Comment is also a bit misleading. Costco contracts all of their products, or for a better on-topic example - their air conditioning installation.
It's the same with Home Depot. They don't "make" anything, they contract everything out (Home Depot-line tools, i.e. Ryobi, their flooring installations to some of the cheapest local installers, etc.).
China's satellites (Jilin-1, etc.) can essentially track things across the world in seconds versus minutes (i.e. it can follow a plane, or car on the street in real-time). So I'm guessing "radio silence" does not affect much locational opsec at this point.
I would imagine that the location of carrier groups is basically known at all times to serious adversaries, regardless of emissions. They're not exactly small and if you're doing it right they don't dive underwater.
Governments aren’t ahead of the private sector and arent doing parallel innovation with their massive budgets, just knowing industry trends gets you an understanding of what to expect
They're ahead in very specific ways, mostly where there's no commercial activity that would justify the expense of investing in that area. e.g. extremely high resolution imaging satellites.
This article is a fancy way of saying "we take keywords and break them down to synonyms", bundling "machine learning", and acting like it's a magical solution. Not to be dreary it's just not exciting.
And centralized moderation tools gravitate towards favoring these lies.
Even worse: lies about climate change are nowadays being spread via paid Youtube advertisements. This kind of centralized power should never have existed in the first place.
They are all pointy metal tubes with wings and (an) engine(s), filled with fuel that go boom to make them fly, carrying some sort of payload.
Their only difference is to what purpose they are used. Some are used to destroy, some are used to kill, some are used to defend, some are used to throw stuff into space.
But they are all pointy metal tubes filled with boom powder.
Nearly all modern forms of rocketry trace their roots to German technologies like the V-2, and rockets used for space exploration in particular are direct or spiritual descendents of intercontinental ballistic missiles repurposed for civilian use.
There really is no difference to the rockets themselves, they are all varying forms of pointy metal pipes filled with boom powder. The only difference is the payload they carry; whether they are humans or spaceborne vessels like satellites, or explosives of various descriptions with which to destroy and kill.
If you disagree, and you've certainly made it clear you do, you can put forth counterarguments instead of claiming quackery.
Obviously I'm saying "boom powder" as a generic and funny term for the various fuels used in rocketry. They can be liquids (RP-1, liquid hydrogen, liquid methane, various hypergolics like UDMH, etc.) or solids (eg: solid rocket boosters, most military missiles and rockets).
The Saturn V used RP-1 and liquid oxygen for the first stage, and liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for the second and third stages. The Apollo CSM used dinitrogen tetroxide and "Aerozine 50", a 50:50 mix of hydrazine and UDMH hypergolic fuels that was originally used for the Titan II ICBM.
Sure .. from my PoV I can live with "powder" it's the "boom" that rankles.
Relatively slow controlled energy release for thrust isn't particularly evoked by the word BOOM!!
Otherwise simplifying rockets and missiles as they are today to tubes of slow release thrust (with some additional wrinkles such as side thrust | directional thrust to 'balance' load over thrust, multi stages, etc) seems innocent enough.
I'm going by the levels of "loose" I regularly see on flights. I regularly see seat belts buckled, effectively fully slacked. It's not everyone, but probably 5%.
It's the same with Home Depot. They don't "make" anything, they contract everything out (Home Depot-line tools, i.e. Ryobi, their flooring installations to some of the cheapest local installers, etc.).