The Cutting Edge - Se#2591a.Doc: Fill & Download for Free

It is customary to exclude nuclear weapons from military rankings, so let's do this here too. A modern military requires consistently high funding over 10-20 years, modern technologies and fighting strategies, and proper training. Size is important too, as a small military with a few cutting-edge systems would rank behind a larger military with numerous slightly less modern systems (assuming both types are reasonably modern). "Completeness" is also important - a military without a strong navy would be at a disadvantage in rankings, even if it does need a strong navy (landlocked countries are usually not penalized for this, but none of them are highly ranked anyway).The top four most modern militaries are clearThe United StatesThe UK and France (the two strongest militaries properly in Europe)China (the strongest military properly in Asia, by far)Don't see <your favorite military> on the list? Feeling upset? Ready to call me a paid agent of <your least favorite military>? - Don't despair! The ranking will change in ten years or earlier :) But for now, here are some explanations -China has a huge military, much of it not modern - this is why China is now reducing its military by over 200,000. But the investments over the last 10-15 years have been significant, and China is mastering increasingly sophisticated technologies (including space, missile and naval systems), while also buying cutting-edge weapons from Russia. If we were to compare averages per military, China would rank much lower, but I am looking at the amount of modern weapons and the level of modern fighting techniques available to the given military.The fifth place can be split between South Korea and Japan that have strong navies, air and ground forces, various missiles, electronics, space systems, as well as powerful defense industries. Closely followed by Germany, whose strength is in training and tactics, precision engineering, engines and large systems, the ability to ramp-up if necessary, and various partnerships with NATO allies (but a weaker navy and a smaller airforce).The US, China, Japan, South Korea and Germany are all improving fast. The UK and France are probably going to increase military funding or at least optimize expenses not to lag behind. For example, the UK is reducing troops to save money for new tech and is about to launch a new supercarrier (after the US launches its supercarrier), while constructing another one.Russia does not make the cut for six reasons.Low military spending before 2008, much of it allocated for maintenance and soldier support. Russia considerably reduced its military at some point to reduce maintenance costs, but then gradually raised military salaries to attract better-qualified people.Russia's strong defense industry (still a lot smaller than the US) is trying to earn money supplying other countries, especially China and India. So, much of its production is deliberately lower quality and goes to other countries.The bulk of Russia's military is conscripts that serve for a year. That limits their training with modern weapons - hardware and especially tactical skills, which take time to master.Russia's surface navy uses predominantly outdated ships, and won't be able to replace ships in the near future.Missing components from Ukraine and NATO/EU countries are preventing Russia from completing a number of capital systems, such as naval ships, medium-sized transport planes, and helicopters. Producing replacement components and redesigning the systems for Russian parts will set Russia back by 3-5 years, limiting new R&D.Russian military experienced unprecedented wear-and-tear of its hardware in 2015 due to numerous large-scale drills, as well as action in Ukraine and Syria. This reduces equipment readiness, while the short-term improvement in training will abate when new conscripts replace current ones next year. Russia's hardware needs maintenance, but there aren't trained technicians to provide quality maintenance.Israel - another contender - has a very weak surface navy, and its defense industry is limited by the size of Israel's economy (it can accomplish many things, but not everything at the same time). Also, considerable military aid from the US does not stack up well against countries that fund themselves. In comparison, Turkey has a much stronger Navy (while its AirForce is somewhat weaker and Ground troops are somewhat stronger) and a strong defense industry (that produces its own F-16s in large numbers, including recent variants). Note that both Turkey and Israel are getting F-35s, and neither is getting F-22ss (which is not exported). Israel's edge is superb training, tactics, electronics, intelligence and special forces - a huge advantage in a limited conflict. Turkey would fare better in a large-scale protracted conflict.Australia's military is generally modern. It employs some cutting-edge US-made systems (especially in aviation) and high-tech indigeneous systems, such as OTH radars. But it is missing many types of systems entirely, and is very small. Australia has a huge geographic advantage (being large, isolated and remote) but that does not make their military more modern per se.

Software Engineer == Software DeveloperSome people have their own specific definitions, and some “real” engineers are more touchy than others about the word “engineer.”As such, you may see some people place software engineers in buckets like writing software for medical equipment, self-driving cars, flight software, things with life and death consequences if mistakes occur.That said, the two terms are used interchangeably. In fact, the vast majority of us fall under the SDE title, which stands for Software Development Engineer. Seriously, both are right in the title itself!But again, definition varies from person to person. Essentially, it’s best to look at roles and responsibilities. Imagine asking someone if a 3.5 is a good GPA, and all the possible answers you could get.Computer Scientist is not the same.The confusion arises because software developers generally have a strong background in Computer Science fundamentals, but an actual Computer Scientist would be someone on the cutting edge of an area, generally doing research.In many ways, this is true of most fields, with a slight degree difference because of on the job training. For example, you may find a Mechanical Engineering degree has a significant number of the major requirements of a Math or Physics degree, but of course, these are not Mathematicians or Physicists.There’s a lot of debate about CS degrees and Software Engineering as a career, but in my experience, I just find that there’s simply more overlap between the academic/theoretic CS side and the applied SE side than we find in other engineering fields.Additionally, advancements on the engineering side of it are somewhat less solidified and established due to the comparative youth of the field and less agreed upon standards in some areas. MechE has been around for centuries, Software has barely been “soft” for one.

I don't know many of them, but Xiao Du (@disinfeqt on Twitter) is pretty good:http://disinfeqt.com/I would recommend Zhida Cheng's works (@chumsdock on Twitter) too:http://chengis.meXin Liu (@livid on Twitter) is not a web designer per se, as he does more iOS development these days. But he's a very capable designer and has a cult following in the Chinese web design community with his V2EX.com project.There's also a GTD startup based in Shenzhen called TaskAnt:http://taskant.com/It's made by the same team that created the mind-mapping software Xmind for Mac OS X.One thing about Chinese web design is that good taste and commercial viability don't seem to play well together. (UPDATE: See Michael Zhang's reply to this question.) Many of the major players of the Chinese internet directly copy the design of their foreign — in most cases US — counterparts, so there's really no point discussing their ‘design’. On the other hand, companies pursuing high traffic tend to tailor the design of their website to a perceived group referred to as ‘the mass’ or ‘Chinese netizens’, mostly people from the 2nd-, 3rd- and 4th-tier cities with less sophistication. I've heard someone from a prominent, reasonably high-paying (by Chinese standard) company saying that one of their websites is ‘too beautiful’, and ‘The majority of Chinese netizens really don't appreciate beautiful web design.’ As a result, most of the cutting-edge web designs I saw in Mainland China are personal works with no commercial consideration / restraints.