Youtube comments of Solo Renegade (@SoloRenegade).

  1. 2400
  2. 1700
  3. 1300
  4. 1200
  5. 1000
  6. 1000
  7. 946
  8. 814
  9. 752
  10. 691
  11. 678
  12. 651
  13. 621
  14. 612
  15. 592
  16. 587
  17. 555
  18. 539
  19. 539
  20. 524
  21. 517
  22. 463
  23. 462
  24. 434
  25. 424
  26. 391
  27. 388
  28. 384
  29. 370
  30. 363
  31. 361
  32. 357
  33. 339
  34. 335
  35. 333
  36. 326
  37. 325
  38. 318
  39. 318
  40. 310
  41. 308
  42. 307
  43. 302
  44. 301
  45. 292
  46. 275
  47. 274
  48. 263
  49. 255
  50. 244
  51. 240
  52. 233
  53. 228
  54. 213
  55. 212
  56. 205
  57. 199
  58. 198
  59. 197
  60. 192
  61. 185
  62. 183
  63. 183
  64. 183
  65. 182
  66. 182
  67. 181
  68. 181
  69. 181
  70. 180
  71. 179
  72. 178
  73. 178
  74. 175
  75. 173
  76. 172
  77. 171
  78. 165
  79. 163
  80. 161
  81. 159
  82. 158
  83. 158
  84. 157
  85. 156
  86. 156
  87. 155
  88. 153
  89. 151
  90. 147
  91. 146
  92. 141
  93. 140
  94. 139
  95. 139
  96. 139
  97. 137
  98. 136
  99. 136
  100. 136
  101. 136
  102. 128
  103. 128
  104. 126
  105. 126
  106. 125
  107. 124
  108. 123
  109. 122
  110. 119
  111. 118
  112. 117
  113. 116
  114. 115
  115. 114
  116. 112
  117. 110
  118. 110
  119. 110
  120. 109
  121. 107
  122. 104
  123. Takes me 5min of my time to wash clothes. Machine does the rest. Takes me maybe 15min to was dishes if I'm not using the dishwasher. Taking out the garbage takes 2min. Mowing the lawn takes 1-2hrs depending on how long I waited to do it. Clearing the driveway of snow when we've got 1-2ft of snow takes me about 20min tops with the snow blower. Cleaning the Bathroom takes about an hour for a deep scrub, less if I do it regularly. Cleaning the kitchen tends to happen after washing dishes, takes a few minutes. Have all hard floors, so cleaning them takes tops 15min. I cook my own meals, most of which can be done in less than 20-30min. And some times I cook for 2-3hrs in a single go, but that food will last me all of the next week. I have a garden (larger vegetable garden, raised beds, and indoor plants) that i take care of myself. I pay all of my own bills, have time and money to spend on hobbies, activities, investments, travel, etc. I have a good job and even put in extra hours regularly. I fix my car when it needs work to save money (when it cost me more per hour than I make to pay someone else to do it). What does a modern woman bring to my life that I don't already have? What does she ADD to my life that I can't get myself? Is she going to pay half the bills? is she going to do half the work at home? Will she do ALL the work at home if she doesn't work? Will she homeschool any kids we had? Is she going to share the responsibility? Is she going to help lessen my financial burden, or reduce my individual workload? Is she going to make me look good to my coworkers to boost my status and help me get promotions? Is she going to be family and community oriented, and willing to help others? What is a modern woman willing to do to make my life worth the trouble?
    103
  124. 102
  125. 102
  126. 102
  127. 101
  128. 100
  129. 99
  130. 97
  131. 97
  132. 96
  133. 95
  134. 94
  135. 93
  136. 93
  137. 90
  138. 89
  139. 88
  140. 88
  141. 88
  142. 87
  143. 87
  144. 86
  145. 86
  146. 86
  147. 85
  148. 85
  149. 84
  150. 83
  151. 82
  152. 81
  153. 81
  154. 80
  155. 80
  156. 79
  157. 79
  158. 78
  159. 78
  160. 76
  161. 75
  162. 75
  163. 75
  164. 75
  165. 74
  166. 73
  167. 73
  168. 72
  169. 72
  170. 72
  171. 72
  172. 71
  173. 71
  174. 71
  175. 71
  176. 71
  177. 71
  178. 70
  179. 70
  180. 70
  181. 70
  182. 69
  183. 68
  184. 67
  185. 67
  186. 66
  187. 65
  188. 64
  189. 64
  190. 63
  191. 62
  192. 62
  193. 62
  194. 62
  195. 61
  196. 61
  197. 61
  198. 60
  199. 60
  200. 60
  201. 60
  202. 60
  203. 60
  204. 60
  205. 59
  206. 59
  207. 59
  208. 58
  209. 58
  210. 57
  211. 57
  212. 57
  213. 57
  214. 57
  215. 56
  216. 56
  217. 56
  218. 55
  219. 55
  220. 55
  221. 55
  222. 54
  223. 53
  224. 53
  225. 53
  226. 53
  227. 53
  228. 53
  229. 53
  230. 53
  231. 52
  232. 52
  233. 52
  234. 52
  235. 51
  236. 51
  237. 51
  238. 51
  239. 51
  240. 51
  241. 51
  242. 50
  243. 50
  244. 50
  245. 50
  246. 49
  247. 49
  248. 49
  249. 49
  250. 49
  251. 48
  252. 48
  253. 47
  254. 47
  255. 47
  256. 47
  257. 47
  258. 47
  259. 47
  260. 46
  261. 45
  262. 45
  263. 45
  264. 44
  265. 44
  266. 44
  267. 44
  268. 44
  269. 44
  270. 44
  271. 44
  272. 43
  273. 43
  274. 43
  275. 43
  276. 42
  277. 42
  278. 42
  279. 42
  280. 42
  281. 42
  282. 42
  283. 42
  284. I literally just took an Early American History college course this summer (ended yesterday) and we covered slavery end to end, and let me tell you it's not as simple as CRT tries to make it out to be. It's not all as bad as CRT tries to claim either. Did you know free blacks lived in North America before 1619? the First black slaves brought to north America in 1619 were brought by the Dutch, and only a handful. Does CRT talk about European indentured servitude in America, and how few of them survived their servitude? Does CRT teach about native American slavery in the Americas? does CRT teach about free black Americans who owned slaves? Does CRT teach about all the varied nations who brought and engaged in slavery in the Americas? Does CRT teach slavery of eurpoeans? Does it talk about Muslim/Arab slavers? Does it teach about Black African slavers? Does it teach how many attempts were made in the US to end slavery? Does CRT teach about modern sex trafficking and slavery? Does CRT teach about the racism of China against Blacks? Does CRT teach about China's genocide and concentration camps? Does CRT teach about Tibet, Myanmar, North Korea, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Somalia, etc? Does CRT teach about all the genocides and slavery in Africa, by Africans? We aren't opposed to history being taught, we're opposed to BIASED teaching of history, and trying to engage in racism against other groups in retaliation. We're against tearing down statues of Frederick Douglass and abolitionist statues (like the one in Madison, WI). We believe in following the example of the likes of MLKJ and Thomas Sowell. We believe in teaching All of it, just the facts, and then discussing it, and not engaging in eye-for-an-eye politics.
    41
  285. 41
  286. 41
  287. 41
  288. 40
  289. 40
  290. 40
  291. 40
  292. 40
  293. 40
  294. 39
  295. 39
  296. 39
  297. 39
  298. 39
  299. 38
  300. 38
  301. 38
  302. 38
  303. 38
  304. 38
  305. 38
  306. 37
  307. 37
  308. 37
  309. 37
  310. 37
  311. 37
  312. 37
  313. 37
  314. 36
  315. 36
  316. 36
  317. 36
  318. 36
  319. 36
  320. 36
  321. 35
  322. 35
  323. 35
  324. 35
  325. 35
  326. 35
  327. 35
  328. 35
  329. 35
  330. 35
  331. 34
  332. 34
  333. 34
  334. 34
  335. 34
  336. 34
  337. 33
  338. 33
  339. 33
  340. 33
  341. 33
  342. 33
  343. 33
  344. 33
  345. 33
  346. 33
  347. 32
  348. 32
  349. 32
  350. 32
  351. 32
  352. 32
  353. 32
  354. 32
  355. 32
  356. 32
  357. 32
  358. 32
  359. 32
  360. 31
  361. 31
  362. 31
  363. 31
  364. 31
  365. 31
  366. 31
  367. 31
  368. 30
  369. 30
  370. 30
  371. 30
  372. 30
  373. 30
  374. 30
  375. 30
  376. 30
  377. 30
  378. 29
  379. 29
  380. 29
  381. 29
  382. 29
  383. 29
  384. 29
  385. 29
  386. 29
  387. 29
  388. 29
  389. 29
  390. 29
  391.  @phunkracy  "this is just a bad take. MiG-29 wasnt designed to last more than 20 years because with the tempo of cold war armaments, it would be replaced by a next gen plane by that time." proving it was inferior to the F-16 all along. In 1991, the following US aircraft were still in active service. A-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-4, C-130, B-52, U-2, SR-71, and aircraft like the F-8 and F-106 had only just been retired from US service. Aircraft of good design always last. also, development of armaments was always slowing down as technology and costs increased, look at the F-22 and Seawolf submarine.... The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was partially economic. They could never spend enough to keep up with the US. and look at the Russian economy today compared to the US. What is a typical Russian income compared to the US? How much do teachers make? how about a college graduate with a bachelors in engineering? Russia was running out of money Long before the collapse. "MiG couldnt compete because there was no competition. " correct, it always lost in combat. It's kill ration in Desert storm alone was 0.03:1 🤣 how embarrassing. And it's kill ratio is much worse when you factor in total losses in all conflicts. The only country who seems to have managed to make them work was Ukraine. And Ukraine used them to defeat "superior" Russian aircraft/missiles. 38 countries operated it. "Russia itself had to cut the 29 in favour of Su-27 because it couldn't afford to keep two platforms." further proving my point. And it was so bad even Russia didn't want it. When poorer nations than Russia can afford Mig29s but Russia can't.....that tells you something.
    29
  392. 28
  393. 28
  394. 28
  395. 28
  396. 28
  397. 28
  398. 28
  399. 28
  400. 28
  401. 28
  402. 28
  403. 27
  404. 27
  405. 27
  406. 27
  407. 27
  408. 27
  409. 27
  410. 27
  411. 27
  412. 27
  413. 26
  414. 26
  415. 26
  416. 26
  417. 26
  418. 26
  419. 26
  420. 26
  421. 26
  422. 26
  423. 26
  424. 26
  425. 26
  426. 26
  427. 26
  428. 25
  429. 25
  430. 25
  431. 25
  432. 25
  433. 25
  434. 25
  435. 25
  436. 25
  437. 25
  438. 25
  439. 25
  440. 25
  441. 25
  442. 25
  443. 25
  444. 25
  445. 25
  446. 24
  447. 24
  448. 24
  449. 24
  450. 24
  451. 24
  452. 24
  453. 24
  454. 24
  455. 24
  456. 24
  457. 24
  458. 24
  459. 24
  460. 24
  461. 24
  462. 24
  463. 23
  464. 23
  465. 23
  466. 23
  467. 23
  468. 23
  469. 23
  470. 23
  471. 23
  472. 23
  473. 23
  474. 23
  475. 23
  476. 23
  477. 23
  478. 23
  479. 22
  480. 22
  481. 22
  482. 22
  483. 22
  484. 22
  485. 22
  486. 22
  487. 22
  488. 22
  489. 22
  490. 22
  491. 22
  492. 22
  493. 22
  494. 22
  495. 22
  496. 22
  497. 22
  498. 22
  499. 22
  500. 22
  501. 22
  502. 22
  503. 22
  504. 22
  505. 21
  506. 21
  507. 21
  508. 21
  509. 21
  510. 21
  511. 21
  512. 21
  513. 21
  514. 21
  515. 21
  516. 21
  517. 21
  518. 21
  519. 21
  520. 21
  521. 21
  522. 21
  523. 20
  524. 20
  525. 20
  526. 20
  527. 20
  528. 20
  529. 20
  530. 20
  531. 20
  532. 20
  533. 20
  534. 20
  535. 20
  536. 20
  537. 20
  538. 20
  539. 20
  540. 20
  541. 19
  542. 19
  543. 19
  544. 19
  545. 19
  546. 19
  547. 19
  548. 19
  549. 19
  550. 19
  551. 19
  552. 19
  553. 19
  554. 19
  555. 19
  556. 19
  557. 19
  558. 19
  559. 19
  560. 19
  561. 19
  562. 19
  563. 19
  564. 19
  565. 19
  566. 19
  567. 19
  568. 19
  569. 19
  570. 19
  571. 18
  572. 18
  573. 18
  574. 18
  575. 18
  576. 18
  577. 18
  578. 18
  579. 18
  580. 18
  581. 18
  582. 18
  583. 18
  584. 18
  585. 18
  586. 18
  587. 18
  588. 18
  589. 18
  590. 18
  591. 18
  592. 18
  593. 18
  594. 18
  595. 18
  596. 18
  597. 18
  598. 18
  599. 18
  600. 18
  601. 18
  602. 18
  603. 18
  604. 18
  605. 18
  606. 18
  607. 18
  608. 17
  609. 17
  610. 17
  611. 17
  612. 17
  613. 17
  614. 17
  615. 17
  616. 17
  617. 17
  618. 17
  619. 17
  620. 17
  621. 17
  622. 17
  623. 17
  624. 17
  625. 17
  626. 17
  627. 17
  628. 17
  629. 17
  630. 17
  631. 17
  632. 17
  633. 17
  634. 17
  635. 17
  636. 17
  637. 17
  638. 17
  639. 16
  640. 16
  641. 16
  642. 16
  643. 16
  644. 16
  645. 16
  646. 16
  647. 16
  648. 16
  649. 16
  650. 16
  651. 16
  652. 16
  653. 16
  654. 16
  655. 16
  656. 16
  657. 16
  658. 16
  659. 16
  660. 16
  661. 16
  662. 16
  663. 16
  664. 16
  665. 16
  666. 16
  667. 16
  668. 16
  669. 16
  670. 16
  671. 16
  672. 16
  673. 15
  674. 15
  675. 15
  676. 15
  677. 15
  678. 15
  679. 15
  680. 15
  681. 15
  682. 15
  683. 15
  684. 15
  685. 15
  686. 15
  687. 15
  688. 15
  689. 15
  690. 15
  691. 15
  692. 15
  693. 15
  694. 15
  695. 15
  696. 15
  697. 15
  698. 15
  699. 15
  700. 15
  701.  @jordanledoux197  "Literally tens of thousands of people MUST be able to know what it looks like in order for it to actually be manufactured. " not even remotely true. most people are making parts and have no clue what it's ultimately being used on. Or they see a part, that tells them nothing about the final form. The core team of engineers and managers knows what it looks like in its entirety, but that team is likely 100 people or less. I've designed things for NASA that went into outer space and only a seven person team was involved in tis development. Vendors made parts, but only pieces of the puzzle. At the end of the day, there were only 3 people on the team who knew what the entire system looked like in its entirety and had actually worked on all parts of it physically (myself being one of them). We assembled all the constituent parts and pieces personally in our offices and labs, did testing, etc. And where I work, we also do work and design things for gov agencies, and the levels of secrecy and information control, lab access, etc. is pretty strict. And we aren't even working on tech like the NGAD fighter. The gov enforces all sorts of restrictions on the people who get to work on stuff, who has access to information. I've worked on projects where as a lead design engineer for the project, I was intentionally kept in the dark on certain aspects of the product, as I didn't need to know and only the very top managers were approved access to that information, and they basically oversaw the design to make sure the critical design goals were met by what we designed. Those who have access are restricted on when and where they are allowed to travel, who they can talk to, etc. And we deal with stuff like this for things far less secret than NGAD, the B-21, etc. Also, even just using my own knowledge and experiences, I can, and Have, easily deceived people about details of what I was working on. I give them rough/early concept models, or incorrect details, etc. to through them off and keep them guessing. or when discussing things, I'll mix up two ideas to explain something while ensuring they can never piece the details together correctly. they know too little, and they don't know which details I changed, and have no way of figuring it out. It's very easy to be intentionally vague. Things change alot over the course of a design, and even a functional prototype can look very different from the final product. and so you can easily share older work that has fatal flaws, is incomplete, is missing all of the finer details that come later in design, etc. It just depends upon what you are sharing, with whom, and for what reason. Very easy to wage a disinformation campaign on something you control the design and details of. You can give people false teasing details and let their imaginations run with it in the completely wrong direction. But yes, eventually people will find out what it looks like, just like the F-117A, B-21, and others. But if they managed the project properly, that will only occurred when they want to reveal the exterior design (B-21, B-2, F-117A, NGAD, AH-66, stealth blackhawk helicopter, etc.)
    15
  702. 15
  703. 15
  704. 14
  705. 14
  706. 14
  707. 14
  708. 14
  709. 14
  710. 14
  711. 14
  712. 14
  713. 14
  714. 14
  715. 14
  716. 14
  717. 14
  718. 14
  719. 14
  720. 14
  721. 14
  722. 14
  723. 14
  724. 14
  725. 14
  726. 14
  727. 14
  728. 14
  729. 14
  730. 14
  731. 14
  732. 14
  733. 14
  734. 14
  735. 14
  736. 14
  737. 14
  738. 14
  739. 14
  740. 14
  741. 14
  742. 14
  743. 14
  744. 14
  745. 14
  746. 14
  747. 14
  748. 14
  749. 14
  750. 14
  751. 14
  752. 13
  753. 13
  754. 13
  755. 13
  756. 13
  757. 13
  758. 13
  759. 13
  760. 13
  761. 13
  762. 13
  763. 13
  764. 13
  765. 13
  766. 13
  767. 13
  768. 13
  769. 13
  770. 13
  771. 13
  772. 13
  773. 13
  774. 13
  775. 13
  776. 13
  777. 13
  778. 13
  779. 13
  780. 13
  781. 13
  782.  @hotdogg268  not at all. Often times burning more gas is the right answer. I am a CFI and one lesson I always taught to new Commercial Pilots was that of money. I'd ask them if it made more sense to fly a paying customer economically to save fuel, or to just pour it on and fly as fast as practical. They always answered to save gas and save the customer money. But them I'd ask them how much money they'd save by flying economically on a 2hr flight in a given airplane, vs going fast. They calculate the amount. And then I'd point out to them than the airplane costs more per hour to operate than the fuel it burns. And that time is money, and the customer will both save more money by burning the gas and flying faster, as well as be happy the flight took less of their time as well. If I'm saving energy, it has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with spending less money on certain things, so I have more I can spend on things I actually care about. I avoid beachfront properties as they are overpriced and lack all the features that makes a property valuable to me. I don't eat bugs, but you're free to do so if you like. There is quite literally nothing I hate more than hypocrites. Something else I despise are morons like yourself that like to go after people for no reason. The kind of person who can't generate a coherent valid logical argument to save their lives. You obviously can't read. As your response is a direct contradiction to my first comment in this thread, in the context of the original post.
