Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
This parade looks incredibly powerful on an iPad in Seville
I’m being sincere. It really does. That soft power thing again. London looks impossibly regal
Did you use your keyboard as your napkin?
He has at least and at last realised that while he’s talking about his mid-morning boozy meal, everyone else is talking about the rather more significant event that’s on TV
You could at least post a photo of your holiday with your one and only friend. A dog
This procession down the Mall is very impressive. I know they rehearse like mad.
But still, magnificent. A worthy honouring.
And Princess Anne - what a trooper. The last few days cannot have been easy for her. For any of them really. But especially for her - an underrated Royal who has her mother's sense of duty and a no-nonsense feistiness. She really ought to be a Councillor of State.
Shame she wasn't the firstborn. She would have been an outstanding monarch.
I've sat down to dinner with her. My Aussie republican girlfriend was a monarchist by the end of it. Princess Anne was both charming and interesting: we ended up discussing whether some skills, such as horseriding or programming, are learnt or innate. Not what I expected to be talking about...
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
OTOH, there will always be monarchies that call themselves republics.
M
Spain is a striking counter example to @rcs1000’s thesis. A successful prosperous democracy which deliberately became a monarchy again. And it has worked despite the old king being a sordid old fuck
Isn't there something missing in that sequence? Franco made Spain a monarchy again in 1947, though taking rather a long time to actually place a king on the throne.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
That's a bit End of History as an analysis. In the radioactive post WW3 wastelands the warlords will fall in behind superleaders and defend increasingly wide areas of territory, rather than form autonomous collectives.
Major Japanese newspaper reported MOD plans to buy UCAVs on a trial basis from 2023 and buy several hundred UCAVs, both foreign and domestic, after 2025. IAI and US made Kamikaze drone are candidates for the test introduction, as well as TB2 . https://mobile.twitter.com/GreatPoppo/status/1569880442219954176
This is the new arms race.
Yep, and the MBT, the champion of the battlefield since roughly 1917, is dead. Just over 100 years is a pretty good run mind you.
The next step (a genuinely scary one) is when these drones or their successors have AI. At that point having humans on the battlefield is going to be next to suicidal.
Not according to the Ukrainians. I’ll have to dig it out, but a serving Ukrainian officer precisely rebutted the “Tank is dead” thing, in a paper.
As he saw it, tanks are doing more roles now than ever.
The key is combined arms - without support tanks are dead meat. Which was also true at Cambrai in 1917.
The Russians bizarre habit of sending single tanks, unsupported, out to star in Ukrainian YouTube videos is not how tanks were ever supposed to be used.
I don't think that really rebuts the argument. Ukraine is fighting the Russian army, and most of their kit is as old as that used by the Russians. Which is in basically obsolete. And they have a comparative handful of military drones, plus a lot of cobbled together stuff - while the Russians have a fraction of that.
Any battlefield in five or ten years' time is going to be a much less forgiving place for MBTs.
It’s a variant of the “Carriers are obsolete because missiles” argument.
His point was that without active air defence umbrellas (against drones and other threats) *all* vehicles are vulnerable.
Look at what happened to tanks in offensives in *WWI* - unsupported they were rapidly defeated.
The key to survival on the battlefield, he was saying, Is combined operations by systems with different capabilities, supporting each other. Which isn’t exactly revolutionary thinking….
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
I've been saying that from the beginning of this sad venture. Russia losing is the best way to dissuade other belligerent nations that, however good they think their militaries are, attacking warfare nowadays is a risky business. And even if you do conquer a territory, keeping it is another matter (see Afghanistan).
I can imagine China sees many potential advantages in the current situation. But I bet it's made them a little more concerned over trying to take Taiwan.
Someone might have a word with Azerbaijan, then.
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1570042320363589634 Armenian PM Pashinyan says Armenia has invoked article 4 of the CSTO charter, the alliance's mutual defence clause, in order to evict Azeri troops from Armenia's territory and restore territorial integrity. First time CSTO article 4 has been invoked*
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
OTOH, there will always be monarchies that call themselves republics.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
It's the same with first past the post. Once it's gone, it isn't coming back.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
OTOH, there will always be monarchies that call themselves republics.
M
Spain is a striking counter example to @rcs1000’s thesis. A successful prosperous democracy which deliberately became a monarchy again. And it has worked despite the old king being a sordid old fuck
Technically, Franco made Spain a Monarchy again in 1947, when he appointed himself Head of state of the Kingdom of Spain.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
OTOH, there will always be monarchies that call themselves republics.
