T-14 Armata

I know they were briefly used in 2023 and then pulled, but were any even killed?

It’s very spotty finding combat information about them, and I can’t find information if they ever actually made it into combat or if they tried to deploy and just couldn’t even do that.

The T-14 is a non-factor given the unsubstantial numbers. The real practical tank in the field is the T-90M, which is pretty dated.

From what I read of the Panther, much of its design changes are seemingly focused on dealing with a drone heavy battlefield. Even if the T-14 is cited in press releases as a reason for the design, I doubt any engineers actually took it seriously.

Soviets had the ability to both design and produce effective equipment. Sometimes it was oversold (with the US government happy to oversell the abilities), but they did have some legitimately good or cutting edge equipment.

Russia I’ve noticed has a pattern of making weapons that make impressive big booms if you aren’t paying attention to the details. BMPT and KA52 come to mind. They can fly in and just drop huge amounts of firepower. I suspect this is so they can do bombastic demonstrations and export their hardware to make some money.

Russia lacks the production base of the USSR. Even if they could design new equipment, they struggle to actually build it in appreciable numbers.

The “modernization” effort of the Russian military starting around 2012 amounted to issuing new uniforms. Uniforms are both cheap and very visible. It’s a low cost way to pump up military image without sinking money into buying boring, expensive, and important things.

OTOH, while US military spending has historically been huge, it usually for the most part resulted in gains. Equipment developed and widely procured in the GWOT was mostly (mostly ok, I know about UCP) good. Since the GWOT ended, it seems like US military procurement has lost its mind with seemingly little unity between branches and doctrinal priorities constantly changing as it tries to figure out what the enemy will be and how to fight them. During these fluctuations it’s a lot of money going into deadend projects and Sig smartpistols.

I can’t agree more strongly. The ad for the Neo felt like a cult recruitment video. It’s targeting people in their feels, not appealing to sensibility. Huge red flag. 99% of footage of a Neo in motion has been with in remote controlled by a person in a VR headset.

I often agree with this, though for Death Trash given the slow pace of major updates I figured I’d just jump in. It only took me about 10 hours to beat the main content, and a few more hours poking around to feel finished with the game. This isn’t something like Zomboid with a big sandbox element to sink hours and hours into.

Honestly, at the pace it’s being updated I don’t know if it will get a huge proper ending.

I double checked myself on some Chauchat machinegun facts, and then kind of went into a rabbit hole of inter-war French armament.

In 2026 the Neo robot, the figure 3 and the Tesla bot are going mainstream in countries like America and I’m pretty sure other western countries.

I am skeptical. The Neo robot is basically a Mechanical Turk with extra steps.

I can’t prove it but the Figure 3 gives me even more vaporware flags.

As for the Tesla bot, it’s the least scammy of the bunch, but this is on the “we promise to put robots in your house in 2026” scale. It wouldn’t be the first time Tesla overset expectations.

None of these companies are straightforwardly showing extended, unedited footage of these robots operating in full AI mode in an uncontrolled realworld environment for a reason.

Humanoid household robots are the new (edit: I suppose not new, but resurging) fascination, but they are dumb. If someone wants to automate away chores it’s going to be by increasing smarthome capabilities and integration, and/or by having improved standalone robots and automation, like roombas, if they aren’t going all in on integrated smarthome tech. Success in automation will be with specific use robots and pieces of automation, ideally working together, not a Cylon lumbering around.

Welll YOU have a shitposting problem!

Some people think it’s such a good idea they DIY it in a warzone.

Being able to see rounds is handy. In the modern era we’ve made the tradeoff a non-issue.

The Chauchat was famously widely regarded as a terrible machinegun.

At the moment WW1 broke out, unfortunately conditions in France were that in practical terms it was this or nothing for light machineguns. The French had already saddled themselves with the 8mm Lebel, and this machinegun design was the only one they had ready to go.

The gun in 8mm Lebel needed the half moon shaped magazine because of the cartridge’s extreme taper. The spring had to follow that shape to function, and that’s big ask. The magazines were also thin, making them easy to dent. A dent could stop up the follower or spring. The cutouts in the side are obvious problems in mud, made worse by the rounds being oiled which would attract grime.

In 30-06 the half moon shape of the magazine was gone as were the cutouts. The magazines were still thin and fragile. I believe there were many complaints (I have no source at this exact second) about failure to extract caused by the higher pressure of 30-06 not working well with the hasty redesign of a not great to start with design.

In both cases the design and production quality of the magazines was a big weak point.

Somehow a quarter million of these guns were made, and used by many countries. Some countries even used them into the 1930s, though I think that’s more indicative of militaries, especially cash strapped ones, holding on to anything they own. The U.S. and French both quickly ditched their Chauchats (with the French also ditching 8mm Lebel) as soon as alternatives became available.

Don’t forget it’s on YouTube (Lemmy hates that) and uploaded from a capitalist country (bad) on the planet earth (that’s where Trump lives).

If people are really that upset about an update to a game, go play something else until the mods are updated too.

Not all mods are going to get updated. Some will just get broken and never fixed.

It’s very obnoxious for Bethesda to be dropping “updates” nobody asked for on a ten year old game.

Ziggy’s done messing around.

TLDR “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” is a good guideline for aesthetic visual design choices.

I grew up eating what most people consider very spicy food. I don’t care what level of spicy other people are comfortable with, but I’ve found that amongst certain types of people I have to be discreet about my preference for spicy food. Some people find it a novelty to gawk at which is just awkward.

If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

In this earlier definition looking for objective merit, it leans heavily on professional opinion. If a small number of individuals not thinking a work that is “objectively good” is good doesn’t change that, then the opposite must also be true. Therefore, if we have a situation where the critical consensus is that a work is bad, and only a small number of people think it is good, then we have a piece of art that is “objectively bad” by using the critical standards, but which is held onto by a small number of people who disagree.

At the top of this discussion I didn’t define “art” merely as visual pieces (I actually used examples of movie and games). So that art could be anything expressive- music, books, plays, movies, games, and beyond. I can think of art and artists not appreciated in their time, and then over time critical perception turned around.

This is all a long way of saying critical opinions are at the end of the day still opinions. That’s why even critics disagree with each other.

I’m not sure what that has to do with my comment, but thanks.

saying that something is objectively good does actually mean “for the majority”, because there is no singular point of absolute goodness to compare it to.

I agree completely that people use it like this.

If a piece of art was created 100 years ago and every professional critic of the time thought it was trash without any merit, and then 100 years later the critical reception of that same piece had changed and it was considered a piece of high art, is that piece of art objectively good? Objectively bad? Was it objectively bad 100 years ago and then somehow became good?

If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

If I don’t like that piece of art, am I wrong? Am I objectively incorrect of the opinions inside my own head?

Lots of people dislike award winning movies, songs, and games. Are those people measurably wrong? No. The plural of subjective opinions is not an objective one.