    13
  783. 13
  784. 13
  785. 13
  786. 13
  787. 13
  788. 13
  789. 13
  790. 13
  791. 13
  792. 13
  793. 13
  794. 13
  795. 13
  796. 13
  797. 13
  798. 13
  799. 13
  800. 13
  801. 13
  802. 13
  803. 13
  804. 13
  805. 13
  806. 12
  807. 12
  808. 12
  809. 12
  810. 12
  811. 12
  812. 12
  813. 12
  814. 12
  815. 12
  816. 12
  817. 12
  818. 12
  819. 12
  820. 12
  821. 12
  822. 12
  823. 12
  824. 12
  825. 12
  826. 12
  827. 12
  828. 12
  829. 12
  830. 12
  831. 12
  832. 12
  833. 12
  834. 12
  835. 12
  836. 12
  837. 12
  838. 12
  839. 12
  840. 12
  841. 12
  842. 12
  843. 12
  844. 12
  845. 12
  846. 12
  847. 12
  848. 12
  849. 12
  850. 12
  851. 12
  852. 12
  853. 12
  854. 12
  855. 12
  856. 12
  857. 12
  858. 12
  859. 12
  860. 12
  861. 12
  862. 12
  863. 12
  864. 12
  865. 12
  866. 12
  867. 12
  868. 12
  869. 12
  870. 12
  871. 12
  872. 12
  873. 12
  874. 12
  875. 11
  876. 11
  877. 11
  878. 11
  879. 11
  880. 11
  881. 11
  882. 11
  883. 11
  884. 11
  885. 11
  886. 11
  887. 11
  888. 11
  889. 11
  890. 11
  891. 11
  892. 11
  893. 11
  894. 11
  895. 11
  896. 11
  897. 11
  898. 11
  899. 11
  900. 11
  901. 11
  902. 11
  903. 11
  904. 11
  905. 11
  906. 11
  907. 11
  908. 11
  909. 11
  910. 11
  911. 11
  912. 11
  913. 11
  914. 11
  915. 11
  916. 11
  917. 11
  918. 11
  919. 11
  920. 11
  921. 11
  922. 11
  923. 11
  924. 11
  925. 11
  926. 11
  927. 11
  928. 11
  929. 11
  930. 11
  931. 11
  932. 11
  933. 11
  934. 11
  935. 11
  936. 11
  937. 11
  938. 11
  939. 11
  940. 11
  941. 11
  942. 11
  943. 11
  944. 11
  945. 11
  946. 11
  947. 11
  948. 10
  949. 10
  950.  @MatthewVanston  I detest De Gaulle and his self righteous behavior even now. But most Americans idolize the French Resistance movement in WW2, even if they pick on them about surrendering. Part of the surrender jokes lie in the other generalizations about the French such as they are "lovers not fighters", and care a lot about food. But Americans pick on everyone that way. Americans also know France was the first Ally of the US in during the Revolution, and that we bought a significant portion of the US from France, and that France was once a global power (in some ways still is). But France was also one of the first enemies of the US after the Revolution, and their actions in reclaiming Vietnam after WW2 (and US looking the other way because France was our ally) gave President Johnson an excuse/opportunity to start a war to get himself elected. The history of France and the US is long and complicated. And this leads to all sorts of confusion and funny jokes. Part of the "dropped once, never fired" joke comes from the perception that since France was defeated so quickly by the Blitzkrieg that they weren't good fighters. Most people don't understand when a battle is lost due to logistics more than fighting ability. And so they don't know how else to explain the loss. But at the end of the day, France has been the first, longest, and one of the closest allies of the US through it all. So yes, we are going to have fun poking fun at France, and England, and Russia, and China, and Canada (have you ever seen the stuff we say about Canada?!?! but it's all in good fun and the Canadians know it an dish it out right back, the US loves our Canadian neighbors), and.......every other country on the planet.
    10
  951. 10
  952. 10
  953. 10
  954. 10
  955. 10
  956. 10
  957. 10
  958. 10
  959. 10
  960. 10
  961. 10
  962. 10
  963. 10
  964. 10
  965. 10
  966. 10
  967. 10
  968. 10
  969. 10
  970. 10
  971. 10
  972. 10
  973. 10
  974. 10
  975. 10
  976. 10
  977. 10
  978. 10
  979. 10
  980. 10
  981. 10
  982. 10
  983. 10
  984. 10
  985. 10
  986. 10
  987. 10
  988. 10
  989. 10
  990. 10
  991. 10
  992. 10
  993. 10
  994. 10
  995. 10
  996. 10
  997. 10
  998. 10
  999. 10
  1000. 10
  1001. 10
  1002. 10
  1003. 10
  1004. 10
  1005. 10
  1006. 10
  1007. 10
  1008. 10
  1009. 10
  1010. 10
  1011. 10
  1012. 10
  1013. 10
  1014. 10
  1015. 10
  1016. 10
  1017. 10
  1018. 10
  1019. 10
  1020. 10
  1021. 10
  1022. 10
  1023. 10
  1024. 10
  1025. 10
  1026. 10
  1027. 10
  1028. 10
  1029. 10
  1030. 10
  1031. 10
  1032. 10
  1033. 10
  1034. 10
  1035. 10
  1036. 10
  1037. 10
  1038. 10
  1039. 10
  1040. 10
  1041. 10
  1042. 10
  1043. 10
  1044. 9
  1045. 9
  1046. 9
  1047. 9
  1048. 9
  1049. 9
  1050. 9
  1051. 9
  1052. 9
  1053. 9
  1054. 9
  1055. 9
  1056. 9
  1057. 9
  1058. 9
  1059. 9
  1060. 9
  1061. 9
  1062. 9
  1063. 9
  1064. 9
  1065. 9
  1066. 9
  1067. 9
  1068. 9
  1069. 9
  1070. 9
  1071. 9
  1072. 9
  1073. 9
  1074. 9
  1075. 9
  1076. 9
  1077. 9
  1078. 9
  1079. 9
  1080. 9
  1081. 9
  1082. 9
  1083. 9
  1084. 9
  1085. 9
  1086. 9
  1087. 9
  1088. 9
  1089. 9
  1090. 9
  1091. 9
  1092. 9
  1093. 9
  1094. 9
  1095. 9
  1096. 9
  1097. 9
  1098. 9
  1099. 9
  1100. 9
  1101. 9
  1102. 9
  1103. 9
  1104. 9
  1105. 9
  1106. 9
  1107. 9
  1108. 9
  1109. 9
  1110. 9
  1111. 9
  1112. 9
  1113. 9
  1114. 9
  1115. 9
  1116. 9
  1117. 9
  1118. 9
  1119. 9
  1120. 9
  1121. 9
  1122. 9
  1123. 9
  1124. 9
  1125. 9
  1126. 9
  1127. 9
  1128. 9
  1129. 9
  1130. 9
  1131. 9
  1132. 9
  1133. 9
  1134. 9
  1135. 9
  1136. 9
  1137. 9
  1138. 9
  1139. 9
  1140. 9
  1141. 9
  1142. 9
  1143. 9
  1144. 9
  1145. 9
  1146. 9
  1147. 9
  1148. 9
  1149. 9
  1150. 9
  1151. 9
  1152. 9
  1153. 9
  1154. 8
  1155. 8
  1156. 8
  1157. 8
  1158. 8
  1159. 8
  1160. 8
  1161. 8
  1162. 8
  1163. 8
  1164. 8
  1165. 8
  1166. 8
  1167. 8
  1168. 8
  1169. 8
  1170. 8
  1171. 8
  1172. 8
  1173. 8
  1174. 8
  1175. 8
  1176. 8
  1177. 8
  1178. 8
  1179. 8
  1180. 8
  1181. 8
  1182. 8
  1183. 8
  1184. 8
  1185. 8
  1186. 8
  1187. 8
  1188. 8
  1189. 8
  1190.  @ineednochannelyoutube5384  US Civil War; Had trench warfare. Had underground trench warfare. Had Landmines. Hand grenades. Machine guns. Submarines. Iron Warships with turrets. Torpedoes. Artillery. ... An awful lot like WW1. After the Civil War, US leaders realized this was a bad way to fight, but the Europeans, having not fought the battles themselves, learned different lessons, and mimicked what they saw. WW2 had ALL of the same weapons and tech, plus more, and yet we didn't devolve into trench warfare. also, in WW1, the Europeans wanted the US to fight the same way they had up to that point in WW1, and our leadership was not ok with that. we implemented different strategies that were effective at breaking through trench lines. The US leadership did not view trench warfare as the right approach in WW1. Also, Woodrow Wilson proposed forgiving Germany much the way Lincoln forgave the South in the Civil War, but France/UK were having none of that and desired retribution from Germany...we all know what that led to. In WW2, the US dictated things and finally got to follow in Lincoln's footsteps and worked with Germany and Japan, rather than condemn them the way UK/France had. This is but a minor taste of how the Civil War influenced WW1, both right and wrong influences. Look also at other smaller conflicts post-Civil War, and pre-WW1 (Pancho Villa, Spanish American War, etc. and you will see the shift in doctrine away from trench fighting by the US, despite all these new weapons). Weapons continue to get more and more deadly ever since WW1, and we haven't yet returned to trench warfare as a dominant strategy since. Your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Try applying the "deadly" WW1 tactics against dispersed, smaller, mobile units that are no longer entrenched. How well would those same WW1 tactics work? not so well. If you think trench warfare is the right way to fight in WW1, then you lack understanding of the fundamentals of warfare. I recommend reading, or rereading, the Art of War, slowly and carefully. Learn about "initiative", and the folly of trying to control every inch of ground. you need only control strategic positions, recourses, access points, etc. (bridges, port cities, raw material, production, key terrain...). Mindlessly defending worthless terrain is not the way to win.
    8
  1191. 8
  1192. 8
  1193. 8
  1194. 8
  1195. 8
  1196. 8
  1197. 8
  1198. 8
  1199. 8
  1200. 8
  1201. 8
  1202. 8
  1203. 8
  1204. 8
  1205. 8
  1206. 8
  1207. 8
  1208. 8
  1209. 8
  1210. 8
  1211. 8
  1212. 8
  1213. 8
  1214. 8
  1215. 8
  1216. 8
  1217. 8
  1218. 8
  1219. 8
  1220. 8
  1221. 8
  1222. 8
  1223. 8
  1224. 8
  1225. 8
  1226. 8
  1227. 8
  1228. 8
  1229. 8
  1230. 8
  1231. 8
  1232. 8
  1233. 8
  1234. 8
  1235. 8
  1236. 8
  1237. 8
  1238. 8
  1239. 8
  1240. 8
  1241. 8
  1242. 8
  1243. 8
  1244. 8
  1245. 8
  1246. 8
  1247. 8
  1248. 8
  1249. 8
  1250. 8
  1251. 8
  1252. 8
  1253. 8
  1254. 8
  1255. 8
  1256. 8
  1257. 8
  1258. 8
  1259. 8
  1260. 8
  1261. 8
  1262. 8
  1263. 8
  1264. 8
  1265. 8
  1266. 8
  1267. 8
  1268. 8
  1269. 8
  1270. 8
  1271. 8
  1272. 8
  1273. 8
  1274. 8
  1275. 8
  1276. 8
  1277. Faith is the belief in something in the Absence of Proof. I myself am an atheist/Buddhist, and well versed in science and am very much a person of science, but I was raised Christian and still help people in their own faith. I've actually used science to help people understand and strengthen their own faith. Science, used properly, literally cannot disprove Faith or God/s (whatever you may believe), and any good person of science would know this. But people never have such discussions, and instead of supporting and understanding others, everyone seeks to convert everyone else to their way of thinking, rather than accepting that it's ok for us to all believe in different things, so long as those beliefs don't lead to violence or other criminal behaviors, or forcing your ideas and beliefs on others. Many religious people also struggle with defending themselves against aggressive and rude people of "science" by too often being afraid to accept the reality of science, and failing to recognizing that it is not in fact a threat to their system of beliefs. They fear science, or don't understand it well enough, to know its limitations, and to recognize the terrible arguments by those trying to bludgeon believers into becoming atheist with "science". It's ok for people to change their beliefs too, but people must convert one way or another on their own, of their own choosing, and that should be done by setting good examples and by explaining one's beliefs to them, not running around condemning people, attacking their beliefs, etc. I've seen far too many people in my life running around trying to convert people by threats, insults, hostility and aggression, and otherwise proving they themselves are a horrible human being. Why would anyone wish to convert to any religion where such people and behaviors are tolerated? A good missionary or evangelist seeks to convert people by proving through action why their faith is good for the other person. Leading by example, and thereby convincing others that people like you and your beliefs are something they want in their own lives.
    8
  1278. 8
  1279. 8
  1280. 8
  1281. 8
  1282. 8
  1283. 8
  1284. 8
  1285. 8
  1286. 8
  1287. 8
  1288. 8
  1289. 8
  1290. 8
  1291. 8
  1292. 8
  1293. 8
  1294. 8
  1295. 8
  1296. 8
  1297. 7
  1298. 7
  1299. 7
  1300. 7
  1301. 7
  1302. 7
  1303. 7
  1304. 7
  1305. 7
  1306. 7
  1307. 7
  1308. 7
  1309. 7
  1310. 7
  1311. 7
  1312. 7
  1313. 7
  1314. 7
  1315. 7
  1316. 7
  1317. 7
  1318. 7
  1319. 7
  1320. 7
  1321. 7
  1322. 7
  1323. 7
  1324. 7
  1325. 7
  1326. 7
  1327. 7
  1328. 7
  1329. 7
  1330. 7
  1331. 7
  1332. 7
  1333. 7
  1334. 7
  1335. 7
  1336. 7
  1337. 7
  1338. 7
  1339. 7
  1340. 7
  1341. 7
  1342. 7
  1343. 7
  1344. 7
  1345. 7
  1346. 7
  1347. 7
  1348. 7
  1349. 7
  1350. 7
  1351. 7
  1352. 7
  1353. 7
  1354. 7
  1355. 7
  1356. 7
  1357. 7
  1358. 7
  1359. 7
  1360. 7
  1361. 7
  1362. 7
  1363. 7
  1364. 7
  1365. 7
  1366. 7
  1367. 7
  1368. 7
  1369. 7
  1370. 7
  1371. 7
  1372. 7
  1373. 7
  1374. 7
  1375. 7
  1376. 7
  1377. 7
  1378. 7
  1379. 7
  1380. 7
  1381. 7
  1382. 7
  1383. 7
  1384. 7
  1385. 7
  1386. 7
  1387. 7
  1388. 7
  1389. 7
  1390.  @12345678930379  Yes, but most drivers aren't that good either. I got 27mpg out of a 1990s pickup in town, and 29mpg freeway with it, because of how I drove it. Even with an automatic, the typical driver would brag if they could get 25mpg out of it. My current car can't downshift worth a damn. It always responds too slow and too late, and that car is a decade newer than the truck (and I've owned it since it had 25k miles on it in perfect condition). When a person like me knows how cars work, and basics of gearing, fuel efficiency and such, you absolutely can get better mileage with a manual because you can do things no automatic I know of has been programmed to do. Doesn't mean a computer Can't beat a human, especially when you combine in other aspects of engine and fuel control to the mix. But among your average run of the mill daily driver budget cars, I've always been better than the automatic transmission. I also do a better than average job of getting really good fuel efficiency out of airplanes too. Many are still manually controlled for fuel mixture, prop, etc. Whether fuel injected or carbureted. The prop is like a transmission, and you control fuel mixture as well, and many people are surprised at how much better I do. On a typical plane they might get 8-10gal per hour fuel burn, a few pilots will do 7gph, I've gotten as low as 5.7gph in that same plane. And I've gotten comparably good results in many different airplanes with many different fuel systems. They are always shocked. But I learned fuel management of planes by studying the likes of Charles Lindbergh and the tricks he developed, as well as looking into other sources on engine management, including talking to engineers from the engine manufacturers themselves. Now, more and more airplanes are starting to get electronic ignition, electronic fuel control, electronic prop control, etc. But many planes will never have such features.
    7
  1391. 7
  1392. 7
  1393. 7
  1394. 7
  1395. 7
  1396. 7
  1397. 7
  1398. 7
  1399. 7
  1400. 7
  1401. 7
  1402. 7
  1403. 7
  1404. 7
  1405. 7
  1406. 7
  1407. 7
  1408. 7
  1409. 7
  1410. 7
  1411. 7
  1412. 7
  1413. 7
  1414. 7
  1415. 7
  1416. 7
  1417. 7
  1418. 7
  1419. 7
  1420. 7
  1421. 7
  1422. 7
  1423. 7
  1424. 7
  1425. 7
  1426. 7
  1427. 7
  1428. 7
  1429. 7
  1430. 7
  1431. 7
  1432. 7
  1433. 7
  1434. 7
  1435. 7
  1436. 7
  1437. 7
  1438. 7
  1439.  @gamm8939  You make the incorrect assumption of thinking we'll be sending everything there. Mars has their own resources. Once enough is established they become more and more self-sufficient. And with mining in space, we don't need to send everything from earth either. Population growth is how materials are handled. Who cares if things like platinum and gold become common and less rare? just means we can do more things with it more affordably. This wont happen overnight, so the markets wont be flooded. Also, diamonds are "rare" resource industry that is artificially controlled to keep the prices from tanking (not that i agree with it). You are short-sighted in your thinking, and fail to consider a myriad of variables that will be in play simultaneously. I wouldn't expect many human "settlements" beyond Mars, Luna and maybe Ceres within 100yrs either. But it's not stupid to go to these places regardless. There is much to learn from exploring other planets and moons. And if we want to survive as species well into the future, we have to get off earth. No matter what, someday our sun will consume the planet, no matter how pristine we kept it by then. Mars and beyond is a stepping stone to getting out of this solar system to avoid the extinction of known intelligent life (or moving further out from the sun at the very least). A one-way trip to Alpha Centauri is Completely doable once we have the ships and technology to pull it off. But to get to that point we need to go out and push the boundaries. If you say you can't do it, then you can't. But we can do it, and we will. Your free to sit it out and be a negative Nancy your whole life, and we'll just leave you behind when we go places.
    7
  1440. 7
  1441. 7
  1442. 7
  1443. 7
  1444. 7
  1445. 7
  1446. 7
  1447. 7
  1448. 7
  1449. 7
  1450. 7
  1451. 7
  1452. 7
  1453. 7
  1454. 7
  1455. 7
  1456. 7
  1457. 7
  1458. 7
  1459. 6
  1460. 6
  1461. 6
  1462. 6
  1463. 6
  1464. 6
  1465. 6
  1466. 6
  1467. 6
  1468. 6
  1469. 6
  1470. 6
  1471. 6
  1472. 6
  1473. 6
  1474. 6
  1475. 6
  1476. 6
  1477. 6
  1478. 6
  1479. 6
  1480. 6
  1481. 6
  1482. 6
  1483. 6
  1484. 6
  1485. 6
  1486. 6
  1487. 6
  1488. 6
  1489. 6
  1490. 6
  1491. 6
  1492. Yes, I see this a lot. I was raised Christian, but am not a Christian myself (college had nothing to do with it). My personal issue with many believers and the Bible is that they can't make up their minds how they choose to interpret it. They are never consistent, and tend to flip flop to suite their needs. For a person of logic such as myself, this is not going to work. I support people in their beliefs, but too many people I engage with don't actually know what they actually believe in. Not all believers are well versed in the Bible or even their own beliefs. And so sometimes, a former believer does know more than the person unsure of what they believe in. I myself don't know the bible that well in terms of actual verses and such, but I don't need to either (I also don't profess to be an expert on it either, as I've never even read half of it myself). But it's easy to recognize logical inconsistencies in how people choose to read and interpret the Bible. Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy helping people strengthen their own beliefs, even science requires a measure of faith. None of us has all the answers, or knows the truth for certain. But too often religious people aren't willing to have a serious discussion of their beliefs either, as they fear losing their faith, even when they can actually Strengthen their faith by having the conversation. This leads to people never allowing their beliefs to be tested, and thus being unable or unprepared to deal with cases where people use science improperly to try to convince a believer they are wrong. The truth is, science can't actually prove most major religions "wrong", and a person who truly understands science would know this and be able to explain why.