M
Spain is a striking counter example to @rcs1000’s thesis. A successful prosperous democracy which deliberately became a monarchy again. And it has worked despite the old king being a sordid old fuck
Plus our very own Charles II replaced Cromwell's republic
Losing your temper like that is shorthand for saying that someone has fucked up; except for John Cleese and the car people don't lose their temper with inanimate things. If you are the head honcho, the implication is that your inferior has fucked up in his duty to you. Doing it in public is a humiliation. Humiliating people is bullying them.
look at the scowl in pengate 1 and tell me the recipient of it is not being bullied.
King Charles snapping his leaking pen, or like Fawlty beating his non-starting Austin 1100 with a branch would confirm it is in the inanimate rather than the subservient that he is punishing.
I suspect rather than being unhinged like Fawlty, Charles is just a bully.
Since the very moment his mother died there has been a camera stuck up his nose. She was 96 and ill but those who have lost a parent will know that you can prepare for it all you want but when it happens it is a huge shock.
At times just after my father died (expected but a huge shock...) there were many times I felt like picking up whatever was in front of me and throwing it through the window. The anger stage of grief I believe it's called, when you want all normal laws of everything to be suspended. But they aren't. You must carry on.
And if you're King then you must carry on in the public gaze. Charles literally had a camera pointing up his nose. I feel better disposed towards him after seeing the incident.
It falls into the category of very small beer.
I have two significant recollections of when my father died, in the early 90s. One is turning up for work the day afterwards and being asked why I was there. My reply was that my father had had a strong sense of duty and since I'd made promises to be places I felt duty-bound to keep them.
The second was when I paid a visit to someone and something that happened which my father would've found interesting. I walked out of to car thinking I must ring my father tonight; he'll be amused, and realised that I'd never ring him again!
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
I've been saying that from the beginning of this sad venture. Russia losing is the best way to dissuade other belligerent nations that, however good they think their militaries are, attacking warfare nowadays is a risky business. And even if you do conquer a territory, keeping it is another matter (see Afghanistan).
I can imagine China sees many potential advantages in the current situation. But I bet it's made them a little more concerned over trying to take Taiwan.
Someone might have a word with Azerbaijan, then.
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1570042320363589634 Armenian PM Pashinyan says Armenia has invoked article 4 of the CSTO charter, the alliance's mutual defence clause, in order to evict Azeri troops from Armenia's territory and restore territorial integrity. First time CSTO article 4 has been invoked*
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
I've been saying that from the beginning of this sad venture. Russia losing is the best way to dissuade other belligerent nations that, however good they think their militaries are, attacking warfare nowadays is a risky business. And even if you do conquer a territory, keeping it is another matter (see Afghanistan).
I can imagine China sees many potential advantages in the current situation. But I bet it's made them a little more concerned over trying to take Taiwan.
Yes, given "international law" is miles off being universally accepted and enforcable this is the best proxy - that military aggression in practice brings a negative return.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
OTOH, there will always be monarchies that call themselves republics.
M
Spain is a striking counter example to @rcs1000’s thesis. A successful prosperous democracy which deliberately became a monarchy again. And it has worked despite the old king being a sordid old fuck
Plus our very own Charles II replaced Cromwell's republic
Shame, because he screwed things up in so many ways. Ended up with the Isles of Britain and Ireland being invaded by assorted foreign royalty and/or their forces.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
That's a bit End of History as an analysis. In the radioactive post WW3 wastelands the warlords will fall in behind superleaders and defend increasingly wide areas of territory, rather than form autonomous collectives.
My thesis does, I admit, rely on no Nuclear World War III.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
It's surprising how few wars of aggression have actually succeeded, since 1940.
Harder to get away with what it takes to win now. The world is watching.
Sometimes that's all they do, and bad stuff happens, but even so on average.
Losing your temper like that is shorthand for saying that someone has fucked up; except for John Cleese and the car people don't lose their temper with inanimate things. If you are the head honcho, the implication is that your inferior has fucked up in his duty to you. Doing it in public is a humiliation. Humiliating people is bullying them.
look at the scowl in pengate 1 and tell me the recipient of it is not being bullied.
King Charles snapping his leaking pen, or like Fawlty beating his non-starting Austin 1100 with a branch would confirm it is in the inanimate rather than the subservient that he is punishing.
I suspect rather than being unhinged like Fawlty, Charles is just a bully.
Since the very moment his mother died there has been a camera stuck up his nose. She was 96 and ill but those who have lost a parent will know that you can prepare for it all you want but when it happens it is a huge shock.
At times just after my father died (expected but a huge shock...) there were many times I felt like picking up whatever was in front of me and throwing it through the window. The anger stage of grief I believe it's called, when you want all normal laws of everything to be suspended. But they aren't. You must carry on.
