Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | krona's commentslogin

It doesn't support const enum, unlike esbuild which supports them well enough to be credible.

https://github.com/oxc-project/oxc/issues/6073


The Kuwaiti air force doesn't use F-15E. The F-15E looks quite similar to the Iranian Mig-29 especially from above. I've got no idea how Kuwaiti fast jet pilots are trained but it's not inconceivable that pilot had never seen an F-15E in the flesh before.

>> it's not inconceivable that pilot had never seen an F-15E in the flesh before.

This is such a joke I cant even imagine how you can formulate this thought...

- Exercise Marauder Shield 26.1 (Nov. 2025) "U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft assigned to the 391st Expeditionary Fighter Squadron takeoff during Exercise Marauder Shield in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, Nov. 8, 2025. A key element of the exercise was the sharpening of combined fighter capabilities between the U.S. and Kuwait Air Forces. This included joint training exercises and hot-pit refueling operations."

- CENTCOM Bomber Task Force mission (July 2022)

"..During the BTF, two B-52H Stratofortresses, assigned to the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, conducted theater integration training and operations with a variety of U.S. Air Force, partner and ally aircraft, including F-15/18, RJ-135, E-3, KC-135/10/46, FGR-4, and A-330..."

"The bombers’ flight originated at Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford, England, and flew over the Eastern Mediterranean, Arabian Peninsula and Red Sea before departing the region. The mission included fighter escorts from the Royal Air Force and the Air Forces of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia...."

"...“Communication is critical,” said Wong, who also serves as the Deputy Director of Combat Operations, Combined Air Operations Center. “By enhancing lines of communication, we are able to establish a clear and direct line in real time amongst the Air Operations Centers of all nations participating..."


> A key element of the exercise was the sharpening of combined fighter capabilities between the U.S. and Kuwait Air Forces

Well, the Kuwaitis seem pretty sharp? Three shootdowns is a lot in the modern era. The F-22 program only has two air to air kills in its whole history.


> Well, the Kuwaitis seem pretty sharp?

Do they? If they shot down 3 friendly aircraft that would be a catastrophically stupid mistake which would imply they are, in fact, not that sharp (or at least this specific unit and chain of command).

> The F-22 program only has two air to air kills in its whole history

A very poor comparison point given that the F-22 has had limited opportunities for engagement. And just a poor comparison overall.


It is very easy to shoot down friendly aircraft because they don't usually shoot back. They fly in nice straight lines because they don't expect to be shot down at any moment by their allies. They don't employ ECM against you. They don't terrain mask. But, maybe you are joking?

None of the other air forces involved shot down three F-15s, so I don't think it's that easy.

If I'm skimming this page [1] well enough (find: "shot down"), there's only 6 F-15s that have been shot down, and only 4 or them were air-to-air. If it's so easy, should be more than one other incident, and that guy only got one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses


I think that is more likely evidence of their competence.

Given Kuwaiti air force pilots would have dealt with Saudi/US/Iraqi F-15 operators, that seems highly unlikely.

Kuwaiti air force F/A-18 pilots receive most of their training in the USA so most likely they would have seen some F-15 model in flight. That doesn't rule out a case of target misidentification but it's very odd and suspicious.

That would be a pretty huge GCI failure

My bet is ground control tasked him, and he saw them from the rear and at great distance, and thought they were F-14s.

I do not know how F-18 controls work but from what I understand lots of jet controls include the equivalent of a "safety" that can be used to prevent the weapon from being launched. Maybe the pilot thought he had it engaged?

The secondary thing here I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing. If they were then the pilots of the US aircraft would have taken evasive action as soon as their radar warning receiver lit up.


That could explain one accidental shootdown. It cannot conceivably explain three.

How easy is it in an F-15E to modify a friend to a foe in the targeting systems?

The IFF system will trigger warning symbology on various cockpit displays but it won't prevent the pilot from employing weapons. At this point we don't know for certain whether IFF was enabled and working correctly on any of the aircraft involved.

> I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing.

This is covered in the article so it's weird to present it as an original thought.


The words "active" , "homing", & "receiver" do not even appear in the article for me

> I've realized is that the missiles in question must not have been using active homing

Sorry, but it's totally funny that your nick is literally "Sidewinder".


I don't mean to be rude, but you write like a chatbot. This makes sense, to be honest.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I was just thinking yesterday ... that because the majority of reading I do now is output from chatbots, I'm starting to think and write like a chatbot.

A little terrifying. Probably the solution is to read 19th century literature before bed.


This is top-tier vagueposting.

Feel free to ask for more details if you have specific questions! I worked in robotics for many years, I have some decent familiarity with this space. Here’s some more detailed thoughts “for free”:

Humanoid robotics are largely a publicity stunt. Our actuators, sensors, and algorithms are better adapted to other form factors. The nice thing about humanoids is that you (in theory) don’t have to change the interface, since they can use the same interface humans can use. In practice that doesn’t hold well, because we don’t have great force/pressure sensors to cover large areas like human skin. Likewise, it’s difficult to apply the fine forces that are sometimes needed (grabbing an egg, moving a joystick, etc). And there’s risk of the robot doing something unpredictable, so you always have to set a good safety bound around it anyways. In the end it’s often better to adapt the process to modern robotics, rather than the other way around.

There are many good practitioners that write about these and other limitations, I think Rodney Brooks has some good discussion of it, eg. https://rodneybrooks.com/why-todays-humanoids-wont-learn-dex...


Apart from dexterity, bipedal machines are unstable and require dynamic adjustment to stay upright, as I understand it.