    6
  1493. 6
  1494. 6
  1495. 6
  1496. 6
  1497. 6
  1498. 6
  1499. 6
  1500. 6
  1501. 6
  1502. 6
  1503. 6
  1504. 6
  1505. 6
  1506. 6
  1507. 6
  1508. 6
  1509. 6
  1510. 6
  1511. 6
  1512. 6
  1513. 6
  1514. 6
  1515. 6
  1516. 6
  1517. 6
  1518. 6
  1519. 6
  1520. 6
  1521. 6
  1522. 6
  1523. 6
  1524. 6
  1525. 6
  1526. 6
  1527. 6
  1528. 6
  1529. 6
  1530. 6
  1531. 6
  1532. 6
  1533. 6
  1534. 6
  1535. 6
  1536. 6
  1537. 6
  1538. 6
  1539. 6
  1540. 6
  1541. 6
  1542. 6
  1543. 6
  1544. 6
  1545. 6
  1546. 6
  1547. 6
  1548. 6
  1549. 6
  1550. 6
  1551. 6
  1552. 6
  1553. 6
  1554. 6
  1555. 6
  1556. 6
  1557. 6
  1558. 6
  1559. 6
  1560. 6
  1561. 6
  1562. 6
  1563. 6
  1564. 6
  1565. 6
  1566. 6
  1567. 6
  1568. 6
  1569. 6
  1570. 6
  1571. 6
  1572. 6
  1573. 6
  1574. 6
  1575. 6
  1576. 6
  1577. 6
  1578. 6
  1579. 6
  1580. 6
  1581. 6
  1582. 6
  1583. 6
  1584. 6
  1585. 6
  1586. 6
  1587. 6
  1588. 6
  1589. 6
  1590. 6
  1591. 6
  1592. 6
  1593. 6
  1594. 6
  1595. 6
  1596. 6
  1597. 6
  1598. 6
  1599. 6
  1600. 6
  1601. 6
  1602. 6
  1603. 6
  1604. 6
  1605. 6
  1606. 6
  1607. 6
  1608. 6
  1609. 6
  1610. 6
  1611. 6
  1612. 6
  1613. 6
  1614. 6
  1615. 6
  1616. 6
  1617. 6
  1618. 6
  1619. 6
  1620. 6
  1621. 6
  1622. 6
  1623. 6
  1624. 6
  1625. 6
  1626. 6
  1627. 6
  1628. 6
  1629. 6
  1630. 6
  1631. 6
  1632. 6
  1633. 6
  1634. 6
  1635. 6
  1636. 6
  1637. 6
  1638. 6
  1639. 6
  1640. 6
  1641. 6
  1642. 6
  1643. 6
  1644. 6
  1645. 6
  1646. 6
  1647. 6
  1648. 6
  1649. 6
  1650. 6
  1651. 6
  1652. 6
  1653. 6
  1654. 6
  1655. 6
  1656. 6
  1657. 6
  1658. 6
  1659. 6
  1660. 6
  1661. 6
  1662. 6
  1663. 6
  1664. 6
  1665. 6
  1666. 6
  1667. 6
  1668. 6
  1669. 6
  1670. 6
  1671. 6
  1672. 6
  1673. 6
  1674. 6
  1675. 6
  1676. 6
  1677. 6
  1678. 6
  1679. 6
  1680. 6
  1681. 6
  1682. 6
  1683. 6
  1684. 6
  1685. 6
  1686. 6
  1687. 6
  1688. 6
  1689. 6
  1690. 6
  1691. 6
  1692. 6
  1693. 6
  1694. 6
  1695. 6
  1696. 6
  1697. 6
  1698. 6
  1699. 6
  1700.  @SageOfLimitlessHands  you said, "Well money does equal power in a capitalistic society." you are taking a dig at capitalism, trying to claim capitalism is the problem, it's not. Money is power no matter the system, so long as there is corruption. The US is currently Corporatist, not capitalist. Corporatism is when corporations bribe the gov to pass laws to squash competition (occupational licensing, safety laws that merely prevent small startups from competing and offering a lower cost higher quality product or service, lobbying the gov to get favoritism in contracts, buying votes, etc.). This is anti-capitalist behavior that is leading to teh wealth inequality that we see, and it's becoming Socialist in the process, where teh gov controls the economy and tells people what they can buy and sell, rather than letting the consumers and markets decide for themselves (freedom). And as socialism and corporatism grows, so too does the size of gov. And when gov gets too big, it becomes inefficient and impossible to avoid corruption, and even more so impossible to root out that corruption. You implied this is the fault of capitalism, when this is the result of gov failing to enforce capitalism, and bailing out corporations and banks rather than letting them fail. But this money corruption exists even without capitalism, and is less prevalent when capitalism is enforced properly (and the US gov has laws on the book to enforce capitalism, but hasn't enforced those laws in decades).
    6
  1701. 6
  1702. 6
  1703. 6
  1704. 6
  1705. 6
  1706. 6
  1707. 6
  1708.  @ElkaPME  exactly. but the point is, teh US will never fight the same way we see in Ukraine. But people are shocked to know teh US anticipated everything happening in Ukraine. We used 4 different types of small drones in OIF/OEF, as well as multiple robots, and T-MAXX RC suicide cars in my platoon. Switchblade UAV was invented during OIF/OEF. US has used suicide drones in combat since WW2 (TDR-1). The pentagon anticipated a return to trench and underground warfare years ago and published a report on it. I also tried telling guys trench warfare wasn't dead nearly 20yrs ago, and they all thought I was crazy. I spent a LOT of time studying WW1/WW2 trench warfare, as well as fortifications and more. I have an entire library of books perfect for the war in Ukraine, that I studied religiously 20yrs ago while I was fighting in OIF/OEF. I also studied Vietnam booby traps, and we did mines and such as combat engineers too. Nothing these guys are describing is earth shattering nor unanticipated by US personnel and the Pentagon. We just employ our systems differently since we wouldn't fight like we're seeing in Ukraine, we don't get bogged down teh same way. But make no mistake, we have been developing the sort of fighting techniques used in Ukraine for decades. We found ways to improvise things in OIF/OEF and prior wars too. Drone spotted artillery has been done by the US longer than I've ben alive in many wars. I've been shelled in combat, but our counter battery fire was so good they couldn't sustain fire unless they wanted to die. We also developed lasers and other point defense weapons in OIF/OEF to counter RPGs, Artillery and Mortar rounds midflight. Many of the counter drone weapons you see in Ukraine were developed by the US, UK, Israel years before Russia invaded, showing that we anticipated this.
    6
  1709. 6
  1710. 6
  1711. 6
  1712. 6
  1713. 6
  1714. 6
  1715. 6
  1716. 6
  1717. 6
  1718. 6
  1719. 6
  1720. 6
  1721. 6
  1722. 6
  1723. 6
  1724. 6
  1725. 6
  1726. 5
  1727. 5
  1728. 5
  1729. 5
  1730. 5
  1731. 5
  1732. 5
  1733. 5
  1734. 5
  1735. 5
  1736. 5
  1737. 5
  1738. 5
  1739. 5
  1740. 5
  1741. 5
  1742. 5
  1743. 5
  1744. 5
  1745. 5
  1746. 5
  1747. 5
  1748. 5
  1749. 5
  1750. 5
  1751. 5
  1752. 5
  1753. 5
  1754. 5
  1755. 5
  1756. 5
  1757. 5
  1758. 5
  1759. 5
  1760. 5
  1761. 5
  1762. 5
  1763. 5
  1764. 5
  1765. 5
  1766. 5
  1767. 5
  1768. 5
  1769. 5
  1770. 5
  1771. 5
  1772. 5
  1773. 5
  1774. 5
  1775. 5
  1776. 5
  1777. 5
  1778. 5
  1779. 5
  1780. 5
  1781. 5
  1782. 5
  1783. 5
  1784. 5
  1785. 5
  1786. 5
  1787. 5
  1788. 5
  1789. 5
  1790. 5
  1791. 5
  1792. 5
  1793. 5
  1794. 5
  1795. 5
  1796. 5
  1797. 5
  1798. 5
  1799. 5
  1800. 5
  1801. 5
  1802. 5
  1803. 5
  1804. 5
  1805. 5
  1806. 5
  1807. 5
  1808. 5
  1809. 5
  1810. 5
  1811. 5
  1812. 5
  1813. 5
  1814. 5
  1815. 5
  1816. 5
  1817. 5
  1818. 5
  1819. 5
  1820. 5
  1821. 5
  1822. 5
  1823. 5
  1824. 5
  1825. 5
  1826. 5
  1827. 5
  1828. 5
  1829. 5
  1830. 5
  1831. 5
  1832. 5
  1833. 5
  1834. 5
  1835. 5
  1836. 5
  1837. 5
  1838. 5
  1839. 5
  1840. 5
  1841. 5
  1842. 5
  1843. 5
  1844. 5
  1845. 5
  1846. 5
  1847. 5
  1848. 5
  1849. 5
  1850. 5
  1851. 5
  1852. 5
  1853. 5
  1854. 5
  1855. 5
  1856. 5
  1857. 5
  1858. 5
  1859. 5
  1860. 5
  1861. 5
  1862. 5
  1863. 5
  1864. 5
  1865. 5
  1866. 5
  1867. 5
  1868. 5
  1869. 5
  1870. 5
  1871. 5
  1872. 5
  1873. 5
  1874. 5
  1875. 5
  1876. 5
  1877. 5
  1878. 5
  1879. 5
  1880. 5
  1881. 5
  1882. 5
  1883. 5
  1884. 5
  1885. 5
  1886. 5
  1887. 5
  1888. 5
  1889. 5
  1890. 5
  1891. 5
  1892. 5
  1893. 5
  1894. 5
  1895. 5
  1896. 5
  1897. 5
  1898. 5
  1899. 5
  1900. 5
  1901. 5
  1902. 5
  1903. 5
  1904. 5
  1905. 5
  1906. 5
  1907. 5
  1908. 5
  1909. 5
  1910. 5
  1911. 5
  1912. 5
  1913. 5
  1914. 5
  1915. 5
  1916. 5
  1917. 5
  1918. 5
  1919. 5
  1920. 5
  1921. 5
  1922. 5
  1923. 5
  1924. 5
  1925. 5
  1926. 5
  1927. 5
  1928. 5
  1929. 5
  1930. 5
  1931. 5
  1932. 5
  1933. 5
  1934. 5
  1935. 5
  1936. 5
  1937. 5
  1938. 5
  1939. 5
  1940. 5
  1941. 5
  1942. 5
  1943. 5
  1944. 5
  1945. 5
  1946. 5
  1947. 5
  1948. 5
  1949. 5
  1950. 5
  1951. 5
  1952. 5
  1953. 5
  1954. 5
  1955. 5
  1956. 5
  1957. 5
  1958. 5
  1959. 5
  1960. 5
  1961. 5
  1962. 5
  1963. 5
  1964. 5
  1965. 5
  1966. 5
  1967. 5
  1968. 5
  1969.  @danielturner9832  exactly. a couple recent studies published between Dec 2021 and Feb 2022 showed that the global average temp according to NASA satellite data is rising at best 0.13C per decade, meaning by 2100 the global temp will rise a max of 1.0C, and that global warming is occuring at the very lowest end of ALL the computer simulations and models. The other studies showed that even if all the climate alarmists and people magically got their way somehow (banning sales of ICE vehicles by 2030, forcing everyone onto 100% solar and wind, banning cow farts, etc), that by 2100, all that effort, trillions of dollars a year in financial cost and economic devastation, would only reduce the global temps by 0.1C. Basically, no one would even notice the difference. Humans have little to no real net impact on teh climate. But wind turbines present a recycling issue, and disrupt wind and rainfall patterns, and must be replaced every 20yrs. And solar panels need regular cleaning, replacement when damaged, maintenance, and can be unreliable in many regions of the world such as where I live (northern climate and regular cloud coverage). Electric cars have no real viable used car market as replacing batteries costs as much as buying a new car. And it would take 30yrs of building a new nuclear power plant every week to have enough grid energy to charge enough EVs for everyone in teh US to convert over. All for what? little to no gain. Greenhouses operate at 1200ppm CO2. Enclosed spaces such as lecture halls, classrooms, conference rooms etc are typically ~800ppm CO2 when occupied by humans. Plant death occurs at about 150-180ppm of CO2, resulting in massive planetary extinction level event. World was about 200-220ppm for much of human history. Higher PPM of CO2 results in faster growth and even NASA studies have acknowledged that eh earth has been regreening itself rapidly in recent decades, faster than any human efforts to plant trees and such, due to higher PPM. We are currently about 400ppm CO2. During the largest explosions in biodiversity in earth history (both plant and animal life), the PPM of CO2 was around 1500-4000. We are supposed to be entering a global ice age period, so a little warming might end up being a good thing. Global temps haven't really increased much in the last 10yrs. Heat island effect in data collection results in artificially high temp averages. Recent images of places like Ohio showed no significant temp change in the rural areas, only in the urban areas, but the average temp takes into account every pixel in teh picture frame, and therefore the "average" global temp is raised higher.
    5
  1970. 5
  1971. 5
  1972. 5
  1973. 5
  1974. 5
  1975. 5
  1976. 5
  1977. 5
  1978. 5
  1979. 5
  1980. 5
  1981. 5
  1982. 5
  1983. 5
  1984. 5
  1985. 5
  1986. 5
  1987. 5
  1988. 5
  1989. 5
  1990. 5
  1991. 5
  1992. 5
  1993. 5
  1994. 5
  1995. 5
  1996. 5
  1997. 5
  1998. 5
  1999. 5
  2000. 5
  2001. 5
  2002. 5
  2003. 5
  2004. 5
  2005. 5
  2006. 5
  2007. 5
  2008. 5
  2009. 5
  2010. 5
  2011. 5
  2012. 5
  2013. 5
  2014. 5
  2015. 5
  2016. 5
  2017. 5
  2018. 5
  2019. 5
  2020. 5
  2021. 5
  2022. 5
  2023. 5
  2024. 5
  2025. 5
  2026. 5
  2027. 5
  2028. 5
  2029. 5
  2030. 5
  2031. 5
  2032. 5
  2033. 5
  2034. 5
  2035. 5
  2036. 5
  2037. 5
  2038. 5
  2039. 5
  2040. 5
  2041. 5
  2042. 5
  2043. 5
  2044. 4
  2045. 4
  2046. 4
  2047. 4
  2048. 4
  2049. 4
  2050. 4
  2051. 4
  2052. 4
  2053. 4
  2054. 4
  2055. 4
  2056. 4
  2057. 4
  2058. 4
  2059. 4
  2060. 4
  2061. 4
  2062. 4
  2063. 4
  2064. 4
  2065. 4
  2066. 4
  2067. 4
  2068. 4
  2069. 4
  2070. 4
  2071. 4
  2072. 4
  2073. 4
  2074. 4
  2075. 4
  2076. 4
  2077. 4
  2078. 4
  2079. 4
  2080. 4
  2081. 4
  2082. 4
  2083. 4
  2084. 4
  2085. 4
  2086. 4
  2087. 4
  2088. 4
  2089. 4
  2090. 4
  2091. 4
  2092. 4
  2093. 4
  2094. 4
  2095. 4
  2096. 4
  2097. 4
  2098. not really. combined arms is when infantry, tanks, artillery, air support, engineers, etc. simultaneously attack a single target in a proscribed and well timed manner to capitalize on all the strengths of each respective combat element. Being able to have units of completely different skills and combat capabilities, strengths and weaknesses, joint o attack a single objective in teh best way possible. An infantryman typically doesn't know much about how to be a tanker, and vice versa. A typical pilot doesn't know much about mine clearing and vice versa. A typical artilleryman doesn't know much about Urban Breaching, and vice versa. Some people in charge of each fighting element needs to have a working understanding of what the other elements do, and what aspects of the battle are critical to them, in comparison to their own element. Intelligence happens well in advance of a combined arms operation. Jamming is often going on continuously before during and after, and many elements have their own jamming native to their individual elements. Drones spotting artillery fire is part of the artillery operation in general. Counterbattery fire is not a combined arms thing, as combined arms is offensive, and counter battery fire is defensive. Combined arms coordinates its attacks to strike the enemy targets and not letting them get of their ideal shots. If anyone is going to attempt counter battery fire, it's the enemy you're attacking with combined arms. But if you execute a real combined arms assault successfully, they'll never get to counterfire. A better example is the artillery fires first, and walks forward as the infantry are moving into range before teh artillery even finishes firing, while the armored elements move up to support the infantry. All the while helicopters and fighters are on call to bring the heat as needed, or to strike specific enemy targets deeper behind the lines to prevent a coordinated counterattack (hitting command and control, lines of communication, bridges to cutoff reinforcements, providing air cover, etc.). Also, the engineers might move in as well to establish a needed bridgehead across a river or piece of terrain that is enroute to the objective, all while the tanks, infantry, artillery, etc. provide cover to them. Maybe even an air assault element that strikes specific target buildings once the ground elements reach a certain point in the attack. and if executed correctly, from start to finish the whole thing might last less than 1hour, or maybe take a few hours to secure all objectives.
    4
  2099. 4
  2100. 4
  2101. 4
  2102. 4
  2103. 4
  2104. 4
  2105. 4
  2106.  @tuomasnurmi7353  Often times guys use night visions when natural light is more than adequate. this gives them a false sense of stealth when they are using them, thinking the enemy can't see them. There are secondary means of detection at night too, such as sound. I used this to great effect in Iraq, and my unit actually ended up changing lots of other units' night ops too as a result. When training guys in urban ops, I'd play tricks on them to teach them what might happen. Lots of guys run their NVGs too bright, and I'd use white light to blind them temporarily, but long enough to get the advantage and destroy them. I also taught them tricks about how I personally ran my NVGs to combat/counter my own tricks. But I was turning their NVGs to My advantage, sometimes while using NVGs myself, sometimes not. People think NVGs are an automatic advantage. I have tricks for the proper use of lights when driving, including internal lights. But to understand these, one needs to appreciate how the human eye works. I also taught guys about night adaptation techniques. But you have to understand the pros and cons of natural vision, how our vision works, and how the technology works and its limitations. You can also extend this to things like weapon lights and such. They can be useful, but many people don't realize they can get you killed just as easily. Also, the type of light matters. I never used the ones we were issued because they were terrible. and had far too many drawbacks with limited to no useful applications for our mission. Then there are thermals....
