Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | miketery's commentslogin

Why nationalism? A flag can represent more than a nation. Can be blinded by any "flag" / ideology.


I went back to England last year and couldn't believe how many flags there were, I was shocked and not in a good way

Every criticism levelled at the St. George's Cross can be levelled at the Union Jack. It is time people in England had a healthier relationship with their flag, more like Scotland and Wales, and less like Northern Ireland.

Yes, that's true, if you completely ignore the reality of how they're used in practice today

Every parish church in England (more or less) has flown the St. George's cross traditionally for as long as I can remember. There is nothing wrong with that. Conversely, Union Jacks are a major symbol of Loyalism and Orangeism in Ireland, and parts of Scotland, which is an extremely aggressive and "hands on" movement. Union Jacks can be seen in pictures of every far right movement going back a century or more.

The Union Jack is a symbol of empire and colonialism which the St. George's Cross isn't.

However, the football thing is more recent. If you watch "the Italian Job" from the 1960s, the England fans wave around Union Jacks instead of their own specific flag (as Scotland and Wales fans would). Clearly in the intervening years, England fans have discovered the England flag.

Scottish and Welsh people seem to be a lot more comfortable with their identity than English do. And that includes their flags. I have seen countless bits of research which suggest that ethnic minorities happily identify as Scottish and Welsh in Scotland and Wales, but in England, they identify as British rather than English. I suggest you read Billy Bragg's "the Progressive Patriot". He is an English socialist who has tried to reclaim English identity from the far right, which he is entitled to.


England has a unique position in the Union, and indeed much of the world, where it is seen as an historic and current oppressive force, and our attitude to flags has to acknowledge that context.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the Union Flag is a reminder that the UK countries are ultimately run by England, where there isn’t a true acknowledgement that the countries are culturally different, let alone able to rule themselves.

Within England the St George’s Cross has become a symbol of exceptionalism and superiority, not least because it is prominently flown on nationalist and supremacist marches. Since the Union Jack includes the other countries in the Union, use of St George is often seen as a snub to the other countries.

So England can’t win? No. Correctly so, IMO, because of history and context (I am English).


I do not consider myself English, but Scottish. I remember ?fifteen years ago defending the St. George's Cross from English people arguing against it. The irony!

We do occasionally get billboards with company X saying they support England, but other than that it isn't an issue in Scotland.

Like Billy Bragg says, there is a strong case for reclaiming the English flag from the far right.

The Union Jack in Scotland has a much more complex history, particularly in and around Glasgow where it is connected with extreme loyalism and Orangeism (which is where a lot of the Scottish Reform party vote will come from.) In Northern Ireland, it is hated by a large section of the population. In Wales and Scotland, some independence supporters hate the Union Jack too.

The Union Jack has a strong association with the far right and loyalism, not to mention imperialism and somehow gets a free pass.


The Union Flag is much more of a right-wing symbol in Scotland, as you say (I lived in Scotland for 10 years) but in England the GC is far more associated with nationalism and the right, while the Union Flag is a bit more VE Day, church fetes and Cool Britannia, and gives more of a “working together” vibe than that of oppression.

Much of that is due to schooling and media conditioning, of course, but the flags mean different things to different people.


In Scotland it varies by region. In the north east and the borders, it is more innocuous although contentious. In the Central Belt around Edinburgh and Glasgow it is often linked with working class loyalism, when it's not on a hotel or a government building.

St. George's Cross is football brawls and "England uber alles". Union Jack is stiff upper lip and kicking nazis out of Europe.

It was the flag of the British Empire with all that entails. It is to be found all over the loyalist areas of Northern Ireland and on Orange Marches. It has appeared in umpteen far right demos, and in fact if you look at 1970s far right footage you can see it is the flag they most commonly carry in the UK not the St. George's Cross.

Oh, and you'll find it at plenty of football matches, notably Glasgow Rangers, who fly it while singing songs about wanting to be "up to our knees in Fenian blood".


