> There’s something to be said about the value of owning up to issues and being forthright with actions and consequences.
Exactly! The situation happened, no going back, but they had a choice - to be transparent about it and I am sure people would be appreciative of it, maybe giving them net positive rather than negative, but the choice they have made is a complete opposite and a sign that no one should trust them.
Ars isn't winging it here, they are following Conde Nast HR processes. https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/editor%E2%80%99s-note-... "I can confirm that the HR processes are intricate and complicated. I can confirm that we have union writers. I can confirm these things take time." -Aurich
I don't understand people complaining about Apple using ~nearly latest processor on a device refresh. What are they supposed to do, not put a year old CPU inside, use something from a decade ago?
If you are on an iPad from 5 or so years ago there, or happy with your device, sure - there is no reason to upgrade. But the very same reason that you do not have to upgrade is that Apple put a fairly powerful chip in your device a while ago that is still holding today.
It should be a common sense that these devices are for first time buyers or for users of very old devices that finally end up upgrading, and why would those people not be treated with a fairly recent internals?
I doubt the gripe has ever been about putting the latest tech in it. It’s more about putting the latest tech in it and then having very little to actually do with it.
Hmm, I had the opposite experience when I tried Codex 5.2 after using Claude for almost a year. Codex was on par or better for me at coding, and seemingly a magnitude cheaper.
Not crazy, it is just convenient. Constant pushes with Android, Chrome, random websites asking for Google login.
Google wasn't always like this, and moving of from an email address isn't technically hard, but something that 99% of the people will be very very reluctant to do.
Placing landmines is probably among the shittiest and most vile things someone can do.
Knowing that ten, twenty, maybe 50 years after a conflict ends a completely innocent and unrelated person, maybe even not born at the time you did it, might die or get permanently disabled is a sick move.
Place where I grew up is still full of landmines (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and some of the people who placed those mines are government officials today, loved by EU because of their natural resources.
My gut feeling says that landmines can be more acceptable when placed in designated areas, for example a strip along the border with proper fencing. And maybe electronics to disable them when they are no longer necessary so they can be safely removed. This is a fundamentally different type of weapon than something that is hidden and anyone can inadvertently step/drive into.
Placing mines on your own border for defense purposes is one thing. Doing an aggression in an independent country, placing mines there is completely different.
And if it is correctly mapped and the map is well managed, then it is not quite as catastrophic as warlords simply burying mines somewhere indiscriminately.
I get what you're saying, but war is evil and sometimes you have to use methods to win that you would otherwise judge from the privileged position of peace.
I can't in good conscience say that the Ukrainians are evil for laying mines well after the invasion started, even though we all know that when the fighting eventually stops it's going to be a disaster to deal with.
Now the Balkans was a different story, where mines were intentionally laid in areas to target civilians. So in the end, like any device designed to kill, it's how and why it is employed that makes the act "evil" or not.
Fair enough, I wasn't super aware of scenarios people mining their own country for defense purposes and I agree that an argument can be made there, as it will not be civilians invading a different country.
As you are aware, in the Balkans this was exclusively done in areas to harm civilians, deep into other countries. I have a plum garden that was near the enemy lines in the 90s, and it was mined. We had to arrange demining squad to go through it, and I still have childhood memories of their tools (mine detectors) being left overnight at our place. Not a memory any person should have.
> ... in the Balkans this was exclusively done in areas to harm civilians ...
It wasn’t.
While there were probably some areas that were mined with the intention of harming civilians, most of the mines were laid in places where you would expect the enemy to advance. In the section of the front where I was located, all minefields were laid with the intention of slowing down or preventing enemy infiltration (which does not exclude areas near human settlements).
There was simply no point in mining places that were under your control and where you expected your people to live after the war, unless it was necessary.
People who placed mines did it in a country which they invaded, not their own country. Again, my garden was literally mined by the aggressors in the 90s.
Also I think that if you live next to a warmongering country you certainly care more about making a military invasion the shittiest and the most vile thing for the aggressor that you can think of and landmines are cheap and effective there.
I think it's a sufficient trade off that landmines self-disable themselves in, say, 5 years or so. If the war continues you'll keep planting more and when it ends you'll just wait a few years and go collect them.
You don't just collect landmines though. The Germans in WW2 had maps which they handed over to the allies but it still killed hundreds of people clearing the landmines. Eventually they decided to use German POWs.
It is absolutely evil. Placing mines instantly puts you in the bad guy category as far as I'm concerned, no matter whom you claim you're "targetting". The Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty was an absolute disgrace. Indefensible.
> The Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty was an absolute disgrace. Indefensible.
It is entirely defensible on account of wanting to reduce risk of being invaded by Russia.
PS: Poland also exited the treaty. I entirely support use of mines on territory of mu country for purposes such as reducing risk of Russian invading Poland again. Though deployment should not be premature.
But I hope that production and stockpiling of enough mines is ongoing.
If you think that is indefensible - are you aware of how WW II went for Baltics, Poland, Belarus? In Poland about 16% of population was murdered, in Belarus about 20% of population was murdered. And Poland and Baltics got decades of occupation on top of that. Belarus still has not managed to get from Russia's boot as of 2026.
And I have no problem with position "war crimes are not OK".
War crimes are bad, but using ATP land mines is not a war crime by itself.
For example ATP land mines with reliable self-destruction used properly are OK (yes, some failure rate will exist - in case of war you rarely have 100% sunshine and rainbows solutions).
While dropping randomly land mines over city to target civilians is bad, evil, war crime and terrorism.
Arms control treaties are effective only if they are banning weapons that aren't useful. The problem is that landmines are incredibly useful weapons. What that means is that every country that has signed up to the Ottawa treaty either expects never to get into a major war again, is planning on relying on its allies who haven't signed the treaty to deploy landmines for them, or is planning on ignoring the treaty and using landmines anyways if it gets into another major war again.
In that vein, the Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty is commendable because they've stopped lying to everybody about what they're going to do come wartime.
> Arms control treaties are effective only if they are banning weapons that aren't useful. The problem is that landmines are incredibly useful weapons
There is not a single doubt in my mind that mines are useful. As are executions of people suspected of collaborating with the enemy. As is instituting precautionary concentration camps to round up folks who might have some bond with the enemy. The utility of dropping atom bombs on civilian centers is probably extremely high in negotiating with the enemy. But, like mines, these things are unconscionable, and when you start using these highly effective means, you should really ask yourself: "am I the good guy in this conflict?"
For me, the answer is no. I don't think we should commit war crimes, which somehow has become a controversial opinion.
War crimes are bad, but using ATP land mines is not a war crime by itself.
For example ATP land mines with reliable self-destruction used properly are OK (yes, some failure rate will exist - in case of war you rarely have 100% sunshine and rainbows solutions).
While dropping randomly land mines over city to target civilians is bad, evil, war crime and terrorism.
Yes, in case of war it is very likely that murdering soldiers of other side will become necessary. It does not make executing PoW acceptable, but guns/mines etc will be used.
One core principle behind determining whether the use of a weapon is a war crime is seeing if it can be used discriminately, i.e., if it can be targeted. So for example, the use of guns (though awful) is not a war crime, because using it requires you to point it at something and pull the trigger. You are in control of whether you shoot an enemy who is actively engaging, an enemy who is retreating, a field medic, a journalist reporting on the scene, a civilian who was not able to flee the area. With for example mustard gas, you cannot make this choice, and that's one of the two major reasons why the use of mustard gas is a war crime.
Even if you build in a self destruction mechanism to landmines(1), this indiscriminate nature remains.
On top of that, you mention something about peppering cities with land mines not being ok (and it wouldn't be), but I'm not convinced that anyone's doing that. And still civilians make up 90% of the victims.
Of course, there's another thing playing into that 90% figure, which is that, by and large, mines are not very effective against military tartgets because they have ample means to dispose of them. Given the fact that our target here is Russia, and not some poorly funded guerilla outfit, I think this should be taken into consideration.
Pairing their war crimey nature and their low efficacy (2), I personally cannot get behind withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty.
There is much more to say about this, and much more has been said about this. I would recommend giving
a skim. They give alternative, more effective, less inhumane, solutions to the problems that mines try (and largely fail) to solve.
(1) Which is ultimately a bit of a hypothetical exercise, because the nations that left the treaty, well, left the treaty. They didn't propose an amendment allowing for temporary mines, they left the treaty. And on top of that the failure rate for such smart mines is like 20%. You get 1/5th of a war crime I guess.