And if you're King then you must carry on in the public gaze. Charles literally had a camera pointing up his nose. I feel better disposed towards him after seeing the incident.
It falls into the category of very small beer.
I have two significant recollections of when my father died, in the early 90s. One is turning up for work the day afterwards and being asked why I was there. My reply was that my father had had a strong sense of duty and since I'd made promises to be places I felt duty-bound to keep them.
The second was when I paid a visit to someone and something that happened which my father would've found interesting. I walked out of to car thinking I must ring my father tonight; he'll be amused, and realised that I'd never ring him again!
Exactly the same feeling for me - it too me a year or so before I stopped considering my respective parents when buying detective novels or books on the Navy, especially ships that Dad had served on.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
This parade looks incredibly powerful on an iPad in Seville
I’m being sincere. It really does. That soft power thing again. London looks impossibly regal
Did you use your keyboard as your napkin?
He has at least and at last realised that while he’s talking about his mid-morning boozy meal, everyone else is talking about the rather more significant event that’s on TV
You could at least post a photo of your holiday with your one and only friend. A dog
The best one, for sure. He seems a little sad today, along with the rest of us. He is at least clean for the occasion, courtesy of the hotel bath last night.
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
If you think someone waving their hands around a bit in order to get someone to move a pen is bullying you don't really know what it is. I remember bullying at school and it involved things a lot worse than that.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
I've been saying that from the beginning of this sad venture. Russia losing is the best way to dissuade other belligerent nations that, however good they think their militaries are, attacking warfare nowadays is a risky business. And even if you do conquer a territory, keeping it is another matter (see Afghanistan).
I can imagine China sees many potential advantages in the current situation. But I bet it's made them a little more concerned over trying to take Taiwan.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
OTOH, there will always be monarchies that call themselves republics.
M
Spain is a striking counter example to @rcs1000’s thesis. A successful prosperous democracy which deliberately became a monarchy again. And it has worked despite the old king being a sordid old fuck
Technically, Franco made Spain a Monarchy again in 1947, when he appointed himself Head of state of the Kingdom of Spain.
But yes, your point is a good one.
Watch Nepal for another possibility of the reverse procedure. They abandoned royalty in a fit of disgust when one royal went postal and killed all the others in a murder spree. And fair enough
But monarchist sentiment there is intense - I heard it everywhere - and they utterly despise their politicians. It may well come back
This parade looks incredibly powerful on an iPad in Seville
I’m being sincere. It really does. That soft power thing again. London looks impossibly regal
Did you use your keyboard as your napkin?
He has at least and at last realised that while he’s talking about his mid-morning boozy meal, everyone else is talking about the rather more significant event that’s on TV
You could at least post a photo of your holiday with your one and only friend. A dog
The best one, for sure. He seems a little sad today, along with the rest of us. He is at least clean for the occasion, courtesy of the hotel bath last night.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
It's surprising how few wars of aggression have actually succeeded, since 1940.
Unlike chess the black pieces confer advantage maybe. Inertia, familiarity, motivation, patience, all of these things.
Also the aims of the aggressor are often muddled. There's so often a disconnect between the true national interest of the aggressor nation and the interest of its leaders.
Putin and Russia is a very obvious example but I think it usually applies.
Very white crowd. Sky finding the odd brown person but I think they are looking for them.
The UK is still 87% white
That crowd is 98%. And London is under 50%.
London is under 50% White British, it is not under 50% White.
Unless Sky has some really amazing technology, you won't be able to tell if someone is from Manchester or Melbourne, Dulwich or Detroit, Peterborough or Prague.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
But it's a *lot* harder with local links, as opposed to signals that bounce around the globe.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
It's surprising how few wars of aggression have actually succeeded, since 1940.
Unlike chess the black pieces confer advantage maybe. Inertia, familiarity, motivation, patience, all of these things.
Also the aims of the aggressor are often muddled. There's so often a disconnect between the true national interest of the aggressor nation and the interest of its leaders.
Putin and Russia is a very obvious example but I think it usually applies.
It's also a hell of a lot easier to persuade people to die defending their homeland from invasion than to persuade them to sign up to die invading another country.
Very white crowd. Sky finding the odd brown person but I think they are looking for them.
The UK is still 87% white
That crowd is 98%. And London is under 50%.
London is under 50% White British, it is not under 50% White.
Unless Sky has some really amazing technology, you won't be able to tell if someone is from Manchester or Melbourne, Dulwich or Detroit, Peterborough or Prague.
Sky has AI drones.