    4
  2107. 4
  2108. 4
  2109. 4
  2110. 4
  2111. 4
  2112. 4
  2113. 4
  2114. 4
  2115. 4
  2116. 4
  2117. 4
  2118. 4
  2119. 4
  2120. 4
  2121. 4
  2122. 4
  2123. 4
  2124. 4
  2125. 4
  2126. 4
  2127. 4
  2128. 4
  2129. 4
  2130. 4
  2131. 4
  2132. 4
  2133. 4
  2134. 4
  2135. 4
  2136. 4
  2137. 4
  2138. 4
  2139. 4
  2140. 4
  2141. 4
  2142.  @crusader5989  But that's just it. the P-51 dominates even at low altitude. P-51 can best the best at any altitude. And that is one reason why the P-47 can NEVER be better than the P-51. Problem with the P-47 vs Bearcat and Sea Fury, is the F8F and Sea Fury aren't overweight pigs. Do you have ANY clue how the P-47 is built? It is literally a flying double-hulled submarine. It literally has two separate fuselages! It is so massively overbuilt it's not even funny. It is literally a submarine with wings. You can't just rip out structure to make a racer out of it. the design is fla3wed from the start, just like the P-40. P-47 and P-40 are both tough aircraft, both good aircraft, but both were flawed (P-47 is overbuilt and sluggish, P-40 is aerodynamically challenged). F8F is legendarily of lightweight design to begin with, P-47 has no chance against it. Sea Fury is one of the most balanced designs of WW2, a worthy competitor to the F4U and F2G. In many ways the pinnacle of good prop fighter design. P-47 has no chance against it. Yet, there is the Mustang, still slaying, and current world record holder above all others. P-47 is expensive and unreliable. And that's why they didn't last after the war and the USAF dropped them like a hot potato. They consumed FAR too much in terms of aluminum, fuel, oil, manpower, maintenance, money, etc. in a war of logistics. And private owners struggle to keep P-40s and P-51s airworthy, let alone a pig like the P-47. Yet, look how many F4Us regularly show up to airshows, using the same engine. Hell, I've seen more flying Sea Furies, F7Fs, and F8Fs in my life than flying P-47s. P-47 was not the better fighter. It was slow climbing, slow accelerating, Sucked below 15k ft in every category (speed, maneuver, accel, range...). In actual fights for bragging rights it lost consistently to the P-38, F4U, P-51, P-40, F6F, and more. Literally everyone beat it in dogfighting, as they knew it's fatal weakness and exploited it. The P-51 had no such weaknesses. It could fly fast at all altitudes, climbed well, accelerated well, maneuverable, etc.
    4
  2143. 4
  2144. 4
  2145. 4
  2146. 4
  2147. 4
  2148. 4
  2149. 4
  2150. 4
  2151. 4
  2152. 4
  2153. 4
  2154. 4
  2155. 4
  2156. 4
  2157. 4
  2158. 4
  2159. 4
  2160. 4
  2161. 4
  2162. 4
  2163. 4
  2164. 4
  2165. 4
  2166. 4
  2167. 4
  2168. 4
  2169. 4
  2170. 4
  2171. 4
  2172. 4
  2173. 4
  2174. 4
  2175. 4
  2176. 4
  2177. 4
  2178. 4
  2179. 4
  2180. 4
  2181. 4
  2182. 4
  2183. 4
  2184. 4
  2185. 4
  2186. 4
  2187. 4
  2188. 4
  2189. 4
  2190. 4
  2191. 4
  2192. 4
  2193. 4
  2194. 4
  2195. 4
  2196. 4
  2197. 4
  2198. 4
  2199. 4
  2200. 4
  2201. 4
  2202. 4
  2203. 4
  2204. 4
  2205. 4
  2206. 4
  2207. 4
  2208. 4
  2209. 4
  2210. 4
  2211. 4
  2212. 4
  2213. 4
  2214. 4
  2215. 4
  2216. 4
  2217. 4
  2218. 4
  2219. 4
  2220. 4
  2221. 4
  2222. 4
  2223. 4
  2224. 4
  2225. 4
  2226. 4
  2227. 4
  2228. 4
  2229. 4
  2230. 4
  2231. 4
  2232. 4
  2233. 4
  2234. 4
  2235. 4
  2236. 4
  2237. 4
  2238. 4
  2239. 4
  2240. 4
  2241. 4
  2242. 4
  2243. 4
  2244. 4
  2245. 4
  2246. 4
  2247. 4
  2248. 4
  2249. 4
  2250. 4
  2251. 4
  2252. 4
  2253. 4
  2254. 4
  2255. 4
  2256. 4
  2257. 4
  2258. 4
  2259. 4
  2260. 4
  2261. 4
  2262. 4
  2263. 4
  2264. 4
  2265. 4
  2266. 4
  2267. 4
  2268. 4
  2269. 4
  2270. 4
  2271. 4
  2272. 4
  2273. 4
  2274. 4
  2275. 4
  2276. 4
  2277. 4
  2278. 4
  2279. 4
  2280. 4
  2281. 4
  2282. 4
  2283. 4
  2284. 4
  2285. 4
  2286. 4
  2287. 4
  2288. 4
  2289. 4
  2290. 4
  2291. 4
  2292.  @GSF404  When BE-4 flies, successfully, and starts delivering paying customers to space, I'll stop criticizing it. I'm judging BO on results, and BO's results are not good thus far. "Blue Origin have been working on 'Blue Moon' behind closed doors for quite a while and have even been working on a zero boil-off LH2 storage. That is a freaking GAME changer, forget Methane, if someone can perfect indefinite cryogenic storage then. It opens up the much more efficient hydrogen engines for more widespread use." that's great, but behind closed doors we have no idea if it actually works or not. It is as good as Soviet propaganda to me behind closed doors. BO has a history of failing to deliver working product on time, much like the Soviets. And thus I am going to react to them accordingly, on their own merits (or lack thereof). I used to be super excited about BO.....but the years kept going by and nothing was accomplished. And then they missed deadlines and their designs failed to work as promised or be ready. They still aren't flying tourists into space other than that one high profile test flight. They still haven't even demonstrated the ability to reach orbit yet. And the people working there describe a bad work environment and poor leadership. I'm working with people today who used to work at SpaceX, Boeing, BO, NASA, and I was even been offered a job at SpaceX recently. I get inside info occasionally, and nothing I hear is promising. Will they get it eventually? maybe, but by then they'll be so far behind and so much more expensive still.
    4
  2293. 4
  2294. 4
  2295. 4
  2296. 4
  2297. 4
  2298. 4
  2299. 4
  2300. 4
  2301. 4
  2302. 4
  2303. 4
  2304. 4
  2305. 4
  2306. 4
  2307. 4
  2308. 4
  2309. 4
  2310. 4
  2311. 4
  2312. 4
  2313. 4
  2314. 4
  2315. 4
  2316. 4
  2317. 4
  2318. 4
  2319. 4
  2320. 4
  2321. 4
  2322. 4
  2323. 4
  2324. 4
  2325. 4
  2326. 4
  2327. 4
  2328. 4
  2329. 4
  2330. 4
  2331. 4
  2332. 4
  2333. 4
  2334. 4
  2335. 4
  2336. 4
  2337. 4
  2338. 4
  2339. 4
  2340. 4
  2341. 4
  2342. 4
  2343. 4
  2344. 4
  2345. 4
  2346. 4
  2347. 4
  2348. 4
  2349. 4
  2350. 4
  2351. 4
  2352. 4
  2353. @Skunket "I used to like him, but damn, he complains all the time about mandates, when actually those have been always in place for different reasons. But now he is just attracting antivaxers, his actions are supporting the antivax movement. Americans and their "freedom" fights are just sad now." most people are not anti-vax as you falsely claim. You're just not smart enough to listen to their legit concerns to understand what they are Really protesting. First off, why do you fear unvaccinated people so much? you're protected by your vaccines, masks, and ability to social distance or isolate yourself at will. You have many options for protecting yourself. We also have gotten very good at treating COVID in hospitals. Secondly, natural immunity is a thing, and many people have already had COVID and gained immunity that way. All a vaccine is is a drug or dead virus injected into your body to trigger that immune response, to give you natural immunity without having to go through high risk exposure. Then you body consumes and expels the vaccine from your body. So you are now no different form anyone with natural immunity. If they already have immunity, why do they need a vaccine? This is science, what you espouse is not. Thirdly, data is showing the vaccine is not working all that well anyways, yet even as vaccinated people are now becoming unprotected and still spreading the virus, they are given a free pass, which is unscientific and discriminatory. The vaccine wears off with time, and is less effective in fact than natural immunity from exposure. There is data that it works, and even exposed people might gain benefits, but why isn't that a person's choice? You're free do do as you like and get the vaccine, but you are not free to impose your will and beliefs onto others and compel them to do as you command. Freedom is everything. We are all going to die someday, some way, somehow. If a person is willing to risk their life, they have that freedom to do so. You do not get to save people from themselves if they don't want you to. They are at risk, not you. Everyone who is at risk can get the vaccine or has options. And everyone I've met are willing to accommodate those who are at risk but cannot get the vaccine for some reason, even if they wanted it. But if you start imposing your will on people, where does it stop? until soon there is no freedom left in the world. They'll use this as precedent to force more decisions on people against their will. That is why people are angry and refusing. They would have gotten it had it remain voluntary and people had simply been polite about it. But now since you seek to take people's freedoms from them and impose your will on them, you have made enemies, needlessly. This is your fault for supporting coercion and threats.
    4
  2354. 4
  2355. 4
  2356. 4
  2357. 4
  2358. 4
  2359. 4
  2360. 4
  2361. 4
  2362. 4
  2363. 4
  2364. 4
  2365. 4
  2366. 4
  2367. 4
  2368. 4
  2369. 4
  2370. 4
  2371. 4
  2372. 4
  2373. 4
  2374. 4
  2375. 4
  2376. 4
  2377. 4
  2378. 4
  2379. 4
  2380. 4
  2381. 4
  2382. 4
  2383. 4
  2384. 4
  2385. 4
  2386. 4
  2387. 4
  2388. 4
  2389. 4
  2390. 4
  2391.  @LeakyTrees  Woke people Only care about slavery in the US and Europe. They don't get outraged over ongoing slavery today (estimated 40mil) nor at countries that engaged in far more and worse slavery than white europeans ever did. They also never get outraged over white europeans who were enslaved. It does count, as they put an entire paragraph in teh Declaration solely dedicated to abolition, and 11/13 colonies voted in favor of abolition. And then after winning the revolution it was attempted to be included once again in the Constitution. The reasons why that didn't happen are complex and take hours to put into context and explain what happened. Many founders lamented later in life in their letters that they failed to abolish slavery right off the bat, but that the process was st in motion and the US was on course to abolish slavery in 40yrs. 50yrs later slavery was abolished in the US. That's a better prediction than any climate change cultist has ever made. Africans sold more slaves to nonwhites than whites by orders of magnitude. Also, middle easterners took tens of millions of slaves including europeans, compared to teh thousands sent to the Americas. Also blacks in teh US owned slaves too (before, during, and after the US revolution). White Europeans were slaves in teh Americas too, and almost non of them ever survived their slavery. There are almost 100x as many slaves today around the world, than there were slaves in teh US, but all you can focus on is what happened hundreds of years ago. Also, even back then, very few people in america owned slaves, or supported slavery, but you see fit to blame generations of innocent people for the crimes of a few, and you're forever stuck int eh past, unable to move forward and deal with present day issues.
    4
  2392. 4
  2393. 4
  2394. 4
  2395. 4
  2396. 4
  2397. 4
  2398. 4
  2399. 4
  2400. 4
  2401. 4
  2402. 4
  2403. 4
  2404. 4
  2405. 4
  2406. 4
  2407. 4
  2408. 4
  2409. 4
  2410. 4
  2411. 4
  2412. 4
  2413. 4
  2414. 4
  2415. 4
  2416. 4
  2417. 4
  2418. 4
  2419. 4
  2420. 4
  2421. 4
  2422. 4
  2423. 4
  2424. 4
  2425. 4
  2426. 4
  2427. 4
  2428. 4
  2429. 4
  2430. 4
  2431. 4
  2432. 4
  2433. 4
  2434. 4
  2435. 4
  2436. 4
  2437. 4
  2438. 4
  2439. 4
  2440. 4
  2441. 4
  2442. 4
  2443. 4
  2444. 4
  2445. 4
  2446. 4
  2447. 4
  2448. 4
  2449. 4
  2450. 4
  2451. 4
  2452. 4
  2453. 4
  2454. 4
  2455. 4
  2456. 4
  2457. 4
  2458. 4
  2459. 4
  2460. 4
  2461. 4
  2462. 4
  2463. 4
  2464. 4
  2465. 4
  2466. 4
  2467. 4
  2468. 4
  2469. 4
  2470. 4
  2471. 4
  2472. 4
  2473. 4
  2474. 4
  2475. 4
  2476. 4
  2477. 4
  2478. 4
  2479. 4
  2480. 4
  2481. 4
  2482. 4
  2483. 4
  2484. 4
  2485. 4
  2486. 4
  2487. 4
  2488. 4
  2489. 4
  2490. 4
  2491. 4
  2492. 4
  2493. 4
  2494. 4
  2495. 4
  2496. 4
  2497. 4
  2498. 4
  2499. 4
  2500. 4
  2501. 4
  2502. 4
  2503. 4
  2504. 4
  2505. 4
  2506. 4
  2507. 4
  2508. 4
  2509. 4
  2510. 4
  2511. 4
  2512. 4
  2513. 4
  2514. 4
  2515. 4
  2516. 4
  2517. 4
  2518. 4
  2519. 4
  2520. 4
  2521. 4
  2522. 4
  2523. 4
  2524. 4
  2525. 4
  2526. 4
  2527. 4
  2528. 4
  2529. 4
  2530. 4
  2531. 4
  2532. 4
  2533. 4
  2534. 4
  2535. 4
  2536. 4
  2537. 4
  2538. 4
  2539. 4
  2540. 4
  2541. 4
  2542. 4
  2543. 4
  2544.  @recoil53  not at all. most things like chip factories, have highly delicate machinery, and when teh roof and such collapses and fires break out, they are damaged even further. Even small bombs with high explosives do a lot of damage and throw a lot of shrapnel. Also, there are numerous other ways to stop a factory, even without striking the factory directly. can't make anything if the machines and resources never make it to the factory. And look at Russia, with their lack of circuits and chips, makes it difficult to finish aircraft and weapons. They import that stuff, and so with sanctions they can build the mechanical hulks, but less the critical electronics, making them useless. But the US has never had trouble taking out an enemy military in modern times. and we've rarely even gone after factories at all in modern conflicts. Modern weapons are too complex to build quickly, and so by the time the US lightning war is over in the first few weeks, there is so much destruction and chaos, that new production is the last thing on the enemy's mind. When we can destroy in 2weeks what it takes them 6-12months to produce, they'll never keep up. Precision strikes, with minimally sized weapons gives best results. A fully loaded F-15E could theoretically carry something like 50-60 Small Diameter Bombs! That's a LOT of targets for one fighter bomber. And if that F-15E orbits at 40k ft while striking, the bombs can glide something like 50miles to reach their targets. Being able to send One fighter to strike 50+ individual targets in a single sortie from 0-50miles away is CRAZY! And such a strike would be minimal in cost compared to sending 10x F-15Es with 4x 2000lb bombs each, and actually be more effective (40 targets while risking 10 aircraft at 0-2miles from target vs 50+ targets while risking 1 aircraft at 0-50miles from target). And by the way, I've received CAS from A-10, B-1, F-15E, and more in actual combat. Just so that you know where some of my opinions and understanding are coming from.
    4
  2545. 4
  2546. 4
  2547. 4
  2548. 4
  2549. 4
  2550. 4
  2551. 4
  2552. 4
  2553. 4
  2554. 4
  2555. 4
  2556. 4
  2557. 4
  2558. 4
  2559. 4
  2560. 4
  2561. 4
  2562. 4
  2563. 4
  2564. 4
  2565. 4
  2566. 4
  2567. 4
  2568. 4
  2569. 4
  2570. 3
  2571. 3
  2572. 3
  2573. 3
  2574. 3
  2575. 3
  2576. 3
  2577. 3
  2578. 3
  2579. 3
  2580. 3
  2581. 3
  2582. 3
  2583. 3
  2584. 3
  2585. 3
  2586. 3
  2587. 3
  2588. 3
  2589. 3
  2590. 3
  2591. 3
  2592. 3
  2593. 3
  2594. 3
  2595. 3
  2596. 3
  2597. 3
  2598. 3
  2599. 3
  2600. 3
  2601. 3
  2602. 3
  2603. 3
  2604. 3
  2605. 3
  2606. 3
  2607. 3
  2608. 3
  2609. 3
  2610. 3
  2611. 3
  2612. 3
  2613. 3
  2614. 3
  2615. 3
  2616. 3
  2617. 3
  2618. 3
  2619. 3
  2620. 3
  2621. 3
  2622. 3
  2623. 3
  2624. 3
  2625. 3
  2626. 3
  2627. 3
  2628. 3
  2629. 3
  2630. 3
  2631. 3
  2632. 3
  2633. 3
  2634. 3
  2635. 3
  2636. 3
  2637. 3
  2638. 3
  2639. 3
  2640. 3
  2641. 3
  2642. 3
  2643. 3
  2644. 3
  2645. 3
  2646. 3
  2647. 3
  2648. 3
  2649. 3
  2650. 3
  2651. 3
  2652. 3
  2653. 3
  2654. 3
  2655. 3
  2656. 3
  2657. 3
  2658. 3
  2659. 3
  2660. 3
  2661. 3
  2662. 3
  2663. 3
  2664. 3
  2665. 3
  2666. 3
  2667. 3
  2668. 3
  2669. 3
  2670. 3
  2671. 3
  2672. 3
  2673. 3
  2674. 3
  2675. 3
  2676. 3
  2677. 3
  2678. 3
  2679. 3
  2680. 3
  2681. 3
  2682.  @mikebreen2890  ICE are larger fire hazard? When ICE start on fire, they are quickly and easily put out. they don't burn as hot as EV. slight damage to ICE cars doesn't render them a hazard going forward. A slight ding to an EV might have damaged the battery, and you cannot afford to tear it apart to inspect the whole battery to find out, so now it's a potential ticking timebomb. Insurance companies are totaling EVs for this reason in crashes. I can drive further and faster in an ICE car. I can get 600-800mils of range on a tank in my car at 75mph, and fill up takes 5min. My airplanes get even better gas mileage than my cars, and fly even faster and further too, and fill up is about 15min. EVs would add HOURS of charging to any trip, and many places I go, you couldn't follow becasue there is NO charging. You can only go where there is adequate charging, and many places are so remote you lack the range to get there and back. And I bought my last 2 cars and my last 2 airplanes for less than the price of a Tesla. My first car was a small pickup that got 27mpg in town and survived 2 major car accidents before I owned it, hit numerous deer as well and still got used by 3 more owners after I sold it. One car I paid $2k for and it gets 36mpg, had that for many years. then bought another for $8k at 25k miles on it and it gets 44mpg and have had that one a decade now already and it's still in perfect shape and get 800mi range. My 1960s airplane cost $18k and gets similar mileage and I can get anywhere 2x as fast as a car with it. Will your EV still be around in 60yrs like my airplane, or will it be in a garbage dump?
