That would get in the way of Arstechnica's hyper liberal bias. I eat raw cheese because it tastes good. It's common in France, like in reblochon and Brie de meaux. There aren't mass deaths in France because of this.
There aren’t mass deaths in the US either (no deaths reported per the article). But there are definitely cases of listeriosis due to raw cheese in France. A recent outbreak was in 2025 and led to 2 deaths.
It is better. We have a decently strong cheese tradition in Sweden too, but French cheese is tastier.
I don't even like the French, their culture is obnoxious, I'd take every chance to shit on the French. But you just can't argue with their cheese, it's that good. Some of their wines are ok too, but I mostly prefer Italian on that front.
Ok we did this in elementary school. They gave us crackers and let us spread the butter we made on it and we ate them. I still have no idea as to the purpose of this exercise.
Updating video drivers in Ubuntu is so so so much easier than under Windows it's ridiculous.
Windows has more drivers for more things, but if Linux has drivers (e.g. you buy a Laptop with Linux support) then driver management is massively easier.
I spent god knows how many hours getting the windows drivers for my last self built gaming PC working. Linux I just installed and was done. In reality the Windows experience was also a lot worse than having to drop to the console occasionally. It definitely required more in depth knowledge, even if everything was UI driven...
Unless you have very specialized needs, the driver experience on Windows is "turn the machine on". The driver update experience is "connect to the internet" and occasionally "reboot". That's it.
Linux is significantly easier than it was 20 years ago but still not as easy in general.
I've been building machines myself for nearly 30 years, including multiple in the last 5, and I assure you I've needed to do nothing besides connect to the internet and let it get updates each time.
It's been Year Of The Linux Handheld for gaming since 2022, the best platform to play games is Steam Deck where updates are clicking "Update" in the System panel. You can run either Bazzite or SteamOS on your own hardware, although I haven't tried that.
sure "best" is subjectively true for my criteria: it plays the largest number of games with about zero annoyance / friction. maybe desktop windows plays more games, but it certainly has a bazillion more frictions and annoyances
I've said it before, but a mexican line cook who doesn't speak english is contributing more to the world than the average Stanford educated AI engineer at Meta.
All military aircraft are maintenance nightmares. They're also extraordinarily loud and devour fuel. These are not intended to entire commercial service where they need to turn a profit for the operators.
Maintenance is an issue for more than just profitability. More maintenance means fewer sorties in a given time period, heavier reliance on and utilization of supply chains, and fewer platforms that can be serviced by a given set of mechanics and facilities.
Just look at WW2: Germany had some fantastic equipment, but they couldn't field it because they didn't have the fuel, spare parts and the maintenance capabilities available. A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.
For decades we have been able to afford complacency - we strike when we're ready against people who mostly can't strike back. We can afford to be wasteful because we have so much more than anyone we would go up against. No one is seriously threatening our ability to keep our military going. But militaries need to be prepared for peer conflicts where someone could give us a run for our money.
> A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.
Supply is one part, being able to repair is another. The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.
Plus most of the parts were bespoke, which means lots more tooling needed to service everything. The other thing is that germany wasn't actually that mechanised compared to the french, or english
The comparison in tech is apt, but the countervailing argument is that the discrepancy in economies doomed the Nazis in WW2. German was a little powerhouse considering the size of its population, but it only had half the GDP of the US, not to mention the other Allies. Combine this with a smaller population, and it really didn't matter what the Germans did in terms of equipment. They were destined to lose unless they struck gold with a wunderwaffe like the atomic bomb.
In today's world, the US outspends the next 10 countries combined. In normal times, it values the lives of its servicemen, and is willing to spend quite a bit to ensure dominance. So it will often have boutique gear that other countries could never afford.
That's not a countervailing argument, that is the argument. The side able to apply more industrial power defeated the side with more capable but less useful equipment.
The US outspends the next 10 countries combined in peace times. By comparison, Germany outspent the US on its military by a factor of 20 on the eve of WW2. Obviously once the war got going, the US' immense industrial capacity (along with the other Allies; the British Empire and the Soviet Union had the number 2 and 3 GDPs) was unstoppable.
We no longer live in the age where the US represents half of the world GDP and the bulk of that is manufacturing. China's has a larger economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity, it has extensive manufacturing capacity, and a vast population. If push came to shove, we wouldn't be able to simply outspend them. In that hypothetical conflict we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.
You're right: we would simply starve them (in addition to strategic bombing of all of these manufacturing centers.)
They do not possess the food calorie production to sustain their population, nor do they have the arable land to magically begin to do so.
> we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.
We have outstanding fast attack submarines which can't be stopped by ASBMs: exactly zero freighters carrying food from South America or crude oil would be permitted.
That was literally Nazi Germany's strategy for defeating Britain. Use advanced submarines to stop trade cutting off supplies of food and fuel from abroad. The Allies just made ships faster than they could be sunk.