It's a monument style sculpture. The kind raised with public money. I think that carries part of the meaning with it versus graffiti or some other medium. It's also depicting the blinded walking off the edge, making the comment based on both the figure and the form of the statue.

The ambiguity is part of the charm. Something that reveals more about the beholders than the artist makes for stimulating conversation and discovery.

Even the new positioning of the art on a plinth in some open space is enigmatic. If it were a critique of the powers that be, why would officialdom collaborate in propping it up?


why indeed

Flags overwhelmingly represent nations, groups considering themselves nations, that were nations or have some kind of individual governmental status.

Nations != governments.

“Nations” as synonym for country started appearing only recently, in last two/three hundred years.

Flags have thousands of years of history.


They don't at all. Consider for example that every single city, county and local council in the UK has a flag. There are flags for the United Nations, the European Union, Esperanto, every major football team and most political movements including the CND and anarchism.

Flags also represent causes, or groups that don’t aspire to becoming a nation.

Interpretations, in my art?

Seriously, this is part of the fun of art. Neither of you are wrong for reading different messages into it.


Exactly.

Communists are blinded by the flag with the hammer and sickle.

Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag.

Examples abound, but wanna transgressor blanksy knows who butters his bread.


> Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag.

Interesting fact: the creator of the trans flag, Robert Hogge (later known as Monica Helms), used to steal his mother's underwear, then moved on to stealing random women's underwear for sexual reasons, and wrote fantasy fiction about a man marrying a child who doesn't age.


> Five years later, he declared himself a ‘transgender woman’ and lesbian. In his 2019 memoir More Than Just a Flag, Helms describes how his obsession with presenting as a woman led to the breakdown of his marriage to his wife, Donna, after she had discovered he was hiding away family finances to purchase estrogen, women’s clothing, and to pay to attend cross-dresser conferences.

https://reduxx.info/trans-pride-flag-creator-71-announces-ad...

“… and lesbian” aka a male who is attracted to females, aka straight.


Unsurprising!

For me, nothing has been more clarifying about the trans debate than learning about autogynophilia and realizing that most males who think they are trans are actually straight. Until recently, I had assumed they were mostly males attracted to other males, and I suspect most of the public still thinks that too.


> Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag

You're going to get a bunch of downvotes, but I'm also going to take the time to personally tell you how stupid this is as well.


I appreciate the extra time you invested to let me know.

So to return the favor, I’ll add a couple of sentences too.

A year ago I would never have made such a comment.

My understanding about the issues boiled down to approximately:

- queer theory is some sort of reasonably academic pursuit that has something to do with gay people

- trans is just gay rights 2.0; clearly anyone who has any concerns is a raging bigot

Neither was a core interest of mine, but they seemed reasonable enough. However, eventually, I started reading about the topic. (I’d recommend Trans by Helen Joyce) and now I feel differently.

I now think JK had it right all along – we all should (and do) have the basic human right to wear whatever we like, and to sleep with anyone who will have us. But what’s being demanded by activists and taught in schools goes far beyond that and involves real contradictions, real risks to children and zero sum trade-offs with hard fought sex specific rights for women.

These issues are things we could talk about so that we all come to a better understanding and make better decisions. But instead wide swathes of officialdom are “blinded by the flag” and have decided, as I once did, that anyone who has concerns is a raging bigot.


Noting that you use exclusively gender critical sources (and some very poor ones to add, like Littman's "study") while also having history of blaming "wokism", I seriously doubt you have given this subject a fair consideration.

Interesingly, so called "gender critical" movement is increasingly pivoting to other conservative or plainly reactionary talking points. For example, the book you are recommending makes a thinly veilded point that "promoters of trans ideology" are rich jewish men, key figure among them being George Soros.

Kishwer Falkner who was big proponent of trans people segregation during her EHRC leadership recently turned to anti abortion activism. And plenty of LGB sans TQ people I've talked to are big fans of "we are normal gays who limit our orientation to the bedroom" talking points while also leaning conservative or reactionary themselves.