    3
  2683. 3
  2684. 3
  2685. 3
  2686. 3
  2687. 3
  2688. 3
  2689. 3
  2690. 3
  2691. 3
  2692. 3
  2693. 3
  2694.  @Blackmamba12345  "Well you have all of what you mentioned on an ICE vehicle and more." More? possibly. my car is 20yrs old and has had only minor things. Aside from oil changes, wipers, wiper fluid, tires, I've only had to replace a few light bulbs (EVs have all of those too other than oil), shocks and struts that I replaced myself for the cost of parts and 2hrs of my time (EVs have those too), and repaired a crack in the bumper from hitting a small animal (can happen to Vs too). I've also replaced the battery once (very cheap and easy) and the air filter (also very cheap and easy). So what else do you speak of that ICE cars have to deal with? Show me a 20yr old EV that still gets 800miles of range at 47mpg and can completely top off in only 5min. My car doesn't require expensive charger installed in my home, and I can visit family in the middle of nowhere where chargers don't exist. and I can make the 3hr drive (one way) to their place and back on a single tank of gas. Try doing that in an EV without the ability to recharge. Also, I live where it gets cold in winter and range is heavily impacted with EVs, and solar isn't viable here due to the latitude and perpetual clouds. We are also not in a good place for reliable wind energy. we have no large wind farms in my state, there are a few turbines scattered about, never more than one or two in the same place, and few new ones have been built in recent decades. We have hydro, but nothing big enough to power even a single city without EVs by itself. No, ICE is superior for now, and likely for the next few decades at least. even car manufacturers and insurance companies and dealerships are disliking EVs. Current ICE cars like mine are far more environmentally friendly overall than any current EV when you look at cradle to grave impacts.
    3
  2695. 3
  2696. 3
  2697. 3
  2698. 3
  2699. 3
  2700. 3
  2701. 3
  2702. 3
  2703. 3
  2704. 3
  2705. 3
  2706. 3
  2707. 3
  2708. 3
  2709. 3
  2710. 3
  2711. 3
  2712. 3
  2713. 3
  2714. 3
  2715. 3
  2716. 3
  2717. 3
  2718. 3
  2719. 3
  2720. 3
  2721. 3
  2722. 3
  2723. 3
  2724. 3
  2725. 3
  2726. 3
  2727. 3
  2728. 3
  2729. 3
  2730. 3
  2731. 3
  2732. 3
  2733. 3
  2734. 3
  2735. 3
  2736. 3
  2737. 3
  2738. 3
  2739. 3
  2740. 3
  2741. 3
  2742. 3
  2743. 3
  2744. 3
  2745. 3
  2746. 3
  2747. 3
  2748. 3
  2749. 3
  2750. 3
  2751. 3
  2752. 3
  2753. 3
  2754. 3
  2755. 3
  2756. 3
  2757. 3
  2758. 3
  2759. 3
  2760. 3
  2761. 3
  2762. 3
  2763. 3
  2764. 3
  2765. 3
  2766. 3
  2767. 3
  2768. 3
  2769. 3
  2770.  @BeyondSideshow  "You're quoting all this random stuff from half a year ago, why?" Because YOU brought it up. You claim Trump screwed up the COVID response, but he didn't. So we had to go back to the beginning. Typical of the left to try to ignore what they did/said in the past, yet hold their opponents accountable for everything they ever did/said forever. And yes, at the time, most people thought China might actually help us out, at first. I didn't claim Fauci himself said All of those things, only that Democrats And Fauci said those things. But reading comprehension in the US is on the decline thanks to Democrats and the Teachers Union, so I understand. I thought you were up on what is going on in Sweden, my mistake for thinking you had any idea, I guess next time I should be more detailed in explaining the Swedish data on COVID with you. Underlying health issues don't count as COVID deaths if the death was caused by the underlying issue. Many asymptomatic people died of accidental homicide or car accidents, and got counted as COVID. It happens, and there are tons of cases of this. I know of at least 2 personal examples of this happening in my area in the first few months. The variety of global measures shows that most of it doesn't matter. in fact much data and studies actually shows the lockdowns made it worse. Indoor transmission is the highest risk, and so locking people inside was a bad idea. UV light, diffusion of the atmosphere, exercise... all help. And that's not even accounting for the increased suicide and depression as a result of prolonged lockdowns and economic ruin that has befallen people in places that were locked down even now, long after the curve has been flattened. Meanwhile people like Pelosi flaunt the rules and violate them herself, San Francisco allows politicians, police, and lawyers to go to taxpayer funded gyms but no one else. I've flown on multiple Delta airlines flights in recent months that broke the rules 3/4 of the flights I was on (filling every seat, allowing people to remove their masks for up to 50% of the flight......). No outbreaks as a result. When the data doesn't fit your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. That's science. You, like a typical leftist, don't actually refute ANYTHING I said. you just dismiss it, make baseless accusations, provide no evidence, come up with excuses to denounce or ignore an argument. But in the end, you are really just mad that some people have the audacity to disagree with you. Leftists don't like free speech, or fair debate, open discussion of ideas. They can't stand criticism of their ideologies. If an ideology is true, it will withstand scrutiny. There is only one reason to refuse to consider an opposing argument....you fear they are right. If so many people think like me, why does the left refuse to stop to ask, WHY do so many people think like that? No Empathy from those on the left. No Tolerance from those on the left. Individuality is not allowed on the left, only conformity to their ideology.
    3
  2771. 3
  2772. 3
  2773. 3
  2774. 3
  2775. 3
  2776. 3
  2777. 3
  2778. 3
  2779. 3
  2780. 3
  2781. 3
  2782. 3
  2783. 3
  2784. 3
  2785. 3
  2786. 3
  2787. 3
  2788. 3
  2789. 3
  2790. 3
  2791. 3
  2792. 3
  2793. 3
  2794. 3
  2795. 3
  2796. 3
  2797. 3
  2798. 3
  2799. 3
  2800. 3
  2801. 3
  2802. 3
  2803. 3
  2804. 3
  2805. 3
  2806. 3
  2807. 3
  2808. 3
  2809. 3
  2810. 3
  2811. 3
  2812. 3
  2813. 3
  2814. 3
  2815. 3
  2816. 3
  2817. 3
  2818. 3
  2819. 3
  2820. 3
  2821. 3
  2822. 3
  2823. 3
  2824. 3
  2825. 3
  2826. 3
  2827. 3
  2828. 3
  2829. 3
  2830. 3
  2831. 3
  2832. 3
  2833. 3
  2834. 3
  2835. 3
  2836. 3
  2837. 3
  2838. 3
  2839. 3
  2840. 3
  2841. 3
  2842. 3
  2843. 3
  2844. 3
  2845. 3
  2846. 3
  2847. 3
  2848. 3
  2849. 3
  2850. 3
  2851. 3
  2852. 3
  2853. 3
  2854. 3
  2855. 3
  2856. 3
  2857. 3
  2858. 3
  2859. 3
  2860. 3
  2861. 3
  2862. 3
  2863. 3
  2864. 3
  2865. 3
  2866. 3
  2867. 3
  2868. 3
  2869. 3
  2870. 3
  2871. 3
  2872. 3
  2873. 3
  2874. 3
  2875. 3
  2876. 3
  2877. 3
  2878. 3
  2879. 3
  2880. 3
  2881. 3
  2882. 3
  2883. 3
  2884. 3
  2885. 3
  2886. 3
  2887. 3
  2888. 3
  2889. 3
  2890. 3
  2891. 3
  2892. 3
  2893. 3
  2894. 3
  2895. 3
  2896. 3
  2897.  @clintfalk  That's a lie. The Japanese did evaluate every foreign plane they got their hands on in the years prior to designing the Zero. But I see no evidence the Japanese ever got to see one of these P-66 airplanes. The Zero started full development in 1937. The P-66 didn't start development until 1938. The A6M's first flight was in April of 1939 and the P-66 didn't fly until later in September of 1939. Literally impossible for Japan to have seen the aircraft prior to designing the Zero, as the Zero existed first. I'm literally studying the Zero's history in minute detail right now, even have books with copies of some of the original blueprints for the A6M. I am an engineer, which is driving my interest in the A6M right now from a structural and aerodynamics engineering perspective. I'm studying the Zero from a structural engineering standpoint. But I have also read Jiro's book on the Zero, as well as reading another book on the Zero from the Japanese perspective. And I've read about it for the US and allied perspective. When you read into the actual historical references after WW2, and Jiro's explanation of why he designed it the way he did, and the changes they had to make and why, it's clear the Japanese designed this organically. Some external influence was surely there, even if Jiro didn't acknowledge it, but most of the designs people compare the Zero to most either never existed when Jiro designed the Zero, or Jiro never saw personally except maybe a picture of at some point. The design of the Zero in many ways is unique to anything the Western nations designed.
    3
  2898. 3
  2899. 3
  2900. 3
  2901. 3
  2902. 3
  2903. 3
  2904. 3
  2905. 3
  2906. 3
  2907. 3
  2908. 3
  2909. 3
  2910. 3
  2911. 3
  2912. 3
  2913. 3
  2914. 3
  2915. 3
  2916. 3
  2917. 3
  2918.  @deadgheist  you're not into it, because it challenges your misconceptions. Yet here you engaging in the conversation you said you weren't into. Which proves you're the type of person who's word can't be trusted on a typical day. "Capitalism is bad for working class people and there aren't enough regulations on what cooperations can do to their workers or in politics anymore." Wrong, it's good for the working class and did very well in teh US until the 1970s when teh gov upended capitalism. The problem is Not lack of regulation, it is Over regulation. Large corporations push excessive regulations as barriers to entry against smaller start up companies "stealing" their market share by delivering a better product at a lower price. These large corporations can afford the lawyers and fees to do business, the small mom and pop businesses cannot. You've been brainwashed by corporations and politicians to believe they are the solution, when in reality they are the problems. You clearly don't know what capitalism is nor how it works. "It also has nothing to do with the original topic" it has EVERYTHING to do with it. "I don't care to be scolded by some dude on the internet about politics that I don't care to listen to an opinion for." If you feel you're being scolded, that's on you. But it speaks to who's winning the argument when you admit defeat like that. I have considered your opinion, both your original comment and now this one. Just because you're wrong and i point that out, doesn't mean I am not listening. Truth is not whatever You happen to believe at the moment. "I can do my own research on candidates (and also what cooperations are doing) and do so please spare me and give it a rest." you're the one who is behaving like a child. if you didn't want to continue, then why are you? Note: you can't even spell "corporations" correctly, you keep typing "cooperations". might want to see to that. Typos happen, but that's a big one.
    3
  2919. 3
  2920. 3
  2921. 3
  2922. 3
  2923. 3
  2924. 3
  2925. 3
  2926. 3
  2927. 3
  2928. 3
  2929. 3
  2930. 3
  2931. 3
  2932. 3
  2933. 3
  2934. 3
  2935. 3
  2936. 3
  2937. 3
  2938. 3
  2939. 3
  2940. 3
  2941. 3
  2942. 3
  2943. 3
  2944. 3
  2945. 3
  2946. 3
  2947. 3
  2948. 3
  2949. 3
  2950. 3
  2951. 3
  2952. 3
  2953. 3
  2954. 3
  2955. 3
  2956. 3
  2957. 3
  2958. 3
  2959. 3
  2960. 3
  2961. 3
  2962. 3
  2963. 3
  2964. 3
  2965. 3
  2966. 3
  2967. 3
  2968. 3
  2969. 3
  2970. 3
  2971. 3
  2972. 3
  2973. 3
  2974. 3
  2975. 3
  2976. 3
  2977. 3
  2978. 3
  2979. 3
  2980. 3
  2981. 3
  2982. 3
  2983. 3
  2984. 3
  2985. 3
  2986. 3
  2987. 3
  2988. 3
  2989. 3
  2990. 3
  2991. 3
  2992. 3
  2993. 3
  2994. 3
  2995. 3
  2996. 3
  2997. 3
  2998. 3
  2999. 3
  3000. 3
  3001. 3
  3002. 3
  3003. 3
  3004. 3
  3005. 3
  3006. 3
  3007. 3
  3008. 3
  3009. 3
  3010. 3
  3011. 3
  3012. 3
  3013. 3
  3014. 3
  3015. 3
  3016. 3
  3017. 3
  3018. 3
  3019. 3
  3020. 3
  3021. 3
  3022. 3
  3023. 3
  3024. 3
  3025. 3
  3026. 3
  3027. 3
  3028. 3
  3029. 3
  3030. 3
  3031. 3
  3032. 3
  3033. 3
  3034. 3
  3035. 3
  3036. 3
  3037. 3
  3038. 3
  3039. 3
  3040. 3
  3041. 3
  3042. 3
  3043. 3
  3044.  @GARDENER42  they did have enough to push. it's all how you do it. had they pushed, it would take them even Less people than they need now, to hold the front lines. The issue is people aren't bold enough. People lack basic understanding of critical aspects of warfare. I've personally witnessed this over many decades, both in my own combat experience, as well as in studying military history and current conflicts. Ukraine could have struck a crippling blow to Russia in late 2022 with the onset of winter, but failed to press their advantage, failed to seize upon the opportunity. The US's failure was in advising Ukraine in methods Ukraine is not capable of executing. They need to let Ukraine fight their way, and to adapt any way they see fit that works. US advisors failed to give Ukraine advice they could act upon. I've witnessed this first had myself in actual combat. My specialty was unconventional warfare, and I was great at it, but it meant being willing and able to cast aside doctrinal thinking at a moment's notice and create new tactics from thin air on-the-fly. The higher-ups in the US military are not good at this type of warfare, but I thrive in this environment. I trained for this kind of fighting. I fought this way for real. My unit was unique as well in that we were often self-sufficient for extended periods. W ran our own missions, did our own QRF, did our own recovery ops, ran our own supply convoys, etc. All with only 100-120 men. We didn't need a large supply train. I also developed tactics for having no supply train at all on a modern battlefield.
    3
  3045. 3
  3046. 3
  3047. 3
  3048. 3
  3049. 3
  3050. 3
  3051. 3
  3052. 3
  3053. 3
  3054. 3
  3055. 3
  3056. 3
  3057. 3
  3058. 3
  3059. 3
  3060. 3
  3061. 3
  3062. 3
  3063. 3
  3064. 3
  3065. 3
  3066. 3
  3067. 3
  3068. 3
  3069. 3
  3070. 3
  3071. 3
  3072. 3
  3073. 3
  3074. 3
  3075. 3
  3076. 3
  3077. 3
  3078. 3
  3079. 3
  3080. 3
  3081. 3
  3082. 3
  3083. 3
  3084. 3
  3085. 3
  3086. 3
  3087. 3
  3088. 3
  3089. 3
  3090. 3
  3091. 3
  3092. 3
  3093. 3
  3094. 3
  3095. 3
  3096.  @fioredeutchmark  oh, i well understadn contract law. US contract law stipulates a person cannot sign away their rights, nor be compelled to sign away their rights. Religious freedom is a right that cannot be signed away. Just as a US citizen cannot willingly sign themselves into slaverly either. No corporation nor individual can compel a person to participate in religious propaganda. "You also clearly don’t understand how business works either. Any and all specialists are replaceable with only a tiny number of exceptions." Shows how little you know about the highly technical specialized industries. I work in such an industry, and hiring even entry level engineers is difficult due to teh fact colleges don't teach people how to do what we do, so we have to teach tehm on teh job. It takes years for a new hire to start to understand the requirements of our industry, and even longer for them to be capable of being a senior engineer. We're facing this issue right now as the older generations are retiring and we're trying to figure out how to replace those who retire. We have to promote from within, and even convince some people to stay on longer before retiring to give us more time. "Almost nobody has irreplaceable skills or knowledge, I don’t know why this myth persists but it’s unbelievably naive." true for most industries, but not all, and applies a LOT less in engineering disciplines like mine. Some industries there are so few companies and engineers doing the work, that only a handful of people on earth know how to do the job. Stop being naive yourself. If I quit my job today, and went to work something else, by employer would be in very serious trouble, and they well know it. They cannot replace me. They would have to hire at least 3-5 people to replace just me, and it would take 20yrs for a new hire to know as much as I do. There are not enough engineers to go around, and senior level jobs take decades to gain enough experience for most people to be proficient at. Most of the senior engineers where I work have minimum 30yrs experience. you can't just replace them on a whim. And my employer is learning that the hard way. " The company I work for (multi billion dollar fintech firm) just fired half of the platform devs including the senior architect because we bought a “better” more “advanced” company from Belgium and their engineers to handle that function for a fraction of the cost of what the old platform team with all its “senior engineers” were costing." platform devs? software? yeah, that is an industry that is EASY to replace people, especially given the massive firing of thousands of developers from scores of tech companies that were bloated. Tons of people desperate for another job. Not every indsutry is like that. stop acting like the world revolves around you and your personal situation.
    3
  3097. 3
  3098. 3
  3099. 3
  3100. 3
  3101. 3
  3102. 3
  3103. 3
  3104. 3
  3105. 3
  3106. 3
  3107. 3
  3108. 3
  3109. 3
  3110. 3
  3111. 3
  3112. 3
  3113. 3
  3114. 3
  3115. 3
  3116. 3
  3117. 3
  3118. 3
  3119. 3
  3120. 3
  3121. 3
  3122. 3
  3123. 3
  3124. 3
  3125. 3
  3126. 3
  3127. 3
  3128. 3
  3129. 3
  3130. 3
  3131. 3
  3132. 3
  3133. 3
  3134. 3
  3135. 3
  3136. 3
  3137. 3
  3138. 3
  3139. 3
  3140. 3
  3141. 3
  3142. 3
  3143. 3
  3144. 3
  3145. 3
  3146.  @kirkmorrison6131  the P-39, P-40, P-38, and all other US and Western fighters in WW2 were designed as Boom and Zoom fighters, where speed is more important than maneuverability. Japan didn't get the memo in the 1930s and continued to focus on Turn and Burn fighters, which was a mistake. Late in WW2 and into the Cold War interceptors and climb rate became critical in addition to speed. This meant that the P-40, P-39, P-38 and more were faster than the Zero, Ki43... but less maneuverable, and comparable or worse climb rates. But the late war P-39Q and P-40N were very well matched to the Zero in all but range and maneuverability. The P-39 and P-40 had as good or better service ceilings, better speed, tougher, self sealing fuel tanks, and relied upon diving attacks and wingman tactics. this proved to be the superior form of dogfighting, and the standard practice for ALL US fighter pilots. The average US pilot was also better trained, whereas the Japanese had a very small pilot pool, and put ALL of their top pilots in one single unit. The F4F was also well balanced against the Zero. And the Spitfire was basically equal to the Zero in every way except range. Early dogfights in the Pacific, starting on Dec 7, 1941, and going into 1943, US pilots were initially caught off guard by surprise, and werent aware of the Zero prior to Pearl Harbor. After Dec 7 piltos wanted revenge and were too aggressive and wanted to turn fight. It took time to get them to stay disciplined and stick to Boom and Zoom that their airplanes were designed for. Boom and Zoom fighting requires much more patience and discipline, and even online gamers are overall terrible at Boom and Zoom becasue they are too eager and aggressive. But most of the top aces were Boom and Zoom pilots (Red Baron, Eric Hartmann, Richard Bong, Rickenbacker, and many others.). Pilots like Hans Marseille, Werner Voss, and Saburo Sakai were Turn and Burn pilots, using superior piloting to outmaneuver their opponents. Something to keep in mid, while the P-39 and P-40 werent as good against Japanese planes in maneuverability, they could both outmaneuver a Bf109, and the P-40 was superior to the P-47 in every way below 15k ft other than range and firepower. The P-40 was faster, accelerated quicker, was more maneuverable, was equally as tough taking punishment and still flying home, used in ground attack roles, was an excellent diving airplane, etc. than the P-47.
