Yes, but in an age of guided missiles, surely better to have 3x10k ton warship than 1x30k ton warship.

That is unfortunately a complicated trade off, involving initial construction costs, total capability, maintainability, and crewing costs. Simply put, two amphibious assault ships do not equal or supersede one super-carrier.

But think of the aesthetics!

That super sized destroyer has non of the battleship aesthetics though.

Indeed. WW1 and WW2 battleships are incredible pieces of engineering and (IMHO) rather beautiful in their own way. And some of them were built in very short time frames when you consider they had no computers to design them with.

It’s lucky the were pretty. They were outdated before the First World War.

Based on what evidence?

The battleship was clearly vulnerable to airpower in WWII. Much less so in WW1.

Based on them being involved in one battle in WW1 and being massively vulnerable to air attack in WW2.

It’s an exaggeration saying that they were outdated in WW1, as they basically acted as a deterrent, but it was at enormous expense and they don’t do much. Too big, too slow, too expensive. The argument was playing out even prior to WW1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

Aircraft carriers took over, as you say.

That 1 battleship vs battleship action (Jutland) was hugely influential on the course of the war.

Also there were several battlecruiser/cruiser vs battlecruiser/cruiser actions.

Big “beautiful” bill comes to mind.

Now the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’.

Even the name is flawed.

I guess some defense contractor paid to sit next to him at dinner. KA-CHING!

'Lord of the Flies' was written at least partly as a reaction to the overly idealist 'The Coral Island'.

Rutger Bregman’s book, 'Humankind', covers this and is worth a read.

Very interesting, thank you.

Can we please have a room where Jake Paul and Tate are getting humbled in a boxing ring for all eternity.

I trust Palantir about the same as I trust the Chinese government with my health data.

If you're concerned by that, I have some bad news about instant noodles.

Folgers on line one.

What would your definition of "instantly" be? I would argue that, compared to taking minutes or hours, taking less than a second is fast enough to be considered "instant" in the colloquial definition. I'll concede that it's not "instant" in the literal definition, but nothing is (because of the principle of locality).

Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, §88:

> (...) Now, if I tell someone: "You should come to dinner more punctually; you know it begins at one o'clock exactly"—is there really no question of exactness here? because it is possible to say: "Think of the determination of time in the laboratory or the observatory; there you see what 'exactness' means"? "Inexact" is really a reproach, and "exact" is praise. (...)

His coloured task planning system reminds me of https://www.hyperplan.com .