> for example the V2 was technically a hypersonic missile.
The V2 was not a hypersonic missile, it was a ballistic missile that had a predetermined flight path that was easy to predict. The distinguishing factor of hypersonic missiles is that they do not require a ballistic trajectory to achieve their speeds (and are hence, much harder to detect) and they maintain maneuverability throughout their entire flight path.
> The ancestor of ballistic missiles, Germany’s [...] V-2 was first launched in the 1940s. During ascent, it could reach a speed greater than Mach 5 and could do so again momentarily on its way back down. But, no one would claim that the V-2 was a hypersonic missile. In a similar vein, should one apply this label to modern intercontinental ballistic missiles that reach speeds beyond Mach 20 at ascent and re-entry?
> Certainly not, and there are other characteristics commonly cited when defining ‘hypersonic missiles’. However, while a combination of defining characteristics is increasingly adopted among experts, hypersonic missiles are often not well understood within public discussions in politics and the media [...]. The US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance states that ‘hypersonic weapons refer to weapons that travel faster than Mach 5 (~3800mph) and have the capability to maneuver during the entire flight.’
How about don't call stuff that travels faster than sound a "fasterthansoundic missile" if you don't want people to confuse it with all other old stuff that also travels faster than sound!
Yes, that's exactly what I said, it was technically a hypersonic missile because it could travel at more than Mach 5. In the same way that the Kinzhal is technically a hypersonic missile and please ignore that fact that you can shoot it down with a 1980s-vintage Patriot, which at Mach 3-ish is definitely not hypersonic no matter how you fiddle the figures.
tbf, that was because a lot of people abused it by being permanently outside of the US and relying exclusively on the roaming for all their data. I know because I was one of those people for 6 years.
What's interesting is that Apple was the one responsible for removing the jack from their phones but they've stubbornly kept them on all their computers.
The only port in common between a 2015 Intel Macbook Pro and a 2026 Macbook Neo is the 3.5mm headphone jack. But also, the only port in common between a 2015 Intel Macbook Pro and a 1991 Powerbook 100 is the 3.5mm headphone jack.
Because the MacBook isn’t particularly short on space. The MacBook neo appears to have massive blank space blocks where the speakers are.
The 3.5mm jack is fine, there isn’t any need to replace it on the MacBook where you can afford to have both. On the iPhone it makes more sense to use the usb c for audio.
I'm guessing there are some key "user journeys" for scientific / industrial customer base, that involve using 3.5mm jack for something other than audio signal, and said customers would probably sooner change hardware suppliers than deal with dongles and all the problems of introducing USB into the signal path.
Typically, Kiwis would leave after graduating university or in their mid-20s. That Kiwis 30 - 50 are leaving now is a relatively recent phenomena (18 -> 43K in 4 years).
I was so stunned I was like, surely this must violate some government rule around universal access and service? But I guess not.
What's more, the app is so buggy reddit is filled with support cases of people not being able to complete the process in time and sometimes having to forfeit hundreds of dollars worth of tickets: https://www.reddit.com/r/AusVisa/comments/1jh2olm/having_an_...
The advice literally boils down to, some models of iPhones don't work so go borrow a friend's phone of a different model and pray that they can process your application for you.
That link clearly says you don't have to use an app.
If you are unable to use the app, you can apply online through ImmiAccount for another visa that suits your needs.
This triggered me because I've been to Australia tens of times (albeit not since 2023) and have always used my Immi account. I just logged in to check and sure enough I can still lodge an application there, no app required. Ironically I would prefer an app and will use it for my next visits because I've always found the Immi site cumbersome. But the site is still there.
The other "helpful" suggestion is that, if you can't use the app, you can apply for a regular full-blown tourist visa (Subclass 600), which costs $145 and takes weeks if not months to process.
Sure, if we’re in the business of making arbitrary requests, how about every data center operator has to bring 1 Epstein accused to justice for every data center they’re allowed to build?
The hard part has never been the “what”, it’s always been the “how”.
> The argument I'm seeing most is that most of us SWEs will become obsolete once the agentic tools become good enough to allow domain experts to fully iterate on solutions on their own.
That’s been the argument since the 5PL movement in the 80s. What we discover is that domain expertise an articulation of domain expertise into systems are two orthogonal skills that occasionally develop in the same person but, in general, requires distinct specialization.
It never worked because a lot of times, domain experts are stuck in their ways of doing things and the real innovation came from engineers learning from domain experts but adding their technically informed insights on the recipe to create novel ways of working.
A Lotus 1-2-3 vibecoded by a Product Manager in 1979 would probably had a hotkey for a calculator.
reply