The algorithm that brought this photo to my eyes is. Maybe I’m jumping at shadows but the country music HURAH isn’t organic.

Who made the LW algorithm inorganically push propaganda that lines up with Trump’s agenda?

Or are you suggesting the upvotes themselves are fake? That rather than people simply being interested in the photo, that there are bots waiting to push the insides of a battleship because that translates into political gain?

I’ve already posted lots of military history that I’ve gone to the effort of traveling to see and document myself. I’ve posted this at whatever times I’ve had free to sort through it. Current news has never factored in to the timing of the posts. I am going to keep visiting historical sites and making posts about them. If you find a connection between historical sites and unrelated current events, that is out of my control.

Almost.

The cap (the “penetrative cap” as the above picture calls it) protects the hardened tip of the shell itself, so that the tip doesn’t deform immediately on impact with armor. Soft metal caps did exist and work, but hard metal caps became more common since the hard cap would survive a little bit longer and thus get the shell better positioned to penetrate by the cap hopefully going through the outer layer of armor before the tip on the shell came forward to penetrate the remaining armor.

You got me. Donald Trump personally paid me $20 to take photos of a WW2 battleship and specifically post it here on Lemmy to influence the userbase. He told me if he loses the Lemmy support then his whole plan falls apart.

I don’t know much about Helldivers, but the Wiki says their artillery are 360mm, which is closer to 14 inch shells. Slightly smaller than the thread pic. The right two here:

From what I see of screenshots, those sizes still seem inflated. Something like a 155mm would be closer to the proportions somebody could fit on their shoulder.

I don’t mean to confuse you, but yes it is the diameter of the bore. I specified from the lands since measuring land to land, or groove to groove diameter can result in different sizes.

This picture is a totally different caliber, but it is a good illustration:

A “cap” on a round is a solid piece shaped to help with armor penetration, but the shape is not good for flight. So a “ballistic cap” is staked on top of it. A hat on a hat, if you will. In the smaller photo in the illustration is a general idea of how these rounds look at a distance.

The pictured shells are solid bodied all the way to the top fuze threading. There’s no distinct ballistic cap, like with the below picture.

For guns of this type 16 inches is the diameter of the barrel of the gun, measured from the lands.

The shell bodies are 16 inches, with the brass rings around them slightly wider to account for the grooves in the rifling.

My username is a play on a very esoteric old /tv/ meme.

My profile picture is one of my drawings from my worldbuilding project. It’s a froglike alien commando.

Myth: “The Polish military committed suicidal cavalry charges against German tanks in WW2.”

The myth was originally spread by Germany as propaganda to emphasize how Germany was technologically superior. The myth has largely stayed alive because it has become romanticized into a heroic act.

The truth is that Polish cavalry charged German infantry, successfully taking ground against them. German tanks counter-attacked and Polish cavalry sensibly retreated but some were killed. Images of the aftermath were used to start the myth.

“Stupid cats need the most attention.”

I figure that the Swiss Army knife my dad got me for Boy Scouts is really up there. Self explanatory why I suppose.

I can’t agree more strongly. The ad for the Neo felt like a cult recruitment video. It’s targeting people in their feels, not appealing to sensibility. Huge red flag. 99% of footage of a Neo in motion has been with in remote controlled by a person in a VR headset.

I double checked myself on some Chauchat machinegun facts, and then kind of went into a rabbit hole of inter-war French armament.

In 2026 the Neo robot, the figure 3 and the Tesla bot are going mainstream in countries like America and I’m pretty sure other western countries.

I am skeptical. The Neo robot is basically a Mechanical Turk with extra steps.

I can’t prove it but the Figure 3 gives me even more vaporware flags.

As for the Tesla bot, it’s the least scammy of the bunch, but this is on the “we promise to put robots in your house in 2026” scale. It wouldn’t be the first time Tesla overset expectations.

None of these companies are straightforwardly showing extended, unedited footage of these robots operating in full AI mode in an uncontrolled realworld environment for a reason.

Humanoid household robots are the new (edit: I suppose not new, but resurging) fascination, but they are dumb. If someone wants to automate away chores it’s going to be by increasing smarthome capabilities and integration, and/or by having improved standalone robots and automation, like roombas, if they aren’t going all in on integrated smarthome tech. Success in automation will be with specific use robots and pieces of automation, ideally working together, not a Cylon lumbering around.

Ziggy’s done messing around.

I grew up eating what most people consider very spicy food. I don’t care what level of spicy other people are comfortable with, but I’ve found that amongst certain types of people I have to be discreet about my preference for spicy food. Some people find it a novelty to gawk at which is just awkward.

If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

In this earlier definition looking for objective merit, it leans heavily on professional opinion. If a small number of individuals not thinking a work that is “objectively good” is good doesn’t change that, then the opposite must also be true. Therefore, if we have a situation where the critical consensus is that a work is bad, and only a small number of people think it is good, then we have a piece of art that is “objectively bad” by using the critical standards, but which is held onto by a small number of people who disagree.

At the top of this discussion I didn’t define “art” merely as visual pieces (I actually used examples of movie and games). So that art could be anything expressive- music, books, plays, movies, games, and beyond. I can think of art and artists not appreciated in their time, and then over time critical perception turned around.

This is all a long way of saying critical opinions are at the end of the day still opinions. That’s why even critics disagree with each other.

saying that something is objectively good does actually mean “for the majority”, because there is no singular point of absolute goodness to compare it to.

I agree completely that people use it like this.