Disclaimer that I’m still a noob, too.

I gave my main recommendation there, for transceiver. I haven’t done the research to have a model or brand in mind, but a cheap SSB (single side-band) radio seems like it should exist, given that you can make such a device with just 7 transistors. Any remotely modern computer will be able to generate an audio signal that, when mixed up to RF the way a SSB radio does, will look like the mode of your choice. Software-wise, I’ve really liked working with GnuRadio so far.

Amps go for a lot more new, because they have to handle both radio frequencies and >100W powers, and do so without causing distortion. Ham radio is a dying art, so poking around for ones at estate sales or similar seems promising. 100W is generally the recommended minimum if you don’t want to be frustrated.

For the feedline, assuming you’re doing coax, the design tension is between bendability and DB/meter attenuation. For radio 50 ohm impedance is standard, not 75, so you can’t reuse stuff from cable TV without transformers. (Impedance matching is very important, as you’ll learn getting a licence)

For the various accessories you may need to connect cables, amps, antenna wires and maybe filters, Amazon. They even have the obscure stuff I’ve needed for my direct sample radio.

All the prefab antennas I’ve seen seem ludicrously expensive, given that it’s a chunk of ordinary metal, so probably skip that and cut your own. Antenna recipes are all over the place on ham homepages. If you’re doing a bunch of non-resonant antennas, a tuner will save you time, but they cost as much as an amp. Everything that works at the high-power end is expensive.

No, I wasn’t quoting anything there. People are used to choosing who they want to communicate with, sending a message, and everything either working or (rarely) not working. Power, noise, space weather, multipathing, interference and the vagaries of antenna performance all make it a bit more involved when manually operating a radio. And that’s not even getting into whatever you need to make your own setup work.

Yeah, ham radio. If I was doing it all over again, I’d go for the most basic SSB radio I can find that plugs in to a computer sound card - that should in theory be able to do anything reasonable. You’ll also need feed lines, an amp and a large-ish antenna, which is where things get a bit more technical hardware-wise, especially if you’re in an apartment or have something like an HOA, but it nothing you can’t figure out.

And yes, a licence. So far I’ve found the requirements pretty reasonable in my jurisdiction, they relate to not frying yourself or your equipment, and how not to be a menace to other people sharing the radio bands. You used to need to learn Morse code fluently enough to pass a practical test, but most places have gotten rid of that.

It’s mostly stuff you definitely need to know, though, at least in Canada. There’s a bit more to it than sending a text.

Oops, my bad. I guess I’ll go lie down in front of the horses with the others.

Nah. Make Mongolia European again.

Blyat…

Such a war would cause a lot of death and destruction to him and people he needs.

Fixed.

YT link, or URL fragment to add to your favourite IV instance: watch?v=6gbTDZcOkRw

Eh, pretty heavily derived. It’s probably more like heavy sampling.

I, too, would like to hear eldrich silent singing.

Cbat by Hudson Mohawke. Is it actually about sex? Let’s find out.

NP, have an unironically nice day.

A link to the text that currently works, Wikipedia has some rust going on.

It’s Article 6 section 1 subsection “a” that’s relevant here. Interestingly, it’s worded specifically about self-detonating objects, as opposed to remote controlled ones, which other parts of the text do include. Maybe there’s been updates of some kind to this, though; I defer to the actual lawyers.

How often do you see the conviction of a crime justified in the name of deterrence of future crimes in a courtroom?

In a courtroom, they don’t justify laws at all, except maybe relative to other, more foundational laws. They just interpret them.

Theater implies it’s not very much meant earnestly, by politicians and criminologists alike. And honestly I myself agree with that kind of deterrence, there should be rules that people are mortally afraid to break; anything else is a power vacuum and won’t last.

hey just intercepted a shipment of pagers going to Lebanon that they know Hezbollah members used and put in explosives. What happened if you’re just a regular guy trying to buy one of those pagers?

It’s actually known now that their own shell company sold directly to Hezbollah. It’s not like this was a random shipment to Lebanon, there was no risk of that. The civilian casualties were a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I genuinely don’t know how to explain to you that exploding a bunch of pagers with no knowledge of where they are or who has them at any given time has more potential for collateral damage than an airstrike using advanced weaponry on a military target.

I genuinely thing that’s empirically wrong. What you call “advanced weaponry” still uses the same explosives from WWII, but in even greater quantities. The 21st century electronics mean it will hit a specific building instead of “London”, but it’s still 2000 pounds of RDX or whatever.

Do you know which treaty that was exactly? I also wonder if it was written at a time when opaque military supply chains and detonation by network weren’t around. A walkie-talkie that blows up on use and is sold openly would indeed be indiscriminate as hell.

Deterrence is not the main intent

Any number of politicians, police officers and domestic legal experts openly disagree with you. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “deter criminals” many times before.

Abstract moral punishment and rehabilitation are also in the mix, but deterrence is listed first as often as not.

You don’t play a shooter and say spray-and-pray is an effective strategy because over 80% of the bullets hit the target.

Spraying bullets vaguely towards the enemy is not unusual at all in infantry operations. Quite often they’re concealed or covered, and you either want to keep them that way or kill them before they can kill you, regardless. In fact, the automatic setting on an ordinary assault rifle can’t do anything else.

Also, airstrikes are not biometric, but that’s the next bit.

An airstrike with guided missiles on some of the most advanced fighter jets in history has more potential for collateral damage than a bunch of improvised IED’s spread throughout a population? Really?

Yes. High-tech or not it’s a big boom and you only have you’re intelligence guy’s best guess about who’s inside of or next to the military position. It sounds like you might have fallen for some “surgical strike” type rhetoric here yourself.

So when the police arrest someone for stealing in order to deter other potential thieves, that’s an act of terror? I kinda thought you might go there, but it’s a uselessly vague dictionary definition. In practice it’s even more political than “surgical strike”.

Collective punishment is a war crime, but this was directed at personnel of a military adversary, not Lebanese people in general. These UN experts seem to think it was indiscriminate, and they’re way more qualified than me, but at the same time an airstrike on a specifically military target is generally considered okay, and has way higher potential for collateral damage.

Humanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects where specifically designed and constructed with explosives

This one’s new to me. Yep, that fits to a tee. Never mind, it was illegal.

C’mon, you think he cares about the Western “anti-imperialists”, unless one is actually in the room with him? He’s scrounging for support from global Muslims.

That might even explain the American angle. Nobody else has managed to make them care about non-America places.

It’s common knowledge this was an act of terror

I really don’t think so. That’s just some people’s opinion. Hell, even “act of terror” is poorly-defined, as used.

and was intended to escalate the conflict to help keep Bibi and his cronies in power

That’s valid, though. There’s nothing just about the war, valid method in this one instance or no.