Object recognition and classification is more narrowly AI, and from the description this thing might have it.
I'm not sure it'd be a good thing, of course - it's very unlikely it can reliably classify everything , which will create a contrast between what the combatant uses their senses for and what they are hinted on screen. That's a very ergonomically debilitating effect. Like night lighting makes you blind for everything outside the illuminated area. Or try playing an airplane simulator game with realistic interactive cockpit and an arcade HUD with less information above it, it's guaranteed you'll mostly ignore the former and the information it gives you.
I've heard of the particular people behind that particular company achieving similar things 12 years ago with, eh, humans. That's of the "bloody regime horror stories" genre. There will be no proof.
Also honestly
would put the company decades beyond any tech I have seen
why not? They have plenty of money and expertise. Something you don't want to believe? Too bad, neither do I.
You do, of course, understand that this has nothing in common with building a tank?
You do also understand that (just guessing) if you're from a German instance, then probably everyone of consequence involved in designing military hardware in Russia has better knowledge of their domain area than people analogous to them from German MIC and military? Simply due to experience gained. That does apply to tanks.
Anyway. I don't know if it's real, but you just go and read whose company it is. It might be.
They say this while using government to prevent import of superior vehicles, just like they did for Japan in the 90s (chicken tax anyone?)
In a thought experiment where they didn't, the auto market would be healthier.
In another thought experiment where Japanese electronic and software industry didn't become monopolized due to similar state involvement, it could have kept positions.
So yes, free market is good, except free market is a situation that can't be created by free market alone. You can't keep free market having only free market. It's not a magic spell that makes any heap of stuff to suddenly reorganize into something working by itself. It's a philosophy of protections, where competition should be maintained and all kinds of pressure and coercion should be minimized.
Those protections have to be made for free market to exist. And that's the thing, they are very hard to make and require, quoting Harry Potter, constant vigilance.
No, they shouldn't, but it'll be the same thing that US tech companies did, more or less.
I think the environment, in terms of IP and patents and running a company, should be made easier in the EU, otherwise there will be no domestic competition. Unfortunately those seem to only become stricter over time.
For China mercantilism works, because of enormous size of their own market, and pretty strong competition inside it with lax rules.
At this point if I have a problem I’ll talk it over with a person myself if i can. Less likely to be killed doing so.
Ah, yes, remembering that time when I walked to a Russian police station to report a missing person (my mom likes to just vanish without warning anyone, and I was too nervous that particular time, got worried), by the morning thought I'll remain there, they clearly decided I killed her.
Not an English native speaker, but a question, this spelling of names - is it indicative of anything in their family background? Like "redneck who can't write his own name" kind of that?
Police should not have lethal weapons at all. Traumatic pistols are well enough by stopping power. Not even shockers - they regularly misuse them for torture and murder.
Speaking of stopping power - for police use traumatic weapons are actually better than lethal ones.
When you think about it, carrying weapons in peacetime was a civilian thing for much of modernity in much of the world. Soldiers would be armed when posted, and in other situations it would depend on many things, often armed, but without ammunition. Gendarmes would be armed on service - and that's not people doing usual police work. Policemen, like boring peelers, would not, batons and sticks are enough.
Civilians would carry weapons to defend against criminals and for other civilian things, like duels.
I've mixed, of course, different countries and traditions, but what good does it do to arm police with lethal weapons if it's not their responsibility to go after really dangerous offenders and, say, mass riots, they have SWAT teams and national guard for that? Talking of USA. Anyway, I live in Russia, here it'll soon be worse. Right now at least police doing what's in the article is uncommon, but that can be explained by a system different from USA, static units instead of patrols.
I'm fine with the idea of a coop for a business. There are people whom I'd want to associate with. There's a little catch - we all do different things in different areas. And those who do the same things in the same areas as me whom I know - those I wouldn't want a coop with. I mean, OK, possibly I would.
Well, my PSP had its battery inflate. I had replaced that battery a few years ago, used it a bit, then forgot about it. Recently found that the new battery is in oopsie state too.
It's not just degradation.
And PSP is still a fine device. Actually amazingly useful, it's the missing branch of evolution that should have been chosen instead of smartphones. No touchscreen, but convenient controls. If it only had a SIM port. There even was a Skype client.
A general purpose device and not a gaming one, like PSP, would be very good. Instead of that proprietary optical drive - additional ports and memory card slots, perhaps even a section with an interface for some extension chips. A similar set of buttons - except perhaps a retractable (or attachable via some interface) QWERTY keyboard would be useful.
The UI and UX of the OS were very cool. OK, I was using it for listening to music and reading books.
Occupation is a normal legal term and its presence doesn't limit calling the system inside "Israel proper" socialist.
I think that to properly limit the difference we should compare how these all came to exist.
CSA were a split off part of a state created by rich landowners, and so it was a republic of rich landowners. Nothing surprising in that.
South Africa was part of the British Empire where natives were considered inferior from the very beginning, and their "bantustans" were sort of British traditional "to each his own" decorations, similarly to how even in the British Isles technically they have a United Kingdom and even Wales is not the same as England and so on, but in fact it's more or less one state. Tradition.
While Israel was initially a bunch of Zionist settlements on sparsely populated land, like Tel-Aviv and such, which didn't have much of said disenfranchised population and had lots of socialist traits in organization. Also among Zionists in the beginning of XX century the left part was far more numerous and popular than the right part (which has captured dominance in Israel since about 80s), especially after WWII, these things tend to make effect. That left part basically had just one Zionist idea - that Jews should have a nation-state in Palestine, all the rest was pretty normally leftist for the time (a bit obsolete by now, with planned economy traits and collectivism and so called meritocracy and so on).
Then that bunch of settlements in the war of 1948 became state of Israel. And then in subsequent wars it captured/occupied territories, without expelling much of populace. Which then lived under occupation status.
So the difference is that for Israel occupied territories were really occupied territories. There's a clear difference between Tel-Aviv and Haifa on one side and Hebron on the other. While in South Africa bantustans were sort of big zoos\reservations with people set here and there through its territory, and CSA was in its entirety a republic of rich landowners.
OK, I can name one. It's Israel. Before 90s it was (administratively, politically, socially) socialist (not like marxist, but with collectives and communes and kibbutz, and much of economy being state monopolies). One reason after 90s everything changed about it was because there were certain reforms which, eh, significantly raised level of life, making all the old institutions unpopular. So it's no more socialist in anything.
A-and, of course, the part about collectivism was present. Some things I've heard about Israel before 90s emotionally reminisce USSR. Sort of a procrustean bed of a society, if you don't fit it's your problem.
Oh no, without a warrant. How could they. How impolite. No, our security is only intended for jurisdictions with law-abiding police.