> For example, the book you are recommending makes a thinly veilded point that "promoters of trans ideology" are rich jewish men, key figure among them being George Soros.

This is untrue. Please read the author's response to this false allegation: https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/a-wild-ride.


Classic “everyone who disagrees with me is secretly a bigot and a Nazi” energy here.

Nothing you’ve said actually addresses any arguments.

Can you actually give a refutation of Joyce’s arguments are you going just going to stick to ad hominem?


XState is awesome, made a complex decentralized key sharing scheme a breeze.


We used neon at last job. It seemed pretty cool. What made you switch to planetscale?


Planetscale has better performance and uptime. But the branching keeps me going back to neon…

Yes planetscale can branch too, but it takes longer and you pay individually for each branch


Xata is open-source now, maybe you can give it a try as an alternative to Neon.


Just because we can does not mean we should.

Here's how this will pan out.

- A number of "officials" (friends) will get cushy jobs for running this program.

- It will lose millions of tax dollars

- a small portion of the population will get cheaper produce for a photo op

- Mamdani and friends will call it a success

- But net, this will be net negative for the city (ie. tax dollars to crony jobs and subsidizing food for some).

Whats the point? The USSR has tried this (subsidized grocery stores centrally planned). Lets not.

If on the other hand, the issue was hey its expensive to bring produce XYZ, so why don't we work to reduce that cost by legalizing Kei [1] trucks and exempt from tolls. Now that would be something interesting.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_truck


> The USSR has tried this. Lets not.

The USSR tried lots of things we do successfully.

This is actually something governments have a proven ability to do, at least in some contexts, without becoming a corrupt boondoggle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Commissary_Agency


Yeah it was so successful that people would line up around the block for bananas the one time a year. Or when boots came into the store you'd pick up whatever size you could, as you'd trade later.

(true stories)


Again:

> The USSR has tried this. Lets not.

would rule out things like "going to the moon" or "building roads". It's a pretty useless rubric.

I am not doubting the USSR fucked all sorts of things up. I'm doubting that that inherently means those things must be impossible.


Updated - since my text was confusing. The subject at hand is subsidized grocery stores, the USSR is an example of failed centrally planned subsidized grocery stores.


The text isn't confusing; the conclusion you draw is just unsupported.

The USSR is an example of many failed things. That they failed at those things does not mean those things cannot be done.


If it wasn't confusing what made you bring up the space program and fixing roads?

I was offering a tangible example of where the thing being proposed was a failure.


> If it wasn't confusing what made you bring up the space program and fixing roads?

They are examples of the USSR failing at a possible thing. They illustrate my critique of your claim.


My fil owns a bunch of grocery stores in Russia. The gov't still essentially subsidizes the cost of basic goods to keep prices low for the poor. Because of this, even the poorest have access to what they need, and they worship Putin because of it - "he makes sure we're taken care of". Obviously we could get into the corruption, why they're so poor in the first place, etc, but it is clearly working pretty well.


Also in Israel, stable basic products (like milk) have a government mandated pricing, not even subsidized. It’s a good idea in its simplistic form, and works well most of the times, but once every 2 years you get a crunch where the manufacturers just decline to produce products at a loss, so we don’t have milk or butter for 2 weeks.


NY Post wailing aside, it’s unclear that hizzoner has engaged in that much personal graft. There’s also no evidence presented that the staff of this program are being hired through a graft scheme.

You could be right about it losing millions of dollars, we’ll see. Millions isn’t very much on the scale of NYC’s civic infrastructure; it would be difficult to even call it a waste at that scale, since the results will themselves be valuable.

(This is in pointed contrast to our last mayor.)


Por que no los dos?

The kei truck thing might be a good idea, but so is groceries managed as a public service.

The USSR had a problem with corruption. Ok? There have been gov run groceries outside the USSR, and in recent times - not decades ago.