    3
  3147. 3
  3148. 3
  3149. 3
  3150. 3
  3151. 3
  3152. 3
  3153. 3
  3154. 3
  3155. 3
  3156. 3
  3157. 3
  3158. 3
  3159. 3
  3160. 3
  3161. 3
  3162. 3
  3163. 3
  3164. 3
  3165. 3
  3166. 3
  3167. 3
  3168. 3
  3169. 3
  3170. 3
  3171. 3
  3172. 3
  3173. 3
  3174. 3
  3175. 3
  3176. 3
  3177. 3
  3178. 3
  3179. 3
  3180. 3
  3181. 3
  3182. 3
  3183. 3
  3184. 3
  3185. 3
  3186. 3
  3187. 3
  3188. 3
  3189. 3
  3190. 3
  3191. 3
  3192. 3
  3193. 3
  3194. 3
  3195. 3
  3196. 3
  3197. 3
  3198. 3
  3199. 3
  3200. 3
  3201. 3
  3202.  @marcuswardle3180  Most Ukrainians fighting today, were not serving in the military in 2014. Most have less than 1yr of total experience, assuming all of it was spent in combat and little to none in training. US soldiers by contrast typically have years of training before seeing combat, and even the few who do not get years fo training their first time, are in a unit full of people with decades of combined experience and training. The depth of experience through the ranks spans multiple wars, multiple decades. Ukraine lacks both combat experience in its forces, lacks the skills and experience within its forces (namely with leadership, command and control, coordination, combined arms tactics, etc.). it takes decades for a military to get to that level of competency, assuming it has time to train people properly. But when you just throw barely trained troops into a fight with advanced equipment that takes years to master, and requires lots of practice with teamwork to utilize that equipment to its full potential, they will never perform properly. We do not see Ukraine using the equipment the way it was meant/designed to be used. And thus it doesn't work the way it could/would were it in the hands of US troops. Believe it or not, the US has been using kamikaze drones in combat since WW2. We used them in WW2 against Japan, in Vietnam, and we also used drones in Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, and more places for decades. The US invented and was first to use many of the capabilities you see being used in Ukraine today, decades ago. The Byraktar drone capability for example, is something the US has had and used since the late 1980s. Yet the US fought for over 2 decades against unconventional forces and suffered far fewer losses. Yes, we lost many Abrams tanks, but not nearly the levels of losses Ukraine/Russia are taking. Becasue we employed them properly, and dealt with the unconventional threats properly. We had proper functional jamming equipment and other defenses that make the use of small drones less effective. And the US also fights in a manner that makes deploying small drones nearly impossible to be effective. And we also have methods for tracking where a drone took off from. Capabilities Ukraine lacks. The biggest difference is the US has overwhelming air power, making every target within reach, and anytime an enemy pops his head up to attack, we destroy him. You can track a drone back to its operator, if you have the ability to detect, triangulate, and strike his position.
    3
  3203. 3
  3204. 3
  3205. 3
  3206. 3
  3207. 3
  3208. 3
  3209. 3
  3210. 3
  3211. 3
  3212. 3
  3213. 3
  3214. 3
  3215. 3
  3216. 3
  3217. 3
  3218. 3
  3219. 3
  3220. 3
  3221. 3
  3222. 3
  3223. 3
  3224. 3
  3225. 3
  3226. 3
  3227. 3
  3228. 3
  3229. 3
  3230. 3
  3231. 3
  3232. 3
  3233. 3
  3234. 3
  3235. 3
  3236. 3
  3237. 3
  3238. 3
  3239. 3
  3240. 3
  3241. 3
  3242. 3
  3243. 3
  3244. 3
  3245. 3
  3246. 3
  3247. 3
  3248. 3
  3249. 3
  3250. 3
  3251. 3
  3252. 3
  3253.  @csjrogerson2377  He stated it was flawed due to using a radial engine. And then in a separate statement pointed out how this particular radial engine was underpowered for its time. But he later then went on to say it would "never be able to compete with contemporary streamlined, liquid cooled aircraft". He continually implied that radial engines of any kind were obsolete. Many of us know that wasn't the case, but many people watching the video who don't know better Will draw that conclusion. The choice between Maneuverability or Speed, is Not dependent upon whether you chose a radial engine over an inline engine. It's merely a matter of horsepower and aerodynamics overall. A radial engine doesn't make a plane tough (see most Japanese designs), nor does using an inline engine make an airplane weak (P-40, IL-2...). A radial engine doesn't make a plane slow (Bearcat, F4U, Sea Fury...), nor does an inline engine make a plane super fast (P-40, P-39, Bf109...) Never mind the fact that radial engine airplanes outlasted inline water cooled in military service (in the US in particular). Aircraft such as the A-26, A-1D, C-47, F4U... lasted in active combat service as late as the Vietnam War era. Some countries operated them even longer (yes, P-51s and such lasted pretty long too, but less than the radial varieties). Many airplanes started out with weak radials and did just fine against the Zero, such as the F4F, particularly later in the war when they got bigger engines and some airframe improvements. Also, he incorrectly stated the Zero hacked up Allied airplanes in Asia, where as in reality, most of that was done by Ki-27 and Ki-43 type Japanese aircraft. The Japanese Army was responsible for the Asia campaign, and the Navy for the Pacific campaign. The Zero was largely a Navy fighter. Most aircraft the P-40 Flying Tigers faced were Not Zeros at all, for example. People kept mis-identifying other similar shaped planes as Zeros, the same way M4 Sherman tankers in Europe and Africa kept mis-identifying German Panzers as Tigers, when in reality only 3 actual engagements with Tigers can be confirmed. I don't need a lesson in fighter tactics, as it had nothing to do with my comment. I was addressing the fact he was right in that speed had become more important than pure maneuverability, so being underpowered was a weakness regardless of the engine type. Playing Devil's Advocate and acknowledging that things are far from simply "black and white". However, seeing as you brought it up, you most definitely Can get in a slow speed dogfight with a Zero, assuming you're more maneuverable than him. But, hopefully you're also able to climb and go reasonably fast as well, otherwise the Zero will "boom and zoom" you instead. Whether a plane uses Boom and Zoom, or Turn and Burn is RELATIVE to the target you are facing. If they are slower, but more maneuverable, Boom and Zoom them. If they are faster but less maneuverable, Turn and Burn them. The Zero was not a Turn and Burn fighter against Every possible opponent it faced or might have faced. But in the end, the guy with the faster plane holds the initiative in the fight (if they have any clue what they are doing), as they can essentially run away or re-engage at their leisure. The Bf109 was no slouch in the Turn and Burn department, yet the P-40 did well against some models by out maneuvering them. Yet the same P-40 was a Boom and Zoom fighter against many Japanese types. You adapt to the threat you face, and play to your strengths over their weaknesses, however that matchup plays out.
    3
  3254. 3
  3255. 3
  3256. 3
  3257.  @badchefi  "Replacing his solar with same size panel would be stupid." I know that, you're the one missing the point. "People crying about their systems on here are blaming the bread - it’s not an argument it’s a reality when folks just go and buy stuff." correct, they are blaming eth lack of adequate solar energy. Switching to solar wouldn't prevent that. Adding more solar hot water would be far more space and energy efficient that switching to solar panels. "My off grid system covers all our needs all year around." nobody cares. Where I live, you couldn't go pure solar. Perpetual clouds 60% of the year, only a few hours of sunlight per day in the winter. not enough space. I did all teh math, oversized, added batteries, etc. into my calculations. I'd have to cover every square inch of my property in solar panels to live off-grid. I'd have to cut down all my trees and all my neighbor's trees too, cover my House, driveway, yard, etc. And then it would take 44yrs to pay it off (reach the break even point). "So I guess that for a stupid guy with no knowledge of math and physics I did well🤣" nope, someone else did the work for you. And you still can't grasp the issue being presented to you. "At least I don’t have to come on here crying how shit solar is." no, instead you come here and berate everyone you deem inferior to you, and you bludgeon others with your perceived superiority, while ignoring the very real limitations of solar for most people on earth. not every local can depend upon solar. Where I live the energy companies built solar fields. But they tore them all down after a few years becasue it cost them more than they made. And an entire solar field would barely power a few homes. You lack understanding. You have an ego-driven bias. you can't see past your own nose. you think that since it worked for you, that it can work for 100% of everyone else too. But that is naive childish ignorance.
    3
  3258. 3
  3259. 3
  3260. 3
  3261. 3
  3262. 3
  3263. 3
  3264. 3
  3265. 3
  3266. 3
  3267. 3
  3268. 3
  3269. 3
  3270. 3
  3271. 3
  3272. 3
  3273. 3
  3274. 3
  3275. 3
  3276. 3
  3277. 3
  3278. 3
  3279. 3
  3280. 3
  3281. 3
  3282. 3
  3283. 3
  3284. 3
  3285. 3
  3286. 3
  3287. 3
  3288. 3
  3289. 3
  3290. 3
  3291. 3
  3292. 3
  3293. 3
  3294. 3
  3295. 3
  3296. 3
  3297. 3
  3298. 3
  3299. 3
  3300. 3
  3301. 3
  3302. 3
  3303. 3
  3304. 3
  3305. 3
  3306. 3
  3307. 3
  3308. 3
  3309. 3
  3310. 3
  3311. 3
  3312. 3
  3313. 3
  3314. 3
  3315. 3
  3316. 3
  3317. 3
  3318. 3
  3319. 3
  3320. 3
  3321. 3
  3322. 3
  3323. 3
  3324. 3
  3325. 3
  3326. 3
  3327. 3
  3328. 3
  3329. 3
  3330. 3
  3331. 3
  3332. 3
  3333. 3
  3334. 3
  3335. 3
  3336. 3
  3337. 3
  3338. 3
  3339. 3
  3340. 3
  3341. 3
  3342. 3
  3343. 3
  3344. 3
  3345. 3
  3346. 3
  3347. 3
  3348. 3
  3349. 3
  3350. 3
  3351. 3
  3352. 3
  3353. 3
  3354. 3
  3355. 3
  3356. 3
  3357. 3
  3358. 3
  3359. 3
  3360. 3
  3361. 3
  3362. 3
  3363. 3
  3364. 3
  3365. 3
  3366. 3
  3367. 3
  3368. 3
  3369. 3
  3370. 3
  3371. 3
  3372. 3
  3373. 3
  3374. 3
  3375. 3
  3376. 3
  3377. 3
  3378. 3
  3379. 3
  3380. 3
  3381. 3
  3382. 3
  3383. 3
  3384. 3
  3385. 3
  3386. 3
  3387. 3
  3388. 3
  3389. 3
  3390. 3
  3391. 3
  3392. 3
  3393. 3
  3394. 3
  3395.  @sundoga4961  " It's the duty and responsibility of the citizenry to support the government and help pay for the services provided by it, just as it's the duty and responsibility of the citizenry to vote in a democracy. " yes, but most taxes are not necessary, overbearing, and weaponized against he public. There is a pint at which too much taxation actually shrinks teh economy and you start bringing in LESS tax revenue than if you taxed people LESS. this is a well understood, well proven, well studied fact. Taxes should be simple and stay below that line at which taxes hurt the economy. There is no need for income tax for example. we have sales tax, every penny will be taxed when it gets spent. Property taxes should never be so overbearing as to force people who are debt free into being forced to sell their home. Taxation on sales of used items makes no sense. Raising taxes on commercial property when a business person is extorting for high sales/rent prices would be a good thing. I propose doubling the property tax every month a commercial property is not being used for commercial purposes. Eventually the owner will have to rent or sell it out as they will end up paying more in taxes than the property is worth. this ensures people are able to get affordable opportunities to develop businesses in places like NYC. There is a county in my state where such extortion pricing is going on and it is killing business in teh entire county, and as a result that county is the most underdeveloped and poorest counties, because all the commercial properties are owned and they are asking something like 3x more than they are worth. But go ahead, sling insults and behave like a child and over simplify reality and beg the gov to be your daddy and take care of you like a child.
    3
  3396. 3
  3397. 3
  3398.  @NuntiusLegis  "The complete opposite is true, it takes far more farmed crop land to waste it for animal food which results in way less calories as meat compared to eating plant nutrition directly." but when everyone eats less meat, they now need FAR more plant food to compensate, and animals still have to eat regardless. Unless you're advocating killing off all animals on earth too? "Vegan nutrition is way healthier, vegans have less heart problems, less cancer etc." this is so not true. it may be working for you right now. There are some people who can make it work. in that case I call it the "Unicorn diet", something that works for rare few people, and only if you diet at the far extremes. You may be able to ride a road bike, good for you. meat eaters can do it better than you. I too am far older than I look, and I've never been vegan, nor would I want to be. Vegans and obese people are the majority of the people who fill the hospitals. So many health problems are tied to those two diets. Humans are evolved to eat meat. but it is a fact meat (proteins/fat) based diets are far healthier for the vast majority of people. Tons of vegans have given up, switched to meat, and gotten healthier. and many people have fixed chronic health problems with meat. Veganism is a luxury diet, not a survival diet for the long term. "You clearly didn't check any of your statements, do yourself a favor and start doing so instead of making a fool of yourself." such as? curious you didn't refute any of them. the only one you attempted makes you an advocate for mass animal slaughter and extinction to carry out. By the way, how much farming experience do you have? what types of livestock and crops have you farmed exactly, and for how many years? "Farm animals produce more emissions than cars." you produce far more emissions than animals. what should we do with you? Also, CO2 does not drive climate change. Also, it was far hotter in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, and our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum of light that methane absorbs to matter. even if our atmosphere were saturated with the max amount of methane it could hold, the global temps would rise at most 1C. You'd die of asphyxiation before that happened. So if you believe lies like CO2 drives climate change, which is in fact responsible for the high crop yields that sustain your vegan diet, then how can I trust any other unscientific nonsense that you espouse?
    3
  3399. 3
  3400. 3
  3401. 3
  3402. 3
  3403. 3
  3404. 3
  3405. 3
  3406. 3
  3407. 3
  3408. 3
  3409. 3
  3410. 3
  3411. 3
  3412. 3
  3413. 3
  3414. 3
  3415. 3
  3416. 3
  3417. 3
  3418. 3
  3419. 3
  3420. 3
  3421. 3
  3422. 3
  3423. 3
  3424. 3
  3425. 3
  3426. 3
  3427. 3
  3428. 3
  3429. 3
  3430. 3
  3431. 3
  3432. 3
  3433. 3
  3434. 3
  3435. 3
  3436. 3
  3437. 3
  3438. 3
  3439. 3
  3440. 3
  3441. 3
  3442.  @apis_aculei  F4F finished WW2 7:1 against the zero, and even the Zero pilots themselves respected the F4F in a dogfight in the early South Pacific campaigns. Speed, firepower, and wingman tactics are superior to what the Zero brought to the table. Agility ceased being important the day the Hawker Hart entered service with the RAF. But Japan's Samurai mindset refused to accept this reality. It's just like how in a dogfight between a P-40 and a P-47, the P-40 pilot can't lose. You could replace the P-40 with an F6F, and F4U, etc, and the P-47 would still lose. Because while the P-47 is the superior fighter at high altitude, it can't kill the other planes unless it comes down to their altitude. And at those lower altitudes the P-47 can't defeat any of those airplanes in an even fight. This played out for real in state-side bar bets, where pilots of different types and branches of the military would dogfight 1-vs-1 to settle bets. the P-47s always lost, because their opponent would just keep the dogfight at low altitude where their airplanes were faster and more maneuverable than the P-47. What good is maneuverability if you can't catch your target? what good is maneuverability if you can't run away from your attacker? P-38s exemplified this. Zeros were at the mercy of US P-38s once the US pilots learned to stick with boom and zoom tactics. Speed controls the engagement in a dogfight, not maneuverability. And in real life combat, dogfighting is a team sport. And setting up your pilots to fight 1-vs-1 fights in a fight where your opponent is using team tactics, even if you brought the same number of airplanes to the fight as your opponent, is a guaranteed loss for you. War isn't fair, and when you lose in combat you don't get to claim it wasn't fair. Either you use what you have and you win, or you die.
    3
  3443. 3
  3444. 3
  3445. 3
  3446. 3
  3447. 3
  3448. 3
  3449. 3
  3450. 3
  3451. 3
  3452. 3
  3453. 3
  3454. 3
  3455. 3
  3456. 3
  3457. 3
  3458. 3
  3459. 3
  3460. 3
  3461. 3
  3462. 3
  3463. 3
  3464. 3
  3465. 3
  3466. 3
  3467. 3
  3468. 3
  3469. 3
  3470. 3
  3471. 3
  3472. 3
  3473. 3
  3474. 3
  3475. 3
  3476. 3
  3477. 3
  3478. 2
  3479. 2
  3480. 2
  3481. 2
  3482. 2
  3483. 2
  3484. 2
  3485. 2
  3486. 2
  3487. 2
  3488. 2
  3489. 2
  3490. 2
  3491. 2
  3492. 2
  3493. 2
  3494. 2
  3495. 2
  3496. 2
  3497. 2
  3498. 2
  3499. 2
  3500. 2
  3501. 2
  3502. 2
  3503.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  3/5 vote was a result of the Southern slave owners wanting to count their slaves in order to gain seats in Congress, where representatives are granted based on population size. The slave owners demanded they be allowed to count their slaves in this, despite Refusing to allow those slaves to actually vote for their representatives. The Northern states acknowledged that the slaves were people and deserved a voice, even though the additional southern representatives wouldn't actually represent the slaves. it was a compromise to get the country unified by acknowledging slaves as humans and giving the south undue voting power in congress by being allowed to count their slaves as voting members of the population, while also denying them the vote. The North Acknowledged the slaves as people deserving of representation, while the slave owners denied them representation. The 3/5 rule was a bid by the slave owners to gain power in Congress, and used their slaves to get it. Had the Southern states been allowed to count 100% of the slave population towards their representatives in Congress, they would have had the power to prevent the abolition of slavery, possibly even well into the 20th century. Had the North not granted the 3/5 rule to the South, slavery would have been ended even sooner in American history. But go on taking history out of context and continue believing the rule proves All of America was somehow racist, despite only 6% of those early Americans owning slaves. Ignore the fact that most Americans today are descendants of immigrants to the US After the abolition of slavery. I am of European descent for example, but my family didn't immigrate to the US from Switzerland until 1902. No history of slavery in our family ever, and we can trace our family back to the 1400s. Many Irish were slaves. Many Americans aren't even of European descent. But lets just blanket lump everyone into the collective guilts of a select few individuals/families from hundreds of years ago. Lets blame people for the sins of the father, even blaming those whose fathers never sinned, and giving reparations to those whose family were never slaves in the US. Punishing those who are alive today and did no wrong, for the deeds of those long dead, rewarding those who were never wronged. But lets not forget the first draft Declaration of Independence, which we still have the original copy, clearly and in No uncertain terms abolished the slave trade, and ownership of humans at all. The US wanted to abolish slavery from day one. Also, the first drafts of the Constitution also included the abolition of slavery once again, but was removed in order to get ratified by dissenting states. Jefferson in his later years wrote a letter to Madison lamenting his failure to abolish slavery, but said that the seeds of abolition were in motion and the US would abolish slavery in about 40yrs. 60yrs later the US abolished slavery. Not a bad prediction on his part. All of these original documents still exist, hence how we know this. Also, there is a Lot of amazing Black American history between US revolution and WW1. But it was written out of the public school history books, by Woodrow Wilson. But you can still find all of this amazing Black American history from those eras if you go do actual research and actually study our real history. The British are the ones who brought slavery to the US, and the Africans are the ones who enslaved their people and sold them to the British slavers. Did you know slavery still exists to this day in Africa, and other parts of the world, like China?
