From looking at the sources below, it looks like Ukraine still has about 1/3 of the fighter aircraft it started the war with, though it started with many non-serviceable units (seems that at least 20 aircraft were non-operational), and received many parts from abroad:
I am not sure what is meant by 'a significant number of', and I'm not sure if all commenters have a common definition of that phrase, so I'm unable to judge the veracity of the comments above.
The grandparent provided an anecdote relating to absence of evidence; the parent provided some anecdotal counter-examples. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so the respondent's anecdote is more compelling if we give them equal credence. Disproof by counter-example is usually a very effective method, especially when arguing about whether something 'ever happened'.
It is very popular in many industries; when it is accomplished by convincing re-sellers to take in more stock than they desire, it is called 'stuffing the channel'. Book publishers are famous for doing this to achieve 'best-seller' status.
Yes and the response is telling you that you can build something orders of magnitude more sophisticated without any trouble. The point is, the firearm is not the tube the projectile comes out of. Firearm is closely defined and not intuitive to the general public.
I have been thinking about this issue for a similar length of time as the article author, but for the reasons you describe think the seasons should be slightly offset from the solstices (as opposed to centered on them). My current thinking is that summer should run from one month before the summer solstice to two months after, and so forth.
No its not quite right still, I think for the US it still makes the most sense to have the start of the summer be the longest day, because basically the earth has been heating up to that point and that’s when the energy input begins to wane. Think about it like a steak: when you take it off the grill, its still heating up a bit before it starts to cool down.
Your post is frustrating to read because of the incorrect spelling and grammar; these errors make it hard to take you seriously.
>""The war in Iran" should be called for what it is:
>"Its "trumps war", nothing else. Hes the solely to blaim. Israel would never had started it on their own.
>"The kicker? MAGA voted for "the no wars president", and so far hes started FIVE."
Could be:
"The war in Iran" should be called what it is:
It's 'Trump's War', and nothing else. He's solely to blame. Israel would not have started it on their own.
The kicker is that MAGA voted for the 'no-war' president, and so far, he's started five.
Note that in addition to spelling and grammar, I switched "FIVE" to lower-case italics (which are reverted to regular because the block is italicized), as capitalizing for emphasis is against the HN guidelines.
“Agile” doesn’t mean that you release the first iteration, it’s just a methodology that emphasizes short iteration loops. You can definitely develop reliable real-time systems with Agile.
I would differentiate between iterative development and incremental development.
Incremental development is like panting a picture line by line like a printer where you add new pieces to the final result without affecting old pieces.
Iterative is where you do the big brush strokes first and then add more and more detail dependent on what to learn from each previous brush strokes. You can also stop at any time when you think that the final result is good enough.
If you are making a new type of system and don’t know what issues will come up and what customers will value (highly complex environment) iterative is the thing to do.
But if you have a very predictable environment and you are implementing a standard or a very well specified system (van be highly complicated yet not very complex), you might as will do incremental development.
Roughly speaking though as there is of course no perfect specification which is not the final implementation so there are always learnings so there is always some iterative parts of it.
A physicist who worked on radiation-tolerant electronics here. Apart from the short iteration loops, agile also means that the SW/HW requirements are not fully defined during the first iterations, because they may also evolve over time. But this cannot be applied to projects where radiation/fault tolerance is the top priority. Most of the time, the requirements are 100% defined ahead of time, leading to a waterfall-like or a mixed one, where the development is still agile but the requirements are never discussed again, except in negligible terms.
It does but this is the idea that I think one has to bend or ignore the most since people always bend or ignore bits of agile.
i.e. being able to print "Hello World" and not crash might make something shippable but you wouldn't actually do it.
I think the right amount of "bend" of the concept is to try to keep the product in a testable state as much as possible and even if you're not doing TDD it's good to have some tests before the very end of a big feature. It's also productive to have reviews before completing. So there's value in checking something in even before a user can see any change.
If you don't do this then you end up with huge stories because you're trying to make a user-visible change in every sprint and that can be impossible to do.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONET
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
reply