If you don’t have an example of this leading to corruption more recent than the USSR, i gotta assume it was a USSR problem, not a gov grocery problem.


> The USSR has tried this. Lets not.

The USSR fell before I spoke my first words. The world is a very different place, and the United States works very differently from the USSR.

At worst, some people will get some cheaper groceries out of this. If you want to get mad about government spending, maybe we shouldn't be building a ballroom attached to the White House.


*bunker.

Sounds like it’s a bunker of some kind, and the ballroom was just a cover story

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...)


Even better. Because lord knows we need the guy who started all these wars protected from their potential consequences.


> It will lose millions of tax dollars

As opposed to the millions that come out of your pocket on top of the taxes you pay? At least this brings some of the tax money back to the people. When you let grocery store price gouge you without competition, the money goes to executive pay and shareholder value.


It also doesn't seem fair to compete against stores that have to pay rent and taxes.


A gov run grocery store will have to pay rent and taxes.

The only difference is it doesn’t have to make profits to pay its owners.

The question is, why are you prioritizing being “fair” to people profiting off hunger, over being fair to working people trying to eat? Even if it is “unfair” this is a kind of unfair we should all support (assuming it succeeds at feeding people).


The working people who own grocery stores and bodegas are trying to eat.


Afaik bodegas make most of their money from cigarettes and booze, so this is unlikely to cut into their income in any real way. As for grocery stores owned and operated by the people who work in them, there aren’t many of those but I would expect they’ll be aware of that and open these gov stores far away from small local grocers (who tend to have cheap food already).

As for people who own grocery stores and don’t work in them? That’s an investment not a job, gov has no duty to protect individual investments over people’s basic needs.


And even worse, last estimate I saw was 30 million to open a store! 30 million! Graft is alive and well. Communism is a dismal failure, and I don't want to live through it myself. Say no to communism.


Right someone saying they want to kill you and building an arsenal is not sufficient, the missiles have to be flying towards you, you have to let them pull the trigger before you can respond.


This is the flag of the Houthis [1], they are sponsored by Iran, as are the likes of Hezbollah, and Hamas. They have similar language in their charters.

How is that not casus belli?

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkha


US first started bombing Yemen in 2002. That flag was adopted by Yemen in 2014


That slogan has been around since 2002. The U.S. carried out a targeted strike against a leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, an enemy of the Houthi movement. Using U.S. foreign policy to somehow excuse a flag calling for "death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews" is a moral failure.


Why would that be any casus belli?


Do you think threats and missiles from an adversary are insufficient cause for war?


Yes. They didn't attack the US. We attacked them with no casus belli. Operation Epstein Fuckup.


[flagged]


Hm, I wonder which country overthrew the Iranian government in the 50s and replaced it with a dictatorship…


How is that relevant? There’s no exception to self defense for countries we once meddled with.


$ killall ControlCenter


The business owes the money or the fund. In any case the individuals do not unless they backed it with personal collateral.


hmm, yeah ok so the collateral is the business they are buying, I forgot that one.


That’s a good signal for you. When you find the person who did look you will know they stand out.


Only question is, how long I can comfortably hold out, not doing a shitty job, until I see that signal flaring up, because they seem far and few between, so far. It might also just be a Germany thing, this kind of hiring, that is blind to the genuinely curious and creative people.


This article is sparse on details.

How much energy, how long is the pulse, how close were the drones?

Regardless I think the primary challenge with these systems will be energy on site and a surge of it during waves of attacks. Charged up capacitors can only handle so many waves.


> How much energy, how long is the pulse, how close were the drones?

1 millisecond pulses and 70 kW continuous usage[1] which is roughly equivalent to the AN/TPQ-53[2]. 2 km range.

> Regardless I think the primary challenge with these systems will be energy on site and a surge of it during waves of attacks. Charged up capacitors can only handle so many waves.

That is not how this kind of thing works. Capacitors are a terrible energy source. Their voltage drops off exponentially as they discharge and almost all electronic are very particular about the voltage they require. A railgun wants current and does not care about voltage. Radio transmitters care a lot about voltage.