They can tell people's accents from hundreds of metres up?
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
But it's a *lot* harder with local links, as opposed to signals that bounce around the globe.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
But it's a *lot* harder with local links, as opposed to signals that bounce around the globe.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
If you think someone waving their hands around a bit in order to get someone to move a pen is bullying you don't really know what it is. I remember bullying at school and it involved things a lot worse than that.
Difficult to know where to start with that. It's a bit context dependent is it not? You can hardly expect Charles to hold his subordinates upside down in a toilet while pulling the chain.
Very white crowd. Sky finding the odd brown person but I think they are looking for them.
The UK is still 87% white
That crowd is 98%. And London is under 50%.
London is about 60% white, 45% white British. But that's the resident population. When you include the people who travel to London from other parts of the country every day, and people from overseas, it's probably more like 70%.
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
If you think someone waving their hands around a bit in order to get someone to move a pen is bullying you don't really know what it is. I remember bullying at school and it involved things a lot worse than that.
Difficult to know where to start with that. It's a bit context dependent is it not? You can hardly expect Charles to hold his subordinates upside down in a toilet while pulling the chain.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
But it's a *lot* harder with local links, as opposed to signals that bounce around the globe.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Spy satellites say "Hi!"
Spy satellites are just drones in space.
Come on, that's pushing definitions a little...
Sure, I'm pushing it. But only a bit.
Ultimately, they are unmanned vehicles doing the job that manned vehicles did previously.
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
If you think someone waving their hands around a bit in order to get someone to move a pen is bullying you don't really know what it is. I remember bullying at school and it involved things a lot worse than that.
Difficult to know where to start with that. It's a bit context dependent is it not? You can hardly expect Charles to hold his subordinates upside down in a toilet while pulling the chain.
Clever: I see what you did there.
At Buckingham Palace, all the bathrooms now have push button flushes.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
Seems an utterly human reaction at a very emotional and stressful time.
Mum dead? Bully a servant. Absolutely natural.
Then do it again 2 days later. No pattern here.
If you think someone waving their hands around a bit in order to get someone to move a pen is bullying you don't really know what it is. I remember bullying at school and it involved things a lot worse than that.
Difficult to know where to start with that. It's a bit context dependent is it not? You can hardly expect Charles to hold his subordinates upside down in a toilet while pulling the chain.
Clever: I see what you did there.
At Buckingham Palace, all the bathrooms now have push button flushes.
Looking at the faces in Westminster, the Princess Royal and Sophie Wessex look bereft, the Prince & Princess of Wales stoic, and the Duchess of Sussex appears to be emoting.
Well, autopilot is a very simple form of AI. A computer is doing what a human did previously.
And that's where we're starting. In the longer-term, drones will gain additional capabilties: for example if they are lit up by the radar from a missile, they might automatically dive for the ground.
Well, autopilot is a very simple form of AI. A computer is doing what a human did previously.
And that's where we're starting. In the longer-term, drones will gain additional capabilties: for example if they are lit up by the radar from a missile, they might automatically dive for the ground.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
I do remember my school days vividly. I can tell you pretty much what the individual topics were for everyone of my 'O' and 'A' levels.
Really? I truly can't. Bit of a blank although I got good grades and all.
I remember the people quite acutely, my fellow pupils not just mates, the girls I did or didn't fancy, the teachers and their MOs, their little tics and habits, but of the content of lessons, nope it's not there.
I think I'm a bit odd in this respect. I'm very very attuned to people but far less so to anything else.
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Oh God, you're on your AI mastabatery again. There's a great trend amongst the stupid or credulous that "AI" (*) is the solution to any problem.
It isn't. Take the above: the main purpose of a tank is to take ground off the enemy. To do that, you need infantry. They're an infantry support vehicle with an effing big gun designed to take out other infantry support vehicles with effing bug guns, hardpoints, or in Russia's case, civilian cars. They augment ground forces.
In addition, tanks go wrong. Often. They need basic maintenance, from repairs to tracks to refuelling and rearming. Things the crew can do.
There have been attempts at unmanned ground vehicles, but they haven't really got very far. As an example, Russia has had the Uran-9 for six years. So what are we not seeing them in Ukraine? Perhaps because they don't work very well...
(*) Usually a simple ML program written by a drunken undergraduate at the University of West Scotland.
Drones are taking over from planes. The same will happen in every theatre of war. It’s obvious to all but the terminally clueless
You are Duncan Sandys and I demand my five-pound note.
(As you won't know, Duncan Sandys was the Minister of Defence who scrapped loads of the UK's plane projects in favour of missiles and unmanned systems, which were 'obviously' better. That was in 1957. We still have manned planes 65 years later.)
