake of argument the tank crew did not shoot due to fog of war but did out of malice, what would that prove except a single cri…

They were hit by a precision guided missile not a tank. Because it was precision guided, it hit exactly where it was aimed. Which happened to be the exact coordinates Israel was told there would be medics saving a little girl.

You should read the story again, there is only a mention of a tank, so I think you are wrong

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#482

Post by illiac786 »

alwa wrote: post #427
illiac786 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that sarcastic? Isn’t underestimating by definition a bad thing?

Taking this as an earnest question—no, I don’t get that sense from that word. To me it describes the direction of an error, not the error itself. It’s a thing you’d prefer to avoid , sure; but some degree of prognostic uncertainty is totally routine (in fact I would call that definitional: no predictions are truly certain until they’ve come to pass, and by the time that happens it’s usually too late to act). It’s not…

No I get what the GP meant. Your comment sounded like a triviality from Lapalisse a bit, because I cannot think of any occurrence where underestimating something is a good thing. Bit like “15 min before my death I will be alive”. But Lapalisse too didn’t mean it literally, he just wanted it to sound like that, it seems it’s what you did.

Much better than sarcasm then =)

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#483

Post by mk89 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #436
SiempreViernes wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships. Note that this calculus only makes sense if you invade China while they are busy with the EUV machines, otherwise they catch up technologically and then build all the scary military. Of course, the the calculus doesn't make sense at all, because the obvious order when you can…

> the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race Literally zero actual wars with a technological component have progressed like this. (The first tradeoff to be made is the one Russia is making: sacrificing consumption for military production and research. Guns and butter.)

That's not true. Mass/quantity can still resist/delay/push back until you're exhausted and done.

We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles. Still, all it takes is 1 dumb missile to pass through the defenses and an entire city can be wiped off. At the end of the day, they don't care if a missiles didn't reach the precise target. As you can see in Ukraine, Russia is bombing all types of buildings, they don't give a damn about schools, kindergarten or so.

The tech component is not everything.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#484

Post by adrian_b »

KK7NIL wrote: post #457
immibis wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being behind doesn't mean they're permanently stuck where they are today - but aren't our processes running into the wall of soon trying to make transistors smaller than an atom?

> Being behind doesn't mean they're permanently stuck where they are today Without EUV, they very much are. > but aren't our processes running into the wall of soon trying to make transistors smaller than an atom? No, the finest pitches are still in the low double digit nanometers in 2 nm processes. The "2 nm" nomenclature hasn't denoted a physical dimension for decades.

One should remember that EUV is necessary only for obtaining profit from the mass production of integrated circuits.

For making a limited quantity of chips, for research purposes or for some special applications where the price is irrelevant, there would be no problem for China to make today ICs with e.g. a 2-nm CMOS process, by using electron-beam lithography. (Obviously, for developing a 2-nm process many other problems must be solved first, but lithography is not a roadblock, so the process can be developed before having EUV lithography, because test wafers can be made with e-beam lithography.)

Moreover, they have enough money and people to ensure that an alternative EUV technology will be developed, eventually. I might take them 5 to 10 years, but not more than that.

The attempts to sabotage China should have been started more than a decade earlier in order to have chances of success. Now it is too late and the cleverer way would have been to try to accelerate progress in USA, instead of trying to hinder progress in China, by using means that have totally discredited USA as a product supplier all over the world (i.e. by using the dubious legal theory that USA can dictate what to do to the owners of products that include components "made or designed in USA").

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#485

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mk89 wrote: post #483
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race Literally zero actual wars with a technological component have progressed like this. (The first tradeoff to be made is the one Russia is making: sacrificing consumption for military production and research. Guns and butter.)

That's not true. Mass/quantity can still resist/delay/push back until you're exhausted and done. We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles. Still, all it takes is 1 dumb missile to pass through the defenses and an entire city can be wiped off. At the end of the day, they don't care if a missiles didn't reach the precise target. As you…

> We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles

These are still hypotheticals. Every war since the Civil War has had a decisive technological component. If the model doesn't apply there, this time probably ain't different.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#486

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Yoric wrote: post #432
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting. With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)

I could be wrong, but I don't think that nuclear warheads have such a long shelf life.

> I don't think that nuclear warheads have such a long shelf life

We literally don't know. A large part of stockpile stewardship programmes at the Sandia national labs is aimed at answering this question.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#487

Post by SiempreViernes »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #439
SiempreViernes wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right stealing nukes you cannot immediately operate as a 0-year old nation, to me it doesn't seems like an incredibly bright idea in a world where the existing nuclear states doesn't want anyone else to get nukes too. And in any case it's was not simply removing the safety devices on the weapons, you need to be able to target the ICBMs at Russia, which Ukraine could not do: > In fact, the presence of strategic nuclea…

> stealing nukes you cannot immediately operate as a 0-year old nation Agreed. But nobody was invading Ukraine in 1994. The weapons were seen as a security liability. In reality, they were bargaining chips. > to me it doesn't seems like an incredibly bright idea in a world where the existing nuclear states doesn't want anyone else to get nukes too To be clear, Kyiv made the right decision given what they knew in 1994…

The US and Russia would have done a joint invasion under UN flag if Ukraine tried to steal the nukes dude, it's downright embarrassing to pretend that's the sort of thing you can do unpunished.

And doing that for some design info is really not worth the risk: just recruit some soviet weapons designers, for sure there are Ukrainians in that project already.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#488

Post by thfuran »

illiac786 wrote: post #323
op00to wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Underestimating China seems like a really, really, really stupid thing to do.

Is that sarcastic? Isn’t underestimating by definition a bad thing?

It's definitionally non-ideal, but not definitionally really, really stupid.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#489

Post by mk89 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #485
mk89 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Mass/quantity can still resist/delay/push back until you're exhausted and done. We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles. Still, all it takes is 1 dumb missile to pass through the defenses and an entire city can be wiped off. At the end of the day, they don't care if a missiles didn't reach the precise target. As you…

> We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles These are still hypotheticals. Every war since the Civil War has had a decisive technological component. If the model doesn't apply there, this time probably ain't different.

Like the Vietnam War? Or the wars in Afghanistan...?

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#490

Post by brabel »

wat10000 wrote: post #364
brabel wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of what you said but there’s zero possibility Russia will take over all of Ukraine. Even Putin never claimed they would, this seems like a fantasy some people like to propagate to instigate fear in Europe or something. They spent three years on a gruesome fight to take less than a fifth of the territory and the rest is much harder as the further West you go, the more nationalist Ukrainians are. Chec…

I don't think it's likely, but I do think it's possible. If the US and EU get tired of helping Ukraine, they'll have a much harder time resisting Russian attacks. Once they do, why would Russia stop? Maybe they would. Maybe they'd pause, declare peace, and take the rest a year or three later. Maybe they'd just keep going. Putin saying he doesn't want it doesn't convince me in the slightest. He's a Soviet Union revanc…

Russia would still stop because controlling the rest of Ukraine would be more trouble than it is worth for them. And they might gain some concessions from the West. Attacking NATO is a common talk point in the West about what happens after Russia takes over Ukraine and Zelenskyy is more than happy to suggest that is to be expected as he says they are fighting for all of Europe.
Post reply on HN