I found that a weekly meeting for a language-learning group worked great. Your family and even your friends learn, "Oh Wednesday evening, D-Coder's busy."
This argument isn't _that_ compelling because: send today's tech back a century, use that as your aliens in case 'c'. They would 100% be able to see that tech. They wouldn't know what the hell they're looking at, or be able to do much about it, but they'd see it.
If we’re talking about aircraft, the combination of modern radar mitigation and modern sensor packages would allow a time traveling plane or drone to be effectively invisible in 1925.
Sure they’re not going to bend light around themselves, but they can fly outside of visual range and 1925 radar technology won’t stand a chance of detecting them.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but aren't they still going to be loud as fuck, and quite visible? How high do you need to be before you're not audible or visible? I guess go at night, sure, but...isn't all that crap more about being hard to precisely target than it is about being literally undetected?
Not a stupid question at all. I’m not sure about piloted aircraft, but drones currently operate at altitudes where they can’t be seen or heard from the ground.
It depends where you send it / why. There's lots of places you can send it where there's just nobody to see it. We still occasionally find an uncontacted tribes out there after all, so if someone didn't want to be seen (or even just seen in a place full of cameras), it would be trivial.
Sending the tech from 100 years in the future to today is not directly comparable to sending today's tech 100 years back.
By 2125, military aircraft will probably be silent, able to rapidly ascend to 100,000 feet (out of visible sight), and maybe even invisible. So people today, faced with properly-done future technology, can't see it at all.
I cant get over who politico goes out of its way to portray them as sympathetically as possible, out of its way to downplay what went on as much as humanly possible ... while still making them sound bad. For example:
> All the cut contracts and purported savings were triumphantly (if at times misleadingly and inaccurately) itemized on a new DOGE.gov website.
Yeah, they lied openly and brazenly in those numbers. They were not "at times misleading and inaccurate", that is making it sound much better then it was.
Imagine politico would try to report on it fairly and accurately instead of playing the "how can I make these people sound as good as possible while not lying too much" game.
That's because politico reports on politics from an "inside baseball" perspective. The focus is much more on the mechanics of politics and government as it happens/operates, and less so on the actual policies. To do this effectively, they need access, and so will consistently softball or smooth over things.
As they say right at the start of their "About Us", "POLITICO illuminates the forces shaping global power".
This ia beyond insiders baseball. You can do insiders baseball without going out of your way to whitewash as much.They dont just softball. They defend and literally go out of their way to imply false things - all to protect republicans.
They are not illuminating powers. They are obscuring uncomfortable acts and behavior or republican party.
I am imagining my mind recalling and replaying the 'greatest hits of dumb stuff davidw did' more frequently after this treatment and I don't really like the idea.