Keeping pilots alive takes up a lot of space in a plane. It means they are bigger than they should be. It also makes them much more expensive, and limits - for example - the G-Forces they can pull.
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
It'll be a combination. There's a strong rumour that the new American fighter plane system to replace the F22 will be a manned system with subordinate unmanned drones under its control.
In the short-run, it will be a combination, sure.
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
But there are problems the other way, especially command and control. As the Iranians showed when they allegedly hijacked a US stealth drone and allegedly landed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Sure: there is a risk. But that risk also happens with "Loyal Wingman" who - if highjacked - is in a perfect position to take out their master.
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
But it's a *lot* harder with local links, as opposed to signals that bounce around the globe.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Spy satellites say "Hi!"
Spy satellites are just drones in space.
Come on, that's pushing definitions a little...
Sure, I'm pushing it. But only a bit.
Ultimately, they are unmanned vehicles doing the job that manned vehicles did previously.
Was quite interested to find that the US had gone a long way towards building a manned spy sat (Manned Orbital Laboratory cover name) till they realised that the vibrations of the crew moving around would shake the camera too much for clear images. Not sure if the chaps were supposed to stay still and hold their breath during the exposures.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
With Daisy Duke, what went up also took a very long time to come down.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
Those breasts behaved in a way that was completely counter to physics.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
Those breasts behaved in a way that was completely counter to physics.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
Those breasts behaved in a way that was completely counter to physics.
Was Daisy Duke the one who was having an affair with her brother?
This parade looks incredibly powerful on an iPad in Seville
I’m being sincere. It really does. That soft power thing again. London looks impossibly regal
Did you use your keyboard as your napkin?
He has at least and at last realised that while he’s talking about his mid-morning boozy meal, everyone else is talking about the rather more significant event that’s on TV
You could at least post a photo of your holiday with your one and only friend. A dog
The best one, for sure. He seems a little sad today, along with the rest of us. He is at least clean for the occasion, courtesy of the hotel bath last night.
Lol. Only teasing. Enjoy your travels!
Here he is looking sad in the Vermont dog chapel, the walls covered in photos and memorials for (permanently) lost pets
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
Those breasts behaved in a way that was completely counter to physics.
Was Daisy Duke the one who was having an affair with her brother?
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
Those breasts behaved in a way that was completely counter to physics.
Was Daisy Duke the one who was having an affair with her brother?
Daisy Duke was not the sister of the Duke Boys but their cousin. She was a flirt often used by the Duke boys as holding cover to escape whilst she chatted up Boss Hogg or Roscoe .Of course the Duke boys real love was the General Lee
Looking at the faces in Westminster, the Princess Royal and Sophie Wessex look bereft, the Prince & Princess of Wales stoic, and the Duchess of Sussex appears to be emoting.
Harry and Meghan hold hands a lot.
I am sure the amateur body language experts will weigh in...
Tanks driven by ACTUAL SOLDIERS are surely doomed. They are pointless, tragic deathtraps
There will be a role for unmanned vehicles driven either entirely by AI or with the help of some guy in Swindon 3000 miles away sitting bored at a screen
This is the future of war. Soldiers won’t die. Civilians will. At the hands of drones and ai machines
Hopefully after seeing Russia's ROI for this absurd undertaking the future of war will be severely compromised.
It's surprising how few wars of aggression have actually succeeded, since 1940.
Unlike chess the black pieces confer advantage maybe. Inertia, familiarity, motivation, patience, all of these things.
Also the aims of the aggressor are often muddled. There's so often a disconnect between the true national interest of the aggressor nation and the interest of its leaders.
Putin and Russia is a very obvious example but I think it usually applies.
It's also a hell of a lot easier to persuade people to die defending their homeland from invasion than to persuade them to sign up to die invading another country.
Yes that was my "motivation" point. Also the war aims. Tends to be much clearer for the defender. For the attacker all sorts of complex risk reward "is this enough?" type analysis. For the defender - GET OUT OF MY PUB!
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
OTOH, there will always be monarchies that call themselves republics.
M
Spain is a striking counter example to @rcs1000’s thesis. A successful prosperous democracy which deliberately became a monarchy again. And it has worked despite the old king being a sordid old fuck
Technically, Franco made Spain a Monarchy again in 1947, when he appointed himself Head of state of the Kingdom of Spain.
But yes, your point is a good one.
The sleight of hand Juan Carlos and Adolfo Suárez pulled- loyally standing behind Franco and then just letting his regime collapse when he died- was utterly brilliant.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
Actually never saw that.
