sunbeam60

Cluster munitions has a clear definition. It acquired a clear definition when the treaty was drafted. Cluster munitions release a … cluster (group) of smaller munitions that themselves explode on impact:

conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions. Submunition is a conventional munition that in order to perform its task is dispersed or released by a cluster munition and is designed to function by detonating an explosive charge prior to, on or after impact.”

Fragmentation munitions break apart and the fragments cause death and destruction.

If someone claims that she’s seen cluster munitions that were outlawed, she’s claiming to have seen cluster munitions that were outlawed, not fragmentation munitions. We may not like either, I certainly don’t, but one type is out of use in signatory countries and another type is not.

The picture she’s used it’s actually not even munitions, it’s fuzes, ie the thing that makes munitions detonate.

And in full detail, cluster munitions are still “legal” in signatory countries, provided the submunitions self-detonate after a time. The Oslo treaty was designed to prevent civilians, children especially, picking up unexploded submunitions. It wasn’t designed to prevent death and destruction in a military target.

She may have seen cluster munitions at the fare.

But that picture shows an 84 mm combined impact/time fuze for a M-84 Carl Gustav recoilless rifle round and an 81 mm fuze tip for for 81 mm mortar round. The times fuze is quite nasty - you set it for distance (by flight time) with a view to have it detonate above or to the side of infantry under cover.

Neither if these are cluster munitions, however. I’ve used both back in my army days.

So if that picture is her proof she’s at best misguided.

I can’t wait to get downvoted for facts.

Coming up to 20 years, 17 years married.

If they have data, that they’ve looked at, then fucking publish the data. It’s such a weasel statement to say “we’ve looked at the data”. Well, if it stands up to inspection, publish it!

I worked for Microsoft for 12 years. Now I’m in a fully remote business and I’ve got better relationships and stronger results being fully remote than we ever did in person.

The amount of connectors I’ve sat on in Microsoft. Ugh.

Because whatever Microsoft does makes the news. It’ll be leaked anyway even if they tried to keep it internal. They might as well get on the front foot and publish it. Besides, it sends a signal that their intentions can withstand the light of inspection.

I’m not really sure if your comment is a reaction against my statement, in support of my statement ir adding further nuance to my statement.

I certainly believe AI is capable of producing value. I certainly believe AI will take people’s jobs. Exactly because it is able to produce value.

I’ve seen both things first thing, many times, already.

My statement was meant to highlight that it is exactly because it is producing value and taking people’s jobs that we ought to have a debate about whether it should and who it will benefit (and who will lose out) from that great replacement.

Right now, all I see is a further concentration of wealth built on the backs of thousands of years of human creativity. It’s the ultimate rent seeking.

Yes, which is why we’ve broadly accepted that ASCII isn’t sufficient any more.

After all.. Why not?

Why shouldn’t I ignore the 100+ cultures whose character set couldn’t fit into this encoding?

How dare you use facts to challenge our beliefs!!

Let’s see the tip of the band please!

~~If it’s the same loosy-goosy metal catch that’s sort of dangles on a rivet, you’re always going to be 2-3 mm wrong regardless of the precision of the tape itself.~~

Edit: I now know that didnt know how to use a measuring tape and I feel enlightened, relieved and somewhat embarrassed - thanks all for helping learn something new.

This sounds correct.