Today the US has 55 fast attack submarines, each of which can carry about 50 torpedos at a time. So with 100% of your subs deployed you can sink maybe 250 ships. The US has an inventory of about 1000 torpedos so you can do that about 4 times. Shanghai alone receives 230 ships per day. So The US submarine force is roughly capable of shutting down the equivalent of 1 chinese port for a few days. Realistically, your not even going to get anywhere near that. 30% of your subs are going to be out of service at any given time, more will be transiting between service bases and the war theater, only a portion of those can be spare for commerce raiding, it takes time to locate targets, and you will suffer attrition to ASW. After those first few days it becomes a race between US torpedo production and Chinese ship building. The US can produce 10 torpedos per month; China produces 15 ships per day.
Of course China isn't an island - it can import food from its neighbors by land connections. Nor is it even deficient in domestic food production capability. It grows 700 million tons of grain per year which is enough to sustain 3.8 billion adults. It imports a lot of food in peacetime because people want more than bare subsistence, and certainly interdicting trade will piss them off quite a bit, but it's not going to bring them to their knees.
The idea that in a peer war it will only be them suffering - their trade will be interdicted, their industrial centers will be bombed - and they won't have any means to strike back is exactly the complacency I was referring to. Maybe if war broke out tomorrow it would go that way, but that's merely an argument that China is not yet truly our peer. We must plan under the assumption that somebody, and it might not be China, will in the coming decades reach the point where they can tank a hit from us and hit back.
> That was literally Nazi Germany's strategy for defeating Britain.
And this strategy was enormously effective. Absent U.S. intervention, Europe was fucked.
> The Allies just made ships faster than they could be sunk.
Not "the Allies" - just one Ally, separated by an entire ocean. No such separation exists today.
> Today the US has 55 fast attack submarines, each of which can carry about 50 torpedos at a time. So with 100% of your subs deployed you can sink maybe 250 ships
We had torpedo bombers in 1940, as well, submarines aren't the only ASW mechanism that exists. How many sunken ships in each port will bring them to a grinding halt? Are they magically going to tug millions of tons of steel out of these harbors?
> China produces 15 ships per day
When their shipbuilding operations aren't strategically bombed into oblivion, sure.
> it can import food from its neighbors by land connections
Now it's a World War - why would this be allowed?
> grows 700 million tons of grain per year
With several hundred million of those tons of grain (along with vast amounts of other relevant food calories - livestock, etc.) being grown in the Yangtze basin, courtesy of the fact that the Three Gorges Dam is allowed to exist. Why would the U.S. allow that dam to remain intact? This one structure is a cheat code: knock out 50% of enemy food production, displace or kill hundreds of millions of people creating a mass humanitarian crisis and subsequent Cultural Revolution, and hobble huge amounts of industrial production. Short of theoretical attacks like EMP, no such non-WMD single-point-of-failure exists anywhere in the United States.
Nuclear response is truly the only thing keeping the peace.
PRC has CONUS conventional strikes now, bump 20 refineries and US lose 50% of oil, everything down stream from transportation to industry to agriculture, comparable to to hypothetical three gorges. Hypothetical because US doesn't have munitions to penetrate gravity damn as thick as three gorges (gbu57 included), nor any survivable platforms that can deliver fires at scale to PRC. Ultimately, US MIC not remotely calibrated for PRC sized adversary. So the real answer is now that PRC can conventionally hit US, given PRC have 4x more concrete to crack, varied energy mix vs CONUS dependence on oil, US more strategically vulnerable (from energy to input for calories). At peer war scale, 1 dam might as well as be 20-30 refineries. Extrapolate to other CONUS targets, boeing, f35, spacex manufacturing, data centeres, payment processors... i.e. strategic infra US spent 50 years to sustain hegemony. US more to lose from less set targets and less ability to reconstitute. PRC loses most of PLAN they can rebuild in a few years, US loses most of USN and it will take decades. PRC has 4x more nodes for same relative level of homeland disruption, arguably has better fire projection than US in actual shooting war, as in none of US projection assets can likely survive to deliver fires at scale, vs sheltered PRC global strike missile complex that skips middle men delivery platforms. TLDR global strike = CONUS is Japan now. PRC is also Japan, but PRC is 4 Japans.
I was on a film shoot that was interrupted by a pair of F-18s going low and slow on burners that took forever for audio to give the all clear. The killer part was we were in a downtown park, and could not determine why in the world they would have been performing that maneuver there. There were more than windows shaking.
Comanche was cancelled, and even it was loud and gulped fuel. The "stealth" Blackhawk derivative used in the Bin Laden raid might be quieter, but it definitely gulped a ton of fuel. Fuel consumption is just an accepted issue with helicopter technology.
reply