Washington Behind Closed Doors was my grounding in US politics.
This parade looks incredibly powerful on an iPad in Seville
I’m being sincere. It really does. That soft power thing again. London looks impossibly regal
Did you use your keyboard as your napkin?
He has at least and at last realised that while he’s talking about his mid-morning boozy meal, everyone else is talking about the rather more significant event that’s on TV
You could at least post a photo of your holiday with your one and only friend. A dog
The best one, for sure. He seems a little sad today, along with the rest of us. He is at least clean for the occasion, courtesy of the hotel bath last night.
Lol. Only teasing. Enjoy your travels!
Here he is looking sad in the Vermont dog chapel, the walls covered in photos and memorials for (permanently) lost pets
Last week our dog, who had recently passed away, was cremated. The pet crematorium had a large wall of photos of beloved pets who they had looked after. It now has a photo of our Stella on there too. I have to admit I was bemused that among the dogs, cats and horses, there were mice, hamsters, and even a chameleon. Not sure I could love any of those enough to fork out for an individual cremation. Each to his own, of course.
WRT the teaching of history, there was always one subject that got the undivided attention of the class:
Medieval executions.
It was demise of Edward II that had my class mesmerised.
Well ok me.
That. And also, the demise of Hugh Despenser the Younger, and Richard Roos. The latter was lowered into a vat of boiling water on chains, before being raised again, to give the Smithfield crowd a show. This was repeated several times over.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
I agree. Monarchies will probably attempt to "slim down" in the future in order to placate public opinion but in doing so will lose the sense of magic and mystery that keeps them going.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
I don't see it as tarnishing anything, more a question of opening our eyes to what happened rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Of course the main beneficiaries from any economic system will be the people at the top of the system, but actually the profits from slavery were spread fairly widely. We know from data on who was compensated when slavery was abolished (the owners not the slaves of course!) that there were plenty of widows on fairly modest incomes and the like who had a stake in it, with Scotland over represented iirc. There were plenty of overseer jobs out on the plantations. The cotton grown by slaves in the US provided jobs in British mill towns. Sugar, cotton, tobacco and other crops grown using slave labour were available to British consumers at lower cost. Government treasuries benefited and supported the growth of Britain as a major European power, which probably benefited the average person. It's always popular to blame 'the elite' for everything, on the left and the right, but the reality is that complicity starts at the top but definitely percolate downwards. Again, not a question of guilt, it's certainly not something I feel any guilt over, but a question of being honest about the historical record.
I think that this is a gross misrepresentation of what life was like for the working poor during the Industrial Revolution.
My own ancestors at this time were working in slate mines in pitiful conditions. There is abundant contemporary documentary evidence of the state of the Welsh-speaking miners in North Wales.
In fact, the owner of the slate mines was the same person who owned plantations in the West Indies. The wealth of the Penrhyn family derives both from exploitation of slaves and exploitation of Welsh slate miners.
There were families that benefitted enormously from slavery, and they should pay compensation (in the form say of educational scholarships for the descendants in the Caribbean).
The Royal Family is one such family.
Yes sure, the very poorest in the UK at the time (a lot of people) probably didn't see a huge amount of benefit but I guess the question should be - if slaves had been paid a wage for producing things like cotton, sugar and tobacco that the poor in the UK consumed, would the poor in the UK have had to pay more for them and be worse off? It seems plausible to me that the answer to this question might be yes. On the other hand, yes obviously the main beneficiaries were the slave owners and merchants, who as you note frequently owned capital on both sides of the Atlantic. I'm kind of lukewarm on the idea or reparations - I see the moral case for them but I think the logistics are hard given the passage of time, and the amount of exploitation at the time was so widespread and not limited to slavery that it opens all kinds of questions. Do descendents of exploited miners and mill workers 'deserve' reparations in some sense? Probably, yes. I think it would be better to work towards a world where opportunities are spread more widely, ingrained privilege is reduced and there is dignity and a fair wage for everyone's work. I think that understanding better all the ways that exploitative forms of capitalism blighted lives in the past can help us to build a better society today. A proper reckoning on slavery is part of that process, but only one part. And we should be wary of how divide and rule is still used to oppress working class people. I see slavery as the worst case of capitalist exploitation but not really a special case. It's right that it should be a notable area of debate but it shouldn't be the sole focus.
There's a similar discussion about the Highland Clearances, for example - how far did the landlords use money from exploiting people's labour elsewhere (Lanarkshire, Lancashire, Jamaica, India, Far East ...) to subsidise the local peasantry, if they were that way inclined, or conversely as a source of capital to transform the landscape, which might involve clearing out the locals?
