Explanation of differences between corvettes, frigates, destroyers and cruisers (as recorded from a Quora discussion):

Minesweeper: it's job to to find and remove mines to clear a harbor or other restricted waters for maritime access and egress. There can also be minelayers which do the opposite.
Corvettes: They were smaller sailing vessels used for coastal commerce and and defense. They were fast and maneuverable. Today some navies use these in a similar way but they are not sail powered. The US Navy has similar vessels called Littoral Combat Ships.
Now to Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers. These range from smallest to largest in the same order. Cruisers tend to be picket ships specializing in air defense. They also have Tomahawk missiles that can be launched against land or sea targets.
Destoyers are smaller than Cruisers and used to be more for submarine warfare and then became a smaller version of a cruisers with much the same mission. Frigates were the smallest. They were primarlily anti-submarine platforms.
Frigates and Destroyers have 76mm cannons that could be used for support of an amphibious landing, but they were limited in this regard. There are no more active Frigates in the US Navy.
Destroyers have more capabilities, while being able to do the same job as the Frigate. There is always talk about building Frigates to support littoral (coastal operations) but budgets always seem to favor larger combatants.
The Destroyer or DDG (G for Guided Missile) is the workhorse of US Navy surface combatants today. These are mainly Arleigh Burke Class ships.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Internet

SolarWinds follow up. Very good tweet explaining what happened.


Basically what this means is that SolarWinds itself was exploited. Someone posted an infected update as legitimate (digitally signed), leading customers to download a bad update.

“Multiple trojanized updates were digitally signed from March - May 2020 and posted to the SolarWinds updates website” https://t.co/8e3bMFWXYu


FireEye then explains that infected organizations were approached and exploited. This is a separate Step 2.

At this point, information is already going to “malicious domains” without extra intervention, after the malware does nothing for “up to two weeks”
We’ve spent the last ten months building #CitizenBrowser, a project that aims to peek inside the Black Box of social media algorithms, by building a nationwide panel to share data with us. Today, we are publishing our first story from the project. /1

.@corintxt crunched the numbers and found that after Facebook flipped the switch for political ads, partisan content elbowed out reputable news outlets in our panelists’ news feeds.
https://t.co/Z0kibSBeQZ /2

You can learn more in our methodology, where we describe how we did this and what steps we took to ensure that we preserved the panelists' privacy. https://t.co/UYbTXAjy5i /3

Personally, this project is the culmination of years of experiments trying to figure out how to collect data from social media platforms in a way that can lead to meaningful reporting. I’ve described a couple of highlights below 👇 /4

My first attempt was in 2016 at Propublica, when I was working with @JuliaAngwin . We were interested in seeing if there was a difference in the Ad interests FB disclosed to users in their settings and the interests they showed to marketers. /5

You May Also Like

My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?