TranscendentalEmpire

I think the main difference is she is mostly a billionaire via her own productivity. Everyone else on the list got there because they are capitalizing on other peoples labour, doing little to no actual work themselves.

She still reaps the benefit of other people's work, but she is essentially still the product of her own labour.

An unarmed bomb can be dropped from cruising altitude onto a hard surface and not detonate. The US military has had nukes fall out of planes without breaching the radioactive core.

And yet you don't think they could produce the same safety features for less volatile materials?

diesel electric hybrid on the other hand is a proven technology.

Yeah, you just have to add a diesel engine, electric engine, and a giant battery.....The whole point of moving to electric is to increase efficiency and decreasing the weight of primary motive components.

My point is that if your tank's armour is compromised by modern antitank weapons, it doesn't really matter where it hits you. You're going to be turned into chunky marinara, or your shells are going to cook off.

A pressurized fuel cell is already more protected than any fuel tank, and is smaller and lighter and more efficient than any ice engine. Which means you can add and divert even more armour to protect the cell and the occupants of the tank. Basically any danger associated with hydrogen is vastly overshadowed by the fact that tanks already carry high explosives. And that's not so dangerous that we're trying to replace them with non combustible weapon systems.

It's not like Rotem is new at making tanks, the K2 is one of the best tanks currently in production. If the engineers thought fuel cells increased the likelihood of catastrophic failure, I highly doubt they would have tried it with the K3.

Personally, I think most people are just buying into the propaganda that shut down hydrogen power in the first place. To my knowledge there hasn't ever been a death associated because of an explosion or fire involving a vehicle with h2.

The problem with diesel is that there has been a cap in their efficiency for quite some time. We've pretty much tweaked as much speed and efficiency out of what is possible with diesel tanks, which is why the Abrams has a turbine engine.

As tanks become heavier and heavier the only real solution is to migrate to electric motors, which are more efficient and vastly more reliable than diesel or turbine.

Just like with trains, the future of tanks are electric motors, and until we find a battery material more efficient and safe than lithium, hydrogen fuel cells are likely going to be the solution.

Right, but you are going to want to choose a fuel that has the least chance of flaming up if you’re making a military vehicle.

Why? If something has gotten through the armour, your fuel is the least of your worries. I mean you are sitting next to a stack of shells filled with high explosives.

My dude, the military transports more volatile materials than hydrogen every day. Just because something doesn't make sense for civilian use doesn't mean it's never going to be viable for military use.

If you're worried about the dangers of transporting something like hydrogen, you're going to lose it when you find out what bombs are made out of.

Electric motors are just more efficient in just about every way at scale, the current diesel motors being used in tanks aren't really able to be improved upon. They're at their technological peak, so the only way to move forward with mbt is by figuring out how to make electric motors work.

Growth doesn't mean revenue over cost anymore, it just means number go up. The easiest way to create growth from nothing is marketing tulips to venture capital and retail investors.

I think you mean to say, my "feels" are based on justification!

Is English your second language?

Btw abortions rock, I'm responsible for my fair share,

I dont think that's the brag you seem to think it is?

but I think using clickbaiting as a weapon is bad, even when it's for good causes

You haven't explained how you think this is click bait........ Something doesn't automatically become click bait, just because you think it's over an excitable topic. That would make all headlines click bait, based on the subjectivity of the observer.

"something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest"

There's a reason we have the Jenova Convention, after all

Lol, it's like I'm talking to an AI that's done way too many whippits.

The geneva convention, is an agreement pertaining to how soldiers interact with civilians during times of conflict. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Oh because it's all just for optics.

Hey, that's a highly reductionist take. When did super charging the military industrial complex become "just for optics"?

Without funneling billions of dollars to corporations like RTX, this would be a very wildly unamerican conflict.

But your "justification" is based on feels......

The article goes into great detail supporting the substance of the title, meaning it's not click bait or manipulation.

You are the one attempting to manipulate people by claiming that the title is something it's not.

Lol, you can't confirm it's click bait unless you read the article.....

None of your critiques are valid, as the substance of the article is congruent with the messaging in the title.

You're just being lazy.

Yeah, I could, but it's a perfectly valid line of conversation to critique a post's title.

I don't think laziness is a valid line of criticism. I also find it strange to critique a title separate from its intended context.

we have the saying, "Always judge a book by its cover, and judge a response by it's grammar"

I don't think that's a very common idiom. It seems to imply that pedantry is more important than substance.