A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
three of the 18 bundles of airdropped aid into Gaza on Monday had parachute malfunctions
A 17% failure rate on "military equipment" is absolutely disgusting. Why the hell does America keep throwing dodgy projectile bombs on Gaza? At least make sure the stupid parachutes work before throwing them into one of worlds most densely populated areas.
Or you know, force isael to let in aid trucks.
It’s 1 in 6 not 1 in 3
You're right I'll correct that
You are assuming that 17% was total failure, and this equipment is one time use on equipment so not at all invested in reliability. One line snapping is technically a malfunction - compare that to the reusable parachutes that carry people and watch the reliability difference.
These are also aid packages that get ripped out of the back of a moving aircraft, fall in windy conditions and are then torn apart to be used. Would you rather this or half the number of packages that are now more reliable?
Nothing is 100% reliable thats just how engineering and manufacturing work. Reliability is an exponential so is it worth doubling the price to have it be 10% failure instead of 17% they did the math and it would seem not.
Im sure somone did a risk assesment and green stamped it.
Im sure somone did a risk assesment and green stamped it.
Yeah except this is the American military industrial complex. That 17% to 1% would have been a 2 cent increase for a parachute they're probably charging 5k per unit.
Sure a better parachute might cost that but the development, testing, aquasition, supply chain bs, quality control, manufacturing proccess, etc etc keeps costing more and more while u make small improvments on reliability. Its more like a half the falure rate can easily cost double the price as i said its exponential 1% is a lot further away cost wise than u might think.
If it has a 17% failure rate the certification and quality control are pretty worthless.
Everything has an acceptable failure rate quality control just ensures it meets those standards 17% obviously was good enough
Mmm yes daddy continue to use numbers and corporate brain to justify the US military's many failures to actually deliver aid (oh, and the people those failures killed)
Its called logic i aint justifying shit just explaining why it is the way it is. If ya dont like it feel free to call ir representatives anf vote as u see fit.
I would think you'd be more mad about the US bombs that have killed tens of thousands instead of the few squished by actual aid packages, but here we are.
Why don't they just land the planes on the ground and deliver the aid there, instead of just haphazardly tossing it to the air hoping it 1.- lands somewhere 2.- without killing someone via impact or 3.- landing in a completely different realm and medium?
Are there any runways in Gaza that are 5000 feet long?
No, there was a functioning airport but Israel destroyed it in 2001
I had to go google what a "feet" is, since IIRC it's a body part (well, plural of) but even with that, what kind of tremendously inefficient aircraft does the mighty US have that can't brake in 1600 m? If that's that much of a concern , just land a helicopter, those can do VTOL.
what kind of tremendously inefficient aircraft does the mighty US have that can't brake in 1600 m?
The goddamn C-130 with a load capacity of 3000 stone. I assume you think pounds are currency so I saved you the confusion.
Oh no I get the plane and stuff.
I just expected by this fair point in the good year of 21st century the US would have, dunno, retro rockets on their aircraft or something. Since they spend so much on military.
They can do JATO for both takeoff and landing but it's tremendously risky and hard on the airfare so it's reserved for extreme emergencies where there are no other options, IIRC.
They have parachutes, so someone would have to really be trying to be crushed by one