On slavery more generally, the other problems with the modern British establishment polishing their collective fingernails on their lapel over the abolition of slavery in 1832, [edit] at least uncritically, are
(1) the continuation as the "apprenticeship" system - a form of bonded labour AIUI (though it did not carry on for long once people realised what was involved) (2) the fact that the only reparation at the time, paid from taxation, excise duties, and public debt on the UK population as a whole, went *entirely* to the owners, not the enslaved people (3) the continuing reliance of industry, in part, on slave products, directly (cotton) and indirectly (sugar, as cheap urban calories)
I've also been fascinated, the more I drill down into local history studies (I have been helping a friend with his research), the more I see for myself how integrated the slave trade and plantation products were with the UK economy. Like oil today, almost. It wasn't just something that was an add-on and came to the UK only as nice clean finished sacks of sugar or dividends in bank accounts.
Indeed, slavery and the Empire more broadly was absolutely woven into the fabric of the British economy and society. It is incredible to me how little I learned about it at school. Part of the reason that it has become such a divisive topic is that those of us who have taken some time to educate ourselves about it have had to do it on our own initiative, and so we've ended up in a very different place from those who haven't. The latter's instinctive reaction is often that we are hating on Britain, rather than simply satisfying our intellectual curiosity about this humungous elephant in the room.
There seems to be a huge gulf here between state schools and private
In state schools you definitely learned about slavery. It was drummed into me more than once, primary and especially secondary. We had to redraw those horrible diagrams of black slaves packed like sardines in the boats of the Middle Passage. It obviously worked because they made me shudder then as they make me shudder now. I can remember my horror aged 12-13 or so: they did THIS to OTHER HUMANS?
However when I ask friends who went to private schools, they often look blank. They did NOT get this. So maybe it's one particular corner of the education system at fault, not wider British society, which does a pretty good job, and was already doing that in the 1970-80s
I was taught about it at private school at age about 9 BUT as a purely economic phenomenon. Not the faintest suggestion that your Africa to Caribbean cargo raised questions that C to UK and UK to Africa did not.
We did a little about the "scramble for Africa" and other than hinting that Leopold was not a very nice King there was no other moralising.
I am of a similar age to Leon, so I can only conclude he went to The Hereford School of Wokery, or he is talking through his a***.
I went to the old Hereford boy's grammar which became a comp when I was there
And no I am not lying. Why the F would I do that? Pointless
The drawings of the packed slave boats was a really effective way to ram home the cruelty: if you are 12
One of my friend's father was a Deputy Head of Aylestone School. A Liberal councillor in Ledbury no less .
I rest my case, Hereford School of Liberal Wokerery.
Not in my lifetime, or my childrens, or probably the next couple of hundred years.
But I do see only one way traffic. Monarchies become Republics after the elevation of a terrible King or Queen, or a revolution, or a war, or independence, or the severing of colonial ties.
Republics - except, I guess the Socialist pseudo Republics like North Korea - don't pick out some random person and say, "hey, you and your descendants get to be heads of State."
It's a bit sad. And a bit inevitable.
I agree. Monarchies will probably attempt to "slim down" in the future in order to placate public opinion but in doing so will lose the sense of magic and mystery that keeps them going.
Very impressed with people's detailed recall of what they were taught in school. I can't say with any confidence whether I was told about slavery or not, let alone in what context.
That's because you weren't!
Could be the answer yes. I seem to have drawn most of my teenage history from tv drama. I Claudius for ancient Rome. Roots for slavery. Can't recall school contributing.
The Dukes of Hazzard for US Social Policy?
The Dukes of Hazzard wasn't a good source of knowledge on physics, given the numerous car jumps that even to my impressionable young mind seemed to run counter to traditional Newtonian theory. Daisy Duke was I imagine a formative experience though for many.
Those breasts behaved in a way that was completely counter to physics.
Was Daisy Duke the one who was having an affair with her brother?
The big issue with human controlled drones in an "all drone" future is signal security, bandwidth and latency.
Agreed. Anti drone warfare is going to be all about creating interreference that makes it hard for drones to talk back.
And it why future drones will gain increasing autonomy, so if cut off from base, they can still attempt to complete their mission.
if i was a master criminal i'd be working on a drone to nab the Imperial State Crown from off HMQs coffin. (is it that crown?)
Don't key requirements for being a master criminal include choosing crimes you are unlikely to get caught for and where it is relatively easy to convert the proceeds into something spendable like cash?
The big issue with human controlled drones in an "all drone" future is signal security, bandwidth and latency.