Regardless, a 70 kW generator fits on a small trailer. Smaller than the weapon itself. It will run for days on a good sized tank of diesel.

[1] https://www.twz.com/land/army-puts-50m-bet-on-next-gen-leoni...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TPQ-53_Quick_Reaction_Capab...


> Regardless, a 70 kW generator fits on a small trailer. Smaller than the weapon itself. It will run for days on a good sized tank of diesel.

At full load and a thermodynamic efficiency of about ~31% a 70kW generator is about 300hp mechanical. Those fit on a trailer. Not a "small" trailer. A dual axle type trailer with ~1.3 tons of capacity (Cummings C70D2RE.) Military generators tend to be heavier than commercial units. It will burn about ~175 gal/day of diesel, so yes a "good sized" tank about: about ~3.2 55 gal drums every day.

Now, they're imagining "625 element" systems for adequate coverage of a high value site, like an air base. About 2000 bbl/day. That's a little more than 10 large tanker trucks of fuel.

Logistically non-trivial. The Russian's have learned that large fuel trucks are short-lived in drone-dense environments.

Of course, that all for 100% 24/7 operation. I suspect that any real system will quickly become adept at running far less than 100%.


> Capacitors are a terrible energy source.

They're a pretty good way of storing energy in a way you can deliver it _really really_ fast. Sure, not in a way your carefully designed electronic circuits can make use of it, but if you need a really really big ZAP! capacitors are a reasonable option. After all, clouds and dirt are not the most efficient choice for capacitor plates, and air is not an ideal dielectric, but lightning goes ZAP! quite satisfyingly.

As I posted elsewhere here,you might enjoy Lightning On Demand's Lorentz Cannon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lix-vr_AF38


I was wondering the same thing, but haven't found much. Sounds like it's only ever been a mobile installation - on a trailer, stryker, and a ship. Except for the ship, that probably means a relatively limited power supply. And its limited range probably means that stationary installations don't make much sense.

Sure seems like NATO would love to get a hold of some of these.


Potentially collateral damage too. You zapped some drones 100 yards away, but what about that airplane a couple miles out?


Cruising altitude is ~40k feet or 12 km and the range of the weapon is 2km. The system only works because of all the exposed wiring on quadcopters; everything in a plane is enclosed in a highly conductive aluminum shell and is very well protected. The windows are large enough to let in microwaves, but not very well. Some antennas might be in danger but in general planes are built to survive lighting. It would be a real freak accident for something to break.


I'd be more concerned about small planes or other drones. But if a little shielding fixes it, then this will quickly be obsolete as it's trivial to dd shielding if you're a malicious actor.


> what about that airplane a couple miles out?

Are these Masars? If not, square cubed to the rescue.


Lasers and masers are not inherently collimated or straight lines. The only thing specific to lasers/masers is that all the light is the same wavelength. Beam, parabolic and phased antennas are all very capable of making much tighter beams than your average laser.

In fact at the limits of performance lasers (and particularly masers) are quite bad at generating straight beams, because they are quite small sources of light and divergence is inversely proportional to the width of the emitter. It is a misconception that they are low-etendue.


Lasers are coherent emitters, which means that they behave like a perfect point source and the beam forming is limited only by diffraction. The collimation is limited only by the lens diameter and quality.


I assumed they would be masers or at least something with high directional gain. Otherwise your zapping a bunch of other stuff. Someone else said it's only a 2km range.


And also - what about the payload that drone was delivering, aimed at the target and doing 150kmh or more when your microwaves zapped it and killed off all the electronics. It'll only take it 2 unpowered/unguided seconds to cover that last 100m, so it'll have dropped 20m on a ballistic trajectory. It won't have hit your tank right in the crew hatch, but it's still delivered its explosive way too close for comfort. Perhaps not a problem if the target is an armored vehicle, but it'll probably still set your ammunition store or fuel dump on fire.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: