Possibly not.

But “We know what he meant” when someone demonstrates that they don’t know what they are talking about has proven to be dangerous.

I wouldn’t hire a mechanic who thought cats traveled at miles per MPH. Why should I listen to someone talk about boats who thinks “knots per hour” is a speed?

Knots is a measure of distance, and the fact that people have been using that wrong for several centuries

We’ve only been sailing for “several centuries.” How long was it a measure of distance before people started using it wrong?

I was under the impression that navy ships could go much faster, but didn’t because of wear and fuel consumption. I recall hearing about 60 knots, but I wouldn’t place even a small bet on it.

Same for cargo ships, to a lesser extent. If an empty one felt a need to move, I’m sure they could get a little speed to them. But they aren’t built for it, and “saving money on fuel” is their prime directive.

Although, as someone noted elsewhere, there don’t seem to be any actual measurements of speed. They turned around, and cranked the throttle, but we don’t know how far they were going in either phase.

I know what I’m about.

I find that reasonably unlikely, unless it is a naval ship. I don’t think cargo ships go that fast unless empty, and highly motivated. Possibly not even then.

Do we have a reliable source for this data?

I’m being accurate. “Knots” is “nautical miles per hour,” as you correctly described.

The fact that you are measuring speed in knots per hour invalidates your point.

Please use a correct measurement, and try again.

You keep saying “I understand” and then displaying that you don’t understand.

I mean, I can explain why Grand Moff Tarken blew up Alderaan. I understand why he chose to do that. There is no slippery slope from there to “it’s ok to blow up planets.”

It is crucial that you understand the motivations of your enemy, and understand why he makes the decisions he does. You aren’t going to defeat him by guesswork.

There is a difference between “justify” and “explain.” He’s not saying what happened is OK, he’s explaining why some people were motivated to ruin what most purple thought of as a good thing.

Did you check to see which sub-lemmy you’re in?

No, it shuffles on, a decaying zombie shell of it’s former theoretical glory.

Still, you put it well. I’m impressed with your literary talent. Tell me, have you ever considered writing a Hungarian phrase book?

I plead the fifth.

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent dipshit?

Agreed. But I’m not what I’d call a community starter.

Yea, I suddenly started getting that too.

Reddit has seriously gone to shit lately, but it’s got a few communities that aren’t present here. Or if they are, I haven’t found them.

Don’t ask.

The sooner the better.

Which he will ignore as soon as he finds it inconvenient.

Why do people continue to think you can make a deal with someone who never upholds their end of a deal?

This is the way.

Information flow can never go backwards. There’s plenty of examples of reporters or even social media compromising military operations. In at least a few cases, it has lead to the destruction of military assets. Once broadcast, the damage is done.

Trying to force reporters to think hard about what they are broadcasting is a good thing, from the point of view of national defence.

Is it normal to allow people to send military information to your enemy?

I’m not a huge fan of either of the two belligerent, but this is not exactly an unreasonable position to take. And they are at least putting reporters on notice.