Agreed. Anti drone warfare is going to be all about creating interreference that makes it hard for drones to talk back.
And it why future drones will gain increasing autonomy, so if cut off from base, they can still attempt to complete their mission.
if i was a master criminal i'd be working on a drone to nab the Imperial State Crown from off HMQs coffin. (is it that crown?)
Don't key requirements for being a master criminal include choosing crimes you are unlikely to get caught for and where it is relatively easy to convert the proceeds into something spendable like cash?
The Indians would definitely like some of it back, I gather.
WRT the teaching of history, there was always one subject that got the undivided attention of the class:
Medieval executions.
It was demise of Edward II that had my class mesmerised.
Well ok me.
That. And also, the demise of Hugh Despenser the Younger, and Richard Roos. The latter was lowered into a vat of boiling water on chains, before being raised again, to give the Smithfield crowd a show. This was repeated several times over.
Henry VIII merrily quipped "The cook was cook'd".
Could have brought that back for Boris Johnson and I wouldn't have protested too loudly.
Comments
If you lose a drone, you might lose a $5m piece of kit. If you lose a F35, you have lost a $85m piece of kit, and you have lost an incredibly hard to replace pilot.
You can swarm a target with drones and accept a 50% attrition rate. Try doing that with human beings.
Aerial warfare is going to go all drone in the medium term: first (as now) with remote pilots. But over time they will get increasingly augmented with technology.
His point was that without active air defence umbrellas (against drones and other threats) *all* vehicles are vulnerable.
Look at what happened to tanks in offensives in *WWI* - unsupported they were rapidly defeated.
The key to survival on the battlefield, he was saying, Is combined operations by systems with different capabilities, supporting each other. Which isn’t exactly revolutionary thinking….
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1570042320363589634
Armenian PM Pashinyan says Armenia has invoked article 4 of the CSTO charter, the alliance's mutual defence clause, in order to evict Azeri troops from Armenia's territory and restore territorial integrity. First time CSTO article 4 has been invoked*
*Actually the second.
But yes, your point is a good one.
The second was when I paid a visit to someone and something that happened which my father would've found interesting.
I walked out of to car thinking I must ring my father tonight; he'll be amused, and realised that I'd never ring him again!
According to their own words, a lot of people had travelled to London from all over southern UK.
*orders sherry*
But I'm not sure that a human being being buffeted by G-Forces is in the best position to make decisions. I suspect that being able to take them out of the plane will allow them much greater situational awareness, and to make decisions that aren't affected by blood rushing out of their head.
Sometimes that's all they do, and bad stuff happens, but even so on average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident
Watch Nepal for another possibility of the reverse procedure. They abandoned royalty in a fit of disgust when one royal went postal and killed all the others in a murder spree. And fair enough
But monarchist sentiment there is intense - I heard it everywhere - and they utterly despise their politicians. It may well come back
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/royalist-supporters-intensify-monarchy-restoration-movement-in-nepal-43803
And I think we can assume that (while not perfect) makers of drones will make "not able to be easily hijacked" their number one priority.
I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones, as they are smaller, it matters less if they are shot down, and they have longer linger times.
Also the aims of the aggressor are often muddled. There's so often a disconnect between the true national interest of the aggressor nation and the interest of its leaders.
Putin and Russia is a very obvious example but I think it usually applies.
"I would note that in the last 25 years, pretty much all reconaissance has gone over to drones"
Spy satellites say "Hi!"
Ultimately, they are unmanned vehicles doing the job that manned vehicles did previously.
At Buckingham Palace, all the bathrooms now have push button flushes.
And that's where we're starting. In the longer-term, drones will gain additional capabilties: for example if they are lit up by the radar from a missile, they might automatically dive for the ground.
Medieval executions.
I remember the people quite acutely, my fellow pupils not just mates, the girls I did or didn't fancy, the teachers and their MOs, their little tics and habits, but of the content of lessons, nope it's not there.
I think I'm a bit odd in this respect. I'm very very attuned to people but far less so to anything else.
And it why future drones will gain increasing autonomy, so if cut off from base, they can still attempt to complete their mission.
I am sure the amateur body language experts will weigh in...
Well ok me.
Washington Behind Closed Doors was my grounding in US politics.
Henry VIII merrily quipped "The cook was cook'd".
I rest my case, Hereford School of Liberal Wokerery.
I apologise for doubting your experience.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1569988932816850944
As usual, I speak for the nation.
Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NpZuGxSgZY https://twitter.com/joedaviesnews/status/1570058669282189315/photo/1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tgXB896I3M
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/14/india-mourns-queen-elizabeth-apology-commonwealth