    2
  3504.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  Well, the 3/5 rule doesn't apply in the moment. Of course you try to change the subject when you find the context of history doesn't support your argument. Cherry pick a period in history and ignore everything that led up to those moments. How i what i am talking about Not related to the 3/5 rule? People claim America is inherently racist, despite all historical evidence to teh contrary. I point out how other parts of the world remain slavers and racist to this day, and how those who complain about slavery and racism wont lift a finger to call those other countries out, wont lift a finger to speak against slavery in other countries. For example, Apple uses slave labor to make their cellphones many who complain of slavery use. Many companies use slave labor in china and elsewhere, making clothes and other items those who claim to care about slavery own and use. China is insanely racist against Africans, black Africans in particular, to this very day. But i here No condemnation whatsoever of china. In America, black people can succeed, and are respected, and hold positions of power in business, education, politics, etc. But Somehow we should focus on the farce that is the lie that America is inherently racist, and ignore Actual slavery and racism. The 3/5 rule never should have existed, and had it not, and slaves not been counted in the south towards representations, the north would have out voted the south and ended slavery much sooner. But, without the 3/5th rule, America might never have existed at all. Jefferson and others compromised, knowing it was more important to get the country formed and functioning to keep it together, then figure out how to fix things like slavery once the formal gov was in place. Ideally slavery would have been abolished in the Declaration of Independence, but that's not the way it happened. But we eventually managed to end slavery anyways. And we as a country tried very hard to end slavery for many decades, and a lot of good people died ending slavery.
    2
  3505. 2
  3506. 2
  3507. 2
  3508. 2
  3509. 2
  3510. 2
  3511. 2
  3512. 2
  3513. 2
  3514. 2
  3515. 2
  3516. 2
  3517. 2
  3518. 2
  3519. 2
  3520. 2
  3521. 2
  3522. 2
  3523. 2
  3524. 2
  3525. 2
  3526. 2
  3527. 2
  3528. 2
  3529. 2
  3530. 2
  3531. 2
  3532. 2
  3533. 2
  3534. 2
  3535. 2
  3536. 2
  3537. 2
  3538. 2
  3539. 2
  3540. 2
  3541. 2
  3542. 2
  3543. 2
  3544. 2
  3545. 2
  3546. 2
  3547. 2
  3548. 2
  3549. 2
  3550. 2
  3551. 2
  3552. 2
  3553. 2
  3554. 2
  3555. 2
  3556. 2
  3557. 2
  3558. 2
  3559. 2
  3560. 2
  3561. 2
  3562. 2
  3563. 2
  3564. 2
  3565. 2
  3566. 2
  3567. 2
  3568. 2
  3569. 2
  3570. 2
  3571. 2
  3572. 2
  3573. 2
  3574. 2
  3575. 2
  3576. 2
  3577. 2
  3578. 2
  3579. 2
  3580. 2
  3581. 2
  3582. 2
  3583. 2
  3584. 2
  3585. 2
  3586. 2
  3587. 2
  3588. 2
  3589. 2
  3590. 2
  3591. 2
  3592. 2
  3593. 2
  3594. 2
  3595. 2
  3596. 2
  3597. 2
  3598. 2
  3599. 2
  3600. 2
  3601. 2
  3602. 2
  3603. 2
  3604. 2
  3605. 2
  3606. 2
  3607. 2
  3608. 2
  3609. 2
  3610. 2
  3611. 2
  3612. 2
  3613. 2
  3614. 2
  3615. 2
  3616. 2
  3617. 2
  3618. 2
  3619. 2
  3620. 2
  3621. 2
  3622. 2
  3623. 2
  3624. 2
  3625. 2
  3626. 2
  3627. 2
  3628. 2
  3629. 2
  3630. 2
  3631. 2
  3632. 2
  3633. 2
  3634. 2
  3635. 2
  3636. 2
  3637. 2
  3638. 2
  3639. 2
  3640. 2
  3641. 2
  3642. 2
  3643. 2
  3644. 2
  3645. 2
  3646. 2
  3647. 2
  3648. 2
  3649. 2
  3650. 2
  3651. 2
  3652. 2
  3653. 2
  3654. 2
  3655. 2
  3656. 2
  3657. 2
  3658. 2
  3659. 2
  3660. 2
  3661. 2
  3662. 2
  3663. 2
  3664. 2
  3665. 2
  3666. 2
  3667. 2
  3668. 2
  3669. 2
  3670. 2
  3671. 2
  3672. 2
  3673. 2
  3674. 2
  3675. 2
  3676. 2
  3677. 2
  3678. 2
  3679. 2
  3680. 2
  3681. 2
  3682. 2
  3683. 2
  3684. 2
  3685. 2
  3686. 2
  3687. 2
  3688.  @eddavanleemputten9232  "Another is (I believe) that nowadays a lot of armies/governments have developed support systems for their personnel coming out of a conflict area. " you'd think so, but this is one of the single biggest gripes I se from my fellow vets is a lack of support. In reality we are supporting each other. In WW2, 75% of the US population knew someone directly who served (Father, Brother, Husband, Son). Every war since has impacted less and less of society until today something like less than 3% are effected by war in any way (vets and their direct families). OIF/OEF vets tend to do a great job of staying in touch after returning home. We create private social media pages so we can stay in touch, and post issues we need help with...stuff like that. One thing to consider. I predict Ukraine will have surprisingly low cases of PTSD, due to much of the nation including the civilians having a shared experience. When the war is on civilian soil, that civilian population along with their soldiers tends to recover better due to the shared experience. The civilian population can now relate, even if not always completely, to the vets. This will enable them to better work through it together. "Somehow I have serious doubts the Russian military has that available for its forces, or at most only for a select few." correct. in fact we KNOW they are intentionally preventing support. the Russian gov is pretending all is well, casualties are low, and anyone who tries to speak about it is silenced. There are literal videos from inside Russia of wounded Ukraine vets being treated like stray dogs. Treating their vets as if less than human.
    2
  3689.  @eddavanleemputten9232  "t feels so… the only word I can find is ‘wrong’." Exactly what we feel as well. "Still, some experiences will be unique to the military. Trenches are, from what I heard, a very unique brand of horror. " correct " I believe there is going to be what I can only call a ‘wounded generation’ for lack of a better description. Intense trauma changes you. It literally rewires your brain. " actually for most of human history this was normal. and only societies that are disconnected from this for too long (the US, Western Europe...) fall into this false belief of socialism, communism, woke etc. They lose touch with reality and start beleiving utopia can exist, and they bring about horrors like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao unleashed. Then the cycle starts all over again. the 1950s to the 1990s was so great becasue of the suffering of WW2. Suffering is necessary for a functioning society. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. it makes us appreciate what we have, makes us value family and community, etc. "I know someone is bound to want to shoot me for saying this, but there’s a large group of Russian soldiers who were upstanding citizens, who got thrown into this mess, who do not commit war crimes, and who deserve the same. Most won’t get that and it’s incredibly sad. Many will drown the rest of their lives in the horrors they’ve seen. It’s going to destroy them and their families. " not at all, this is very true. keep in mind the US has a long history of making nice with our enemies. Almost immediately after the US Revolution was won, the US and UK were on friendly terms once again. US and Mexico get along well despite our rocky history. US and Vietnam are now allies, as with Japan, Germany, Italy, and more. Not uncommon for former enemies on a battlefield to become lifelong friends afterwards. Many famous cases of this. Lincoln forgave the South after our Civil War in order to heal the nation, and it worked. The US did the same after WW2. And the US tried to do the same after WW1 but France and UK chose vengeance instead, leading to WW2. "I hope we all grow from this and I sincerely hope the US government puts in place more support for the men and women who have served and currently served. Same goes for other governments. Even if it’s just funding for existing forms of support. There never seems to be enough of it. I also hope private initiatives never stop trying their best to offer help and to de-stigmatise the very real need for mental health care, not just in general but also to active and former military. " the solution is NOT more money. the solution is not fighting protracted wars. not letting politicians run rampant. not giving govs too much power. and not destroying community and family back home. the stronger our communities and family ties, the better we can handle it. Also a degree of suffering is necessary in life for people to grow up to be functional adults. How best to learn not to touch a hot stove than to get burned once? They made playgrounds too safe, and then found that children are growing up without risk management skills developed in their brains due to living their childhoods in protected bubbles. Too much safety is an objectively bad thing in more ways than one. Yes, I am ex-military, combat vet, and I actually loved my job, and loved being deployed. I was good at my job, and miss it. That doesn't man it isn't terrible, that it didn't affect me, nor that i would advocate for war. Just that it affects people differently. My greatest successes where what Sun Tzu called the perfect victory, the victory in which you win without fighting. proud to say I have achieved this multiple times in actual combat. But to do that, one must truly understand war, and why it is necessary, and how to win it, and to use that knowledge to Prevent war. Only then can a person know how to win without fighting. Even guys in my unit to this day don't understand how i did it. to them it is still "magic", and they call it "luck" since they don't understand it. War is so much more complex than most people realize. to me it is the most difficult profession for humans to master. it is harder than being a doctor, mathematician, physicist, etc. A true expert of war requires the highest levels of intelligence. And in achieving mastery, they learn to prevent war. The US military is/was better at this than many realize, but it's corrupt politicians that use it for evil.
    2
  3690.  @eddavanleemputten9232  all good comments and thoughts "You need to know how to fight, but that doesn’t mean you need to fight. You do need to gain a profound understanding of how to fight in order to successfully avoid that fight. " exactly, need to know what matters in war, how to win, in order to position/posture yourself into making the enemy know, or think, they will lose if they try to attack. And that requires proficiency at war, even though the goal is to avoid it. Hence the phrases, "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.", and, "It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.”, and, "speak softly and carry a big stick". You cannot be at peace through pacifism, only through strength. You have to be capable of violence, willing to use violence, then chose not to use violence unless absolutely necessary, after all other options for peaceful coexistence have been exhausted. "Still, somehow, we seem to come to similar conclusions continents away from one another." Because like it or not, humans differ very little from one another. We are all more alike that we differ. What causes issues is bad leadership in our larger communities/tribes (some called "nations"). Wars are typically between differences in ideology, lack of resources or mismanagement of resources, or just power hungry individuals. Some ideologies are objectively superior to others. Good leadership is superior to bad leadership. But regardless where these bad ideas typically come from, most genuinely think they are in the right, or doing the right thing. the WORST atrocities happen when an evil/false ideology convinces people enmass that they can fix the world and people if only they have total power and control to bring about their version of utopia. It's happening again, and thus we are facing mass war again. In the US, many friendships are formed between the two men who personally tried to kill each other in combat. Not just a soldier getting along with civilians of the once enemy nation. We literally become friends with those we tried to kill, or those who tried to kill us, if the fighting was done honorably, each fighting merely for what they believed in, for their home, family, etc. We/they know it wasn't truly personal, each was doing their duty. It's just like brothers/friends physically fighting, but being better friends afterwards as a result.
    2
  3691.  @eddavanleemputten9232  I 100% subscribe to your master's philosophy. Try to avoid fighting, but when the time comes be prepared to utterly destroy them. I don't fight fair, I fight to win. Guys in teh military often don't understand, as they are taught to just follow orders. I never fight head on. I fight with my mind. I maneuver, delay, think, buy time, etc. until the conditions are in my favor. Then I strike. But people see it as running from a fight, even though not one of them had ever beaten me. They knew I was better than they were, but they never understood how/why. They didn't like it. They tried to figure it out on their own, and refused my attempts to teach them. They let their pride get in the way. "As you said, humans differ very little from one another. The average human being wants to be safe, have shelter, food, companionship and a sense of belonging. Bad leadership exploits that. Good leadership nurtures it. " completely agree. we all just want to be free to live out lives, pursue our dreams, and be left alone. It's good you got to travel. Too many people in teh US have never travelled, and those that have almost never go to 3rd world countries, or get outside the tourist traps. they never see the truth that most of the people alive today still have to deal with. That's what I love about America. We are a nation of Immigrants. It's the common ideology that unites Americans, not where we came from. Irish, Nordic, French, Germanic, African, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Pilipino, Native American, Hispanic, Italian, etc. Doesn't matter. Many POWs in WW2 remained in the US and became US citizens, as they were treated so well. Most Americans are good people, but we have a totalitarian minority (14%-21%) of our population, bent on destroying our common values and replacing it with a system straight our of Mao's China, or Stalin's Russia, or Hitler's Germany, etc. They are bringing about destruction, poverty, death, crime, famine, and worse. And if we can't win it peacefully, war may be necessary to correct the issue. the issue is that those pushing these bad ideas are always the well-off, the rich, wealthy, powerful. the hard working people know that reality isn't like that, but feel powerless to push back, or are easily brainwashed.
    2
  3692. 2
  3693. 2
  3694. 2
  3695. 2
  3696. 2
  3697. 2
  3698. 2
  3699. 2
  3700.  @derrickwainwright3746  there is Far more nuance still in early American history, going all the way back to Columbus. For example, Columbus was actually rather friendly to Natives in the Americas and treated them well. The things he is accused of were the crimes of others, many things which happened after he died. The US colonies were settled by a wide mix of people and ideas. Each colony had its own culture, laws, etc. Something that was preserved post-US revolution with states rights. In some colonies, women controlled the family finances by law, for example. In other colonies blacks owned slaves before and after the US Revolution. After the US Revolution many slave owners voluntarily freed their slaves, including in the southern states. It was a very small subset of the US population that perpetuated slavery after the Revolution, and that involves Significant amounts of nuance to understand how and why that happened. Jefferson wrote the Abolition of Slavery into the Declaration of Independence, it was about a whole paragraph that explained what he meant in no uncertain terms. But the founders rightly and brilliantly decided that whatever went into the Declaration had to be unanimously agreed upon, so that the colonies were in agreement about the grievances against England, such that the King could not use any disagreement between the colonies to drive a wedge between the colonies and destroy their unity and undermine the Revolutionary effort by convincing some to give up the cause. Only 2 out of 13 colonies disagreed that the Abolition of Slavery was a sticking point for why they desired independence. 11 colonies voted that the King not allowing them to end slavery in America was a major reason for independence. But not unanimous, so it was removed. The story after the Revolution is won is far too complex to explain here. But it is far better than people claim. America tried desperately and overwhelmingly to end slavery from well before the Revolution. There are other regrettable events in US history as well, but People my age and older were all taught about those moments in our history specifically. Such events like segregation, the KKK, civil war, native American rights and such comprised a significant amount of our history lessons. America has never tried to hide its past. But woodrow wilson did try to erase black history in America. Did you know the first double agent spy in US military history was a free black man working for General Washington, for example? The first female millionaire in US history was a black woman.
    2
  3701. 2
  3702. 2
  3703. 2
  3704. 2
  3705. 2
  3706. 2
  3707. 2
  3708. 2
  3709. 2
  3710. 2
  3711. 2
  3712. 2
  3713. 2
  3714. 2
  3715. 2
  3716. 2
  3717. 2
  3718. 2
  3719. 2
  3720. 2
  3721. 2
  3722. 2
  3723. 2
  3724. 2
  3725. 2
  3726.  @BrideOfTheDawn  " women are the heart and soul of the home and the hearth. We are the home-makers and the pillars that support our spouses." Women Were, in the past. not anymore. Few women know how to be that person anymore. Few women these days know how they bring value to a home. If such women existed more often, society would be better off. But as you can see by the state of things, that is not where we are. " I am a college student with a perfect GPA. Straight A grades. " means nothing. I got straight A's and perfect grades too. Never been turned down by a college in my life. Even had a chance to got to Harvard on a full-ride back when only 30% of students even got degrees at best. But I can teach anyone how to get straight A-s today, not hard at all. But being book smart is one thing, practical useful smarts is another. I hold 4 degrees and attended 6 colleges. I taught at one of the colleges, and was offered jobs as a professor at others. I tutored and mentored students for nearly 20yrs in math, engineering, physics, history, etc. Most men can't keep up with me, less so women. But you don't need a degree to be smart, and a degree is NOT proof of intelligence either. Most college students these days are the dumbest people I know. the truly brilliant people are the ones who know how to think for themselves, and are able to debate deeply any issue, and understand all sides, not just their own viewpoint. But again, women can't be career women and homemakers at the same time. And men don't want career women. "But intellect is one of the few areas that we share equally." Scientifically false. Men are objectively more likely to be geniuses than women, but also more likely to be retards. Women lack the kind of drive and commitment men bring to scientific endeavors. Nothing wrong with that. If women brought the same drive, they couldn't be homemakers. A rare few women are very smart, but they are very rare, and not homemakers either. Hypatia is one I'm very familiar with, actually impressed you knew that one, almost no women I've ever met have even heard of her. "Emilie du Chatelet: a French natural philosopher and mathematician." ok, but I've never heard of before. I notice you failed to mention any significant contribution she gave the world to be worthy of mention. "And let's not forget how many women existed within the literature community. " i didn't ask about that. There are plenty of artistic women. But women can be artistic and homemakers. "But nevertheless, it does not change the fact that women do, in fact, gain more value the older they get. All human beings do." how so? I just fail to see what age brings for a woman who is not already married. Not all humans are valuable, or get wiser as they age. Some humans deserve death for their actions, others are lazy, some can never get any smarter no matter how hard they try. That's life. "Yes, the man may pay for the groceries, but he does not cook the meals." not exactly true, men have cooked for many generations. Most of the men in my family are better cooks than the women. " You cannot claim that women are ALL stupid." I never did. if you pay close attention you'll notice I never make such claims, other than to generalize for the sake of making a point/argument. That is just you projecting your feelings onto what I actually said. "And a home will thrive or crumble depending on the woman in charge." yes, if the woman is in charge, the home will crumble. " Furthermore, in today's society, it is no longer the case that only men provide for their families. ", yes, but do you know WHY that is the case? what changed to bring this about? "If a woman's value, to you, is in her womb, then you must surely see how the woman who has raised your children to be responsible, respectable, and contributing adults with thriving careers is far more valuable than the youth of a woman who may be young and pretty, but has yet to achieve motherhood. " there you go projecting on me again. trying to assume what I value. missing the mark and making no sense doing it. A career woman is of NO VALUE to men. Why can't women comprehend this fact. To men, young and beautiful is of value because of what it represents biologically and from an evolutionary selection point of view. And yes, studies that asked women how they ranked or valued men tended to pick older men (not OLD, but older as in 30s and 40s). "What do you, as a man, care more about? A pretty bimbo on your arm? Or a successful legacy? " wow, finally get nearly to the end and only now have you finally asked what a man values, after already proclaiming what you think he values. Don't you think it would have made Far more sense to lead off with this, rather than stand on your soapbox? The key to a good debate is establishing common ground and understanding, but you fail to do that and respond emotionally first. but, then you follow that up with the following, "Probably none. Because you don't seem like the kind of person that wants what a good woman can offer. You are so determined to see women as lesser than you. I do not know who hurt you, but it does not justify closing your eyes to the reality of the world." once again proclaiming to know what I think, what I value, and then resorting straight away to the tried and true feminist insult. this is the lowest form of debate their is. this is a true sign you have no actual argument hear, that you feel the need to resort to insults and projection. Whenever a feminist is losing an argument, or has no argument, the cookie cutter response is, "who hurt you?". it's childish and just proves my point about how intellectually incompetent most women are that they continually lean on logical fallacies to try to avoid losing, and to avoid hearing someone else's point of view, especially when it disagrees with their mantra. Men don't want feminists in their lives. "Good women, even of the modern variety, do exist. And for those of us who are decent human beings, many of your statements are cold, calloused, cruel, and downright untrue." Good women DO exist, and I know some of them, but they are not the norm, and they are rare, not enough of them to go around. But modern women are not good women. Yes, the cold hard truth can hurt, but hiding from it doesn't change reality. Some people just refuse to face facts. And these ideas are Not "untrue", they are scientifically backed. I thought you said women were equal to men intellectually, yet you're not helping your case by denying scientific and statistical reality. "If you treat every woman you meet like this, you might consider that to be a solid part of the reason you have a hard time finding a good woman." no, of course I don't treat very woman like this, just the ones who are cruel, selfish, narcissistic, feminists, woke women, and women who refuse to accept reality for what it is. Fortunately not all women are like that. But too many these days are. If women want to be Equal to men, then they better buck up and learn how to take it like a man. Because men don't get to deny reality and get away with it like women. Men get rude awakenings all the time, whether they like it or not. So women need to learn how to take it if they want to be "equals". But I'd prefer that not be the case. I'd prefer men and women accepted their differences, and that women stopped trying (and failing) to be men. I'd prefer it if women understood their value, and capitalized on that. but the modern woman doesn't know what that is or how to do it. What do I value in a woman? I could tell you if you were able to get off your soapbox of unscientific feminist lies long enough to hear an opposing point of view.
    2
  3727. 2
  3728. 2
  3729. 2
  3730. 2
  3731. 2
  3732. 2
  3733. 2
  3734. 2
  3735. 2
  3736. 2
  3737. 2
  3738. 2
  3739. 2
  3740. 2
  3741. 2
  3742. 2
  3743. 2
  3744. 2
  3745. 2
  3746. 2
  3747. 2
  3748. 2
  3749. 2
  3750. 2
  3751. 2
  3752. 2
  3753. 2
  3754. 2
  3755. 2
  3756. 2
  3757. 2
  3758. 2
  3759. 2
  3760. 2
  3761. 2
  3762. 2
  3763. 2
  3764. 2
  3765. 2
  3766. 2
  3767. 2
  3768. 2
  3769. 2
  3770. 2
  3771. 2
  3772. 2
  3773. 2
  3774. 2
  3775. 2
  3776. 2
  3777. 2
  3778. 2
  3779. 2
  3780. 2
  3781. 2
  3782. 2
  3783. 2
  3784. 2
  3785. 2
  3786.  @dabo5078  "So your research universities suck. " yes "Which means they wouldn't be producing any competent engineers, So how in the world your engineers be better than Chinese ones?" because skill and competence is also a result of self determination and individual responsibility. Americans rise to the occasion and overcome. they can recognize when something is corrupted and still learn what they need to regardless. You don't need a degree to become a great engineer. Many famous inventors are self taught, especially in teh US. Colleges don't produce high caliber engineers on the day of graduation. Great engineers are formed through years of practice, experience, intuition, etc. almost none of those things are taught/learned in college, but rather on teh job and at home in teh pursuit of personal projects and goals. "". Largest computers in the world" 30 years ago? " nope, literally right this very moment the top computer in the World is a US design/built, and many more on the top 500 list as well. And the top 3 should all soon be US designed and built. Cope harder. " And no there are no American hypersonic missiles that can hit targets, they barely even have a wokring missile(more like a unguided rocket) that goes hypersonic in atmosphere. " cope harder. chinese missile test missed a known stationary target by 25miles. US just tested a new missile a few weeks ago. US has been doing hypersonic research since the 1960s. How many manned hypersonic aircraft have the CCP built? ""no reusable US rocket ever used Russian engines" oh is that so? " yes, that is so. CCP must really be censoring your internet over there. "Tell elon musk that he does not need to invest any money in new engine development anymore... He should have not panick invested after the sanctions against Russia aftera all." WTF are you talking about? this is nonsense gibberish "well if we opened up more the many fundamental inventions of human civilizations are made by China. " like what? some math, black powder, silk? The best you can do is point to pre-CCP accomplishments from ancient history? Have to go into the ancient past and rest on laurels becasue you have nothing to point to currently? "Even if you cut off CPC achievements in this decade, they turned a country that could barley clobber together bolt action rifles in the 1940s into a nuclear power with ballistic missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, etc. in mere 20 years in the 1960s." You bought the Subs, carrier, and jets from Russia and then copied them. And not very good copies either. You know why CCP grew so fast? Cheap labor and exports, while implementing American Capitalism. Communism had china on teh brink of destruction, and only capitalism saved it. Now it is returning to Communism. But a lot of the CCP "growth" was faked too. tons of massive ghost cities, cheap construction leading to crumbling infrastructure, china cant even feed its own population without imports. Much of china is still a 3rd world country and live in abject poverty. you have concentration camps and ethnic genocide, china is the single most racist nation in teh modern world (just look how they treat africans). China has cheated, stolen, lied their way to where they are, and now it is all crumbling and Xi purges and consolidates power. Bad leadership ruins everything. "Only to get deported because of his skin color."" that is a lie, you actually beleive not only the CCP propaganda, but western propaganda. You clearly have no ability to discern truth from lies. What was this man's name exactly so I can inform you what really happened? "Even if you cut off CPC achievements in this decade," what achievements? you list none, becasue there are none. Nothing CCP does benefits mankind, only the CCP. "They started to dominate the integrated circuit board market for 20+ years ago. Their shipping industries' and industrial production of rare earth materials, concrete, and steel started dominating in the 90s and 2000s and continue to dominate this very moment." how so? China makes cheap chips, yes, but not the CPU, GPU, etc. Circuit Boards are easy, and in teh US people produce ICs and Circuit Boards in their homes for fun that are as high quality as china makes. Just becasue china mass produces low tech items and raw material doesn't make them a great nation. It just means they are good at cheap labor. But many companies are leaving china due to corruption, cost, low quality work, and more.
    2
  3787. 2
  3788. 2
  3789. 2
  3790. 2
  3791. 2
  3792. 2
  3793. 2
  3794. 2
  3795. 2
  3796. 2
  3797. 2
  3798. 2
  3799. 2
  3800. 2
  3801. 2
  3802. 2
  3803. 2
  3804. 2
  3805. 2
  3806. 2
  3807. 2
  3808. 2
  3809. 2
  3810. 2
  3811. 2
  3812. 2
  3813. 2
  3814. 2
  3815. 2
  3816. 2
  3817. 2
  3818. 2
  3819. 2
  3820. 2
  3821. 2
  3822. 2
  3823. 2
  3824. 2
  3825. 2
  3826. 2
  3827. 2
  3828. 2
  3829. 2
  3830.  @Blackmamba12345  "They need countless spare parts / servicing, to say your car has only needed what you have said is quite uncommon these days. " not at all. you only have to fix things constantly if you break them, abuse them, etc. I don't beat up my crap. I never buy warranties or insurance for anything, including electronics, appliance, lawn equipment, etc. Because when I buy something I take care fo it, and my stuff always lasts 3x longer than the warranty/insurance before it needs any care anyways. And often times it's something I can easily and cheaply fix myself anyways. Stop beating up crap you onw and start taking proper care of it and it would last longer. "This includes lots of issues with DPF (Diesel Particulate Filters), EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation), clutch replacement, dual mass flywheels replacement, DSG gearbox servicing if they use a DSG, " Literally NONE of that applies to the average car owner. you're just inventing problems to complain about. "as well as more traditional wear and tear on suspension components, brakes, tyres, exhausts, as well as electronic issues that they have to serviced if creating issues. " EVs have FAR more electronics to deal with, and far more likely to have an electronics issue as a result. that's simple math. EVs actually wear out their tires and suspension faster than ICE as thy are much heavier than their ICE counterparts. And ICE cars also get still lighter as they burn fuel, unlike an EV. Exhausts almost never wear out, and easy to repair if they do. Again, spreading lies. "Your car either hasn't done many miles or you are lying about the servicing which has been carried out or will need to be carried out in the future." I've only had one car not make it past 300k miles so far, and it made it to 285k before blowing a head gasket (known issue with that engine somewhere between 250-300k). I could have put a new engine in it for $3k at the time, and regret not doing so as the rest of the car was in great shape. and it would have been worth the $3k to replace the engine. You're now making baseless false assertions without any evidence to base those claims upon. relying on insults rather than facts.
    2
  3831. 2
  3832. 2
  3833. 2
  3834. 2
  3835. 2
  3836. 2
  3837. 2
  3838. 2
  3839. 2
  3840. 2
  3841. 2
  3842. 2
  3843. 2
  3844. 2
  3845. 2
  3846. 2
  3847. 2
  3848. 2
  3849. 2
  3850. 2
  3851. 2
  3852. 2
  3853. 2
  3854. 2
  3855. 2
  3856. 2
  3857. 2
  3858. 2
  3859. 2
  3860. 2
  3861. 2
  3862. 2
  3863. 2
  3864. 2
  3865. 2
  3866. 2
  3867. 2
  3868. 2
  3869. 2
  3870. 2
  3871. 2
  3872. 2
  3873. 2
  3874. 2
  3875. 2
  3876. 2
  3877. 2
  3878. 2
  3879. 2
  3880. 2
  3881. 2
  3882. 2
  3883. 2
  3884. 2
  3885. 2
  3886. 2
  3887. 2
  3888. 2
  3889. 2
  3890. 2
  3891. 2
  3892. 2
  3893. 2
  3894. 2
  3895. 2
  3896. 2
  3897. 2
  3898. 2
  3899. 2
  3900. 2
  3901. 2
  3902. I bought a 2004 Buick Lesabre with 25k miles for $8k 9yrs ago. Including purchase cost, insurance, fuel, a set of tires, wipers, oil changes, some maintenance, etc. I've spent a grand total of roughly $18k on the car in those 9yrs, costing about $2k per year of ownership. But over time that cost per year goes down as the purchase cost gets further divided up. And I could probably sell the car today for over $10k, bringing the final cost of ownership down to less than $1k/yr including gasoline/insurance. I drive an average of 12k mi per year. depreciation doesn't apply to old-enough used ICE cars. A general rule of thumb my Father taught me decades ago was that for every $1k you spend on a car (not counting fuel, oil changes, insurance...) in purchase cost and repairs, it should last you 1 year of ownership. And yet I'm getting below that figure even factoring in things like gas. If I own this car for about 1-3 more years, I will have exceeded my Father's advice (and this will be my 3rd vehicle in a row in which I've exceeded his advice). Free Ford Ranger I drove for 6yrs (got it free after having been totaled twice by someone else), $2k Ford Taurus I drove for 8yrs, an $8k Buick Lesabre I've driven for 9+years, and a $7k 1992 rust free F150 I've just started driving. The most I ever spent on any one of these cars in repairs totaled to about $2k for everything (that was the Taurus, $600 for the Ranger, $1000 for the Buick so far). A $60k EV car would require me to own it for over 60years to be financially viable, I'll be dead before then.
    2
  3903. 2
  3904. 2
  3905. 2
  3906. 2
  3907. 2
  3908. 2
  3909. 2
  3910. 2
  3911. 2
  3912. 2
  3913. 2
  3914. 2
  3915. 2
  3916. 2
  3917. 2
  3918. 2
  3919. 2
  3920. 2
  3921. 2
  3922. 2
  3923. 2
  3924. 2
  3925. 2
  3926. 2
  3927. 2
  3928. 2
  3929. 2
  3930. 2
  3931. 2
  3932. 2
  3933. 2
  3934. 2
  3935. 2
  3936. 2
  3937. 2
  3938. 2
  3939. 2
  3940. 2
  3941. 2
  3942. 2
  3943. 2
  3944. 2
  3945. 2
  3946. 2
  3947. 2
  3948. 2
  3949. 2
  3950. 2
  3951. 2
  3952. 2
  3953. 2
  3954. 2
  3955. 2
  3956. 2
  3957. 2
  3958. 2
  3959. 2
  3960. 2
  3961. 2
  3962. 2
  3963. 2
  3964. 2
  3965. 2
  3966. 2
  3967. 2
  3968. 2
  3969.  @crusader5989  The Corsair and P-51 always top the list of "best fighters of WW2". I liken them to this; F4U = F-35 P-51 = F-22 High low mix: Multirole fighter + Air Superiority Fighter. P-51 was the better pure fighter, goes fast, goes far, flies high, and if you keep the speed up and fight BnZ, the P-51 wins. The superior speed and altitude of the P-51 means that it should never lose to the F4U in the hands of a good pilot. F4U was a multirole monster. Finished the war as the best dive bomber for the USN, 4,000lb bombload, rockets, guns, cannons, radar, night fighter, carrier capable, fast, tough, etc. Both served into the 1980s with foreign countries, both fought in Korea. Both outlasted other late war superprops like the F7F, F8F, P-47N, etc. Both the Japanese and German pilots were impressed with the P-51. I think the P-51 looks much better (but I do like the Corsair's looks too). I think the P-40E and P-40N look better than the F4U as well. As you say, looks is purely a matter of opinion. I have a special criteria that I find is critical to judging looks, and that is how many angles you look at something from and it still looks AMAZING. the P-51 and P-40, as well as the Me109, Spitfire, Ki-43, and others are that way for me. I can view them from numerous angles and they still look sleek, or mean, etc. Corsair has some less flattering viewing angles angles. I find the P-39 and F4U comparable in looks. I like both of them, but they aren't quite as nice to look at as my top picks (in terms of looks).
    2
  3970. 2
  3971. 2
  3972. 2
  3973. 2
  3974. 2
  3975. 2
  3976. 2
  3977. 2
  3978. 2
  3979.  @ceu160193  Wrong again. I have years of tank driving experience and combat experience. What do you have? I worked with M1s in combat, and many ran without side skirts. None of the other vehicles we used had side skirt protection of their tracks and wheels either. Side skirts don't prevent busted tracks. We once threw a track off an M60. Driver pivot steered in sand. After much fussing and some not-so-wise ideas, we managed to get the track back in place without killing anyone and without having access to tools, and without resorting to breaking the track to get it back on (the proper way to do it). And side skirts do NOTHING against land mines, nor do they cover teh entire track and prevent direct hits against them. Also, if you had any clue, you'd know that some measly shrapnel is going to do next to nothing to a track. Maybe some large bomb fragments, such as from a 2,000lb JDAM, or even a 500lb bomb, at very close range. Ever experienced bomb shrapnel like that before? I have. We had 38, 500lb bombs dropped within 200-500yrds of my position once, and our vehicles got absolutely peppered by the shrapnel. We're lucky no one got killed. Huge chunks of shrapnel. But even that did no damage to the vehicles that we had to fix (not our vehicles, nor the British who were with us on that operation). Even if you placed a hand grenade right in the track. Wedged it under a road wheel directly on top of the track, it would do absolutely NOTHING to the track. You watch too many Hollywood movies. I have destroyed an M60 tank on a demo range with real explosives, I can tell you what works. I've also seen many tanks and other vehicles destroyed in actual combat, as well as many that survived attacks as well. I am actually very experienced in destroying armored vehicles, as it was part of my specialty in the military. I also know how to defend against all attacks on an armored vehicle as well, as I literally modified vehicles for that exact purpose, many of which took many hits. We had multiple vehicles that survived over 90 explosive weapon attacks against them. Often times they survived with little or no damage, other times we had to replace parts and patch things, but always got them running again. One is now in a military museum here in the US.
    2
  3980. 2
  3981. 2
  3982. 2
  3983. 2
  3984. 2
  3985. 2
  3986. 2
  3987. 2
  3988. 2
  3989. 2
  3990. 2
  3991. 2
  3992. 2
  3993. 2
  3994. 2
  3995. 2
  3996. @Eric Johnson Why would I need a crowd to fly? I'm a professional pilot and would just pilot the plane myself. You know full well that's not what I meant. Did you know that in a matter of about 2 weeks, a pigeon can be trained to diagnose humans with or without cancer more accurately than highly trained doctors can? Yeah, if pigeons have a higher accuracy rate than "expert" doctors, I'll take the pigeon. Results matter. "Take a moderately difficult math problem. Who do you think will be more able to solve it -- a crowed of thousands of people or pretty much any single expert in the field." Actually, this is a perfect example of where crowds excel. "If you ask a crowd to explain the General Theory of Relativity, do you really think that their explanation will be better than that of a physicist who works in the field." yes, the crowd would explain it better. Youtube is perfect proof of this. One thing you utterly fail to comprehend is that crowds are full of people of all skill levels and all manner of areas of expertise. And when they pool their experiences and collective knowledge, they can easily refine any explanation and concept. Use scientific method to refine the explanation. You see this in action on forums, and things like Quora where people ask questions and numerous people respond, explaining it different ways, and refining the confusing parts of another's explanation, or correcting errors, etc. And different people reading it will understand different responses more easily than others. I debate and teach theoretical physics concepts with lots of people all the time, you'd be surprised how well crowd sourcing works. Did you know that while Einstein came up with the logical reasoning behind Relativity, it took him many years of crowd sourcing afterwards with others to actually develop the math behind it.
    2
  3997. 2
  3998. 2
  3999. 2
  4000. 2
  4001. 2
  4002. 2
  4003. 2
  4004. 2
  4005. 2
  4006. 2
  4007. 2
  4008. ​ @BeyondSideshow  Trump cutoff travel from China, Democrats complained. Trump cutoff travel to Europe, Democrats complained. Democrats (and Fauci) said masks were necessary, that asymptomatic transmission has never driven a pandemic, and that we should go to parades, restaurants, protests, riots..... CDC, State, and International data shows that herd immunity is being reach around the 500-600 deaths per million mark. That's 0.05-0.06% of the population. And that's with known cases over counting. Seasonal flu are said to be about as high as 0.1% fatal overall. The CDC said 94% of all US deaths were in nursing homes. 94% of of deaths had multiple underlying health issues issues, each of which alone could have caused their death. Italy said 99% of their deaths also had serious underlying health issues. Sweden, the Democrats favorite "socialist" country, never locked down and they are doing just fine now. People under the age of 45 have seen essentially no appreciable deaths overall. People under the age of 25 have seen an abnormally low annual death rate this year in fact. Only about 10k deaths in the US were actually from COVID itself so far. This is all from the CDC. 1mil deaths worldwide is only 0.0125% fatality rate, WELL below seasonal flu. Medical malpractice in the US causes the preventable deaths of about 125k people each year\, no one cares. Cancer kills 600k in the US each year, no one cares. Seasonal flu alone kills 30k-60k each year in the US alone, no one cares. Then there is pneumonia, and heart disease, etc.
    2
  4009.  @BeyondSideshow  Those were not feelings, those were statements of fact. I wasn't expressing opinions. I was describing your response. You accused trump of mishandling the virus, or lying to people. And you make excuses for why any facts I share are irrelevant, such as acting like what happened 6 months ago no longer matters, when you accuse someone of doing something wrong 6 months ago. I'm not forcing you to refute my comments, but by making accusations and assertions, and then failing to back them up when challenged on their with actual facts, means you lose the argument by default. That is how debate works. You can choose to ignore me, but you don't, so I can only assume you wish to defend your statements and accusations and try to convince me you are right. If you understood the "Swedish thing", then why did I have to explain it to you? You described it as "Something utterly confused about Sweden...". No, the US didn't do as well as we could have, because the Democrats in charge of major economic centers like NYC, LA, CA..