Strafing is implemented on A and D at least, but having one hand on the arrows to turn and WASD to move is a bizarre mix of modern and original controls
MC2002 was not primarily a wargame to develop operational plans. You can do that much easier and cheaper with a bunch of generals around a map. MC2002 was a training exercise with an element of competitiveness to pressure people under unexpected situations. As a training exercise its prime goal was not to figure out what plans were best but to just exercise plans and get people to do the plan, period. Given that, events that stopped the training exercise, like missileing all the ships, were retcon'd in order to do what the exercise was supposed to do, train people
Wargames have repeatedly been used to align strategic initiatives because they are designed to as closely replicate an adversary's actions and resources as closely as possible. So for instance in better times there was Proud Prophet [1], another wargame, played out in 1983. Its goal was to simulate outcomes of various scenarios involving hot conflict with the USSR. Up to the point of that wargame, the US position towards the USSR had been this sort of 'peace through strength', 'escalate to deescalate' nonsense.
The problem is that the wargame demonstrated that it ended up with the extinction of the Northern Hemisphere every single time. We didn't then change the rules of the game to make it so we could still play nuclear games and come out okay, but instead took this as a major wakeup call. It directly led to a shift in US policy towards the USSR of coexistence, de-escalation, and some degree of reconciliation. Within 7 years the first McDonalds would open in the USSR, and the entire Soviet system would collapse in under a decade after the shift of the strategy driven entirely by this wargame result.
Yes, wargames can be used to evaluate strategic and operational plans. However, notice how many boots on the ground were involved in Proud Prophet. My point was that MC2002 was not primarily a wargame for evaluating plans, it was primarily a training exercise where lessons learned from executing the existing plans might be used to wargame out future changes
The US bombed basically all of the Iraqi military in 1991, yet the war didn't end and Iraq didn't leave Kuwait until troops on the ground went in. Air power alone cannot control territory or compel political change
Automating ATC is similar to automating flying in general. Even if it's possible to automate 99% of 99% of flights, including even takeoff and landing, commercial flights still have two pilots because if things start to go wrong there's just so many edge cases that you can't easily write automation to handle all of them. Same thing for ATC, except even worse. They still have control towers because controller eyeballs still work even if nothing else does, if ground radar fails, or if a vehicle doesn't have an ADS-B transponder, or if a crash eliminates the radios, etc. There's just so many edge cases that making automation be able to handle everything is extremely difficult
But still, even if you need humans when things go wrong, automating away all the work for when things go right is a massive load off those people. There will always be failures, the goal is fewer failures, and especially eliminating known failure modes.
The one major mistake I've seen is where they recently repainted a road from 2 lanes to 1 with some somewhat nonstandard markings indicating a merge, and the Waymo just drove through the merge as if the 2nd lane was still there
I would've said that at the tail end of Windows 10. I got my first Mac via work just as Windows 11 was coming out (having switched my personal devices to Linux), and my memories of Windows were much better than whatever version of MacOS I was using at the time. But my next work computer was Windows 11 (I got tired of the differences between MacOS's shell and Debian on all our servers so I just wanted to use WSL) and Windows 11 is the worst OS I've ever used
They generally do. Random example, citation 349 on the page of George Washington: ""A Brief History of GW"[link]. GW Libraries. Archived[link] from the original on September 14, 2019. Retrieved August 19, 2019."
Good article, this is something I struggle with and am trying to ve better at. I wish there were similarly concise and technical explanations of other social skills
True, but in this case, civilian requirements may be "protects against ambient fumes" while the military specs are "protects against deadly gases that are designed to try to get around gas masks while standing up to impacts and sweat and still allowing enough freedom of movement to engage in combat". Like yeah a mil-spec spoon isn't going to be substantially different than a civilian spoon, but there are some things that even barely meeting the military standard at the lowest possible price is still better than what you get going for civilian specs
reply