(2) Earlier I said something to the effect of "I'm sure they're effective". At the time I hadn't read up on the actual effectiveness of mines, because to me, the effectiveness of a method plays no role in whether it should be allowed in combat. I've since read up on that part too, and I'm reasonably convinced they're not very effective in our current context.
Modern mines have programmable target discriminators that use multiple sensor modalities in addition to a programmable self-destruct. A cow or a goat herder usually won't set these off.
Many types of sophisticated mines cannot be trivially cleared with line charges or engineering vehicles. Soviet style mines can be cleared this way but aren't the only kind that exist.
This tech isn't sophisticated but it costs money and requires maintenance. Many militaries don't use them because they want weapons that can sit in a warehouse for 50 years with zero maintenance.
The military purpose of mines is not to kill anyone. It is to deny use of space in order to shape the battlefield and trap the adversary in areas where they are exposed to other weapons. Mines are highly effective at this purpose and will be for the foreseeable future against almost all adversaries. This is not controversial.
The "expert" in the linked article has no background in mine warfare, only EOD. This became obvious when I was reading the article because it presented an unexpectedly naive understanding of mine warfare. That perspective might make sense if your only experience is clearing old Soviet mines and IEDs but it doesn't generalize.
I wonder how those sensors detect a retreating enemy. And again, a failure rate between 6% and 20% is not acceptable. A bit of mustard gas is still mustard gas. And the baltics left the "all mines" treaty, not the "smart mines" treaty.
You are underestimating what kind of evil things people had done and will do. This was in fact done.
> Even if you build in a self destruction mechanism to landmines(1), this indiscriminate nature remains.
Would you claim that dropping bombs from planes is also war crime? Because if mines are placed in exclusion zones or deployed directly in front on enemy charge then mines can be as discriminate as alternatives.
> Of course, there's another thing playing into that 90% figure, which is that, by and large, mines are not very effective against military tartgets because they have ample means to dispose of them. Given the fact that our target here is Russia, and not some poorly funded guerilla outfit, I think this should be taken into consideration.
In Ukraine mines were in fact effective, both against Russia and Ukraine.
> because they have ample means to dispose of them
Main benefit of using mines is slowing down enemy and forcing them to deploy means to dispose them
It drastically lowers speed of advance, even if mines harm noone in the end.
> And on top of that the failure rate for such smart mines is like 20%.
I heard about much better failure rates. Do you have a reliable source for that 20%? I would be happy to educate myself (and maybe change my opinion)
I did, and their claim of "Minefields can now be breached in minutes, using armoured engineering vehicles and explosive line charges." is highly misleading.
For example Russia lost piles of tanks and other combat vehicles around Vuhledar, large part of them to remotely deployed mines.
For other side, Ukrainian summer offensive failed in large part due to massive mine fields (there were also other factors like insufficient supply of armoured engineering vehicles and explosive line charges and Russian helicopters sniping ones that were trying to breach minefields).
If you restrict claim to ATP mines - they are still useful and they are nightmare to advancing military. Yes, after war they will be also horrible for civilians if not cleaned up.
Manipulation/mistake in quoted source is that any military thing can now be breached in minutes or faster, at least in some cases with proper tools deployed in proper position. The trick is that it is not reliable, you may lack this tools, you may miss window for deploying them, they may be opposed or stopped.
Yes, sometimes mines can be defeated quickly, mines are not win button, mines will not solve all problems. It does not change that mines are extremely useful and side not using them (or giving up ATP mines) is at huge handicap.
> I'm reasonably convinced they're not very effective in our current context.
I am not, at all, and as far as I know this is widely shared opinion among people who are actual experts in military matters. (I am not one)
In conflict between equals, landmines are the only practical way to restrict the mobility of the enemy. That's why 20% of Ukraine is contaminated by mines. If you were official and your choices would be losing and more people dying or placing more landmines that can be cleared over 20 years, what would you do?
Exactly! The situation happened, no going back, but they had a choice - to be transparent about it and I am sure people would be appreciative of it, maybe giving them net positive rather than negative, but the choice they have made is a complete opposite and a sign that no one should trust them.
reply