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.

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.

I’m sorry to say that a AI could recreate that look in a flash. And within 5 years you could have a completely consistent, feature length film done in that look.

Let’s not minimize the threat. If we want to avoid being replaced by computers, it’s now the fight has to be had.

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.

I’ve cycled and walked in London for the last 10+ years. These silent and deadly speeders are super dangerous. I’ve seen several crashes on their account. As a cyclist, they overtake you a great speed; as a pedestrian they can be much closer much quicker than expected forcing you to misjudge if you can cross.

Yes they are dangerous. I can’t believe you need to have this explained to you.

Also the article literally gives you a clear cut case of exactly the danger of a pedestrian misjudging timings on account of their crazy speed - ended up dying. But it’s all just a joke to you of course.

First thing I do to a tv is flick it into a colour graded mode and flick all motion smoothing off.

Agree that it’s HDR, not actually resolution that makes that much difference.

What, you don’t think there’s work to do for a stay at home partner? From my observation, it’s one of the hardest jobs there are (that is if you actually take on all the home keeping duties as part of this - I’m not speaking about trophy-partners here).

And a good covfefe to you sir!

I agree that it would make more sense if they called it a “household” plan. That’s clearly what it is.

By Darwin you see a lot. I was merely stating that I think YouTube premium is worth the price I pay for it.

Is there no product you are satisfied with? Your life must be pretty bleak.

Is recommending a product that you’re satisfied with “shilling”?

Is there a product in this world that you think is worth the price? Does that make you a shill?

You mean removing sponsor led segments inside a video? Sort of. The jump ahead feature, which I think is a premium feature, allows you to jump in the video based on where everywhere else is jumping in the video. So when a sponsored segment starts and you skip forward 30s (double tap on mobile, ‘k’ on PC) you are offered to jump ahead. You click that and you get to the end of the sponsored segment.

YouTube steals other people’s work?

I tend to watch content creators who willingly put their content on YouTube. Am I missing something here…?

I know. I thought we were upvoting respectful debate, not having a popularity contest. But apparently not…

It’s a product. You can buy it or not. If you don’t think it’s worth it, stay away, or stay on the free tier. You’re acting as if you’ve got some kind of right to use a service that’s provided by a commercial entity.

It’s too expensive agreed. However YouTube has a lot of discounted memberships through other services. I wouldn’t pay full price for it, but through my mobile phone company I get more than 50% off and that’s a bloody great deal.