The mechanism humans use to stay upright after an unexpected loss of balance, flailing etc., would not be safe to be around when a robot employs them.


There's also the idea that a humanoid robot can learn to imitate human action just by watching it, thanks to AI magic!

Why is his favorability rating so high?


This database exposed half a million weekend cases which were heard with zero press notification. Many grooming gang trials were heard this way. The database is being deleted weeks before the national inquiry into the grooming gang cover up begins, and the official reason for deleting the data is nonsensical.


The data is publicly available. The data being deleted is the private company’s own copy of it.


Data being "available" and it being accessible/searchable are two completely different things.


Along with the attempt to prevent jury trials for all but the most serious criminal cases, this is beginning to look like an attempt to prevent reporting on an upcoming case. I can think of one happening in April, involving the prime minister. Given he was head of the CPS for 5 years, would know exactly which levers to pull.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20dyzp4r42o


There's no world in which this case is being covered up. It's literally on the BBC News website and you have linked to it.


The poster linkd to the story they 'could think of', not one that may be upcoming. My guess is on a nonce-case, and the royals are involved.


Why do you think "they" are trying to suppress reporting on a Russian-recruited Ukranian national carrying out arson attacks against properties the PM is "linked to" but does not live in? What's the supposed angle?


And how exactly is eliminating a third party search tool for efficiently searching lots of obscure magistrates court proceedings going to stop journalists from paying attention to a spicy court case linked to foreign agents and the PM?


5 Ukrainians. People have traced what some of them were doing professionally when the PM would've been living there. It could be nothing, but we need transparency.


> People have traced what some of them were doing professionally when the PM would've been living there.

Traced what? Innuendo is not a substitute for information.


Or Israel?

It's simply a matter of the social position of mothers, or, what defines the social status of women in a given society. In much of the world it's educational attainment and professional status, so it surprises me very little that most women in these countries don't want children, or can easily find an excuse to not to.


Sounds like a web developer defined the solution a year before they knew what the problem was.


Nah. It’s just web development languages are a better fit for agentic coding presently. They weighed the pros and cons, they’re not stupid.


Of course they can be stupid, hubris is a real thing and humans fail all the time.


But not in our criticism of them, no it cannot be us who are the stupid ones


I’ve had good success with Claude building snappy TUIs in Rust with Ratatui.

It’s not obvious to me that there’d be any benefit of using TypeScript and React instead, especially none that makes up for the huge downsides compared to Rust in a terminal environment.

Seems to me the problem is more likely the skills of the engineers, not Claude’s capabilities.


I’m sure you know better than them


We would all be enlightened if you grounded this blind belief of yours and told us why these design decisions make sense, rather than appealing to authority or power or whatever this is…


lol burden of proof is on you buddy, you’re the one claiming their approach is bad.


It's a popular myth, but not really true anymore with the latest and greatest. I'm currently using both Claude and Codex to work on a Haskell codebase, and it works wonderfully. More so than JS actually, since the type system provides extensive guardrails (you can get types with TS, but it's not sound, and it's very easy to write code that violates type constraints at runtime without even deliberately trying to do so).


Being at the beach (in summer) for a half an hour will produce 10,000 and 25,000 IU for the average european.

See: Vitamin D and health: evolution, biologic functions, and recommended dietary intakes for vitamin D (293 citations)


Could you cite that claim from the paper?


Not OP, but the paper says on page 8

> An adult in a bathing suit exposed to 1 minimal erythemal dose of ultraviolet radiation (a slight pinkness to the skin 24 h after exposure) was found to be equivalent to ingesting between 10,000 and 25,000 IU of vitamin D (Fig. 6).

Doesn't say 30 minutes, but it may be 30 minutes depending on your skin colour and the local strength of the sun.


I think the OP's interpretation of this is wrong. Just because someone was found to have an equivalent of ingesting so and so much, after UV radiation, doesn't automatically imply that it a good idea to ingest any amount of vitamin D. Ingestion is different from exposing skin to UV/sun. The paper probably doesn't state, that ingesting that much will make a person absorb that much from that ingestion, nor does it state, that ingesting some equivalent amount will be safe and without side-effects.

So the paper may be well researched or whatever, but the interpretation of it is questionable.


I can't make any assesment on the quality of the paper as that is far outside my expertise, but as far as I can tell from a quick skim it does indeed make the claim that recommendations for supplements should be significantly increased.

From the abstract:

> The safe upper limit for children can easily be increased to 2,000 IU of vitamin D/day, and for adults, up to 10,000 IU of vitamin D/day has been shown to be safe. The goal of this chapter is to give a broad perspective about vitamin D and to introduce the reader to the vitamin D deficiency pandemic and its insidious consequences on health that will be reviewed in more detail in the ensuing chapters

The full article is available on researchgate[1]. Direct link to PDF [2].

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226676251_Vitamin_D...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Holick/publicat...

EDIT: I just looked up the author, Michael F. Holick. Apparently he is one the people who identified calcitriol in 1971. I know appeal to authority doesn't prove anything, but it might be prudent to at least consider his findings.


So? What's your claim here? Are you claiming that our skin works the same way as our digestive system? That would be a ridiculous claim. And fyi, many people get a proper sunburn, if they stayed in the sun for 30 min straight without protection, at least in summer. So your 30 min statistic doesn't really tell us anything about something being healthy or not.


I've given you everything you need to find out for yourself. Your incredulity on this is a self-confession.


What you have given is rather a comparison, that doesn't stand up even the slightest scrutiny, and an improper citation. I am not gonna read a whole paper on a whim. Cite properly, with proper hyperlink, and at least a page number, and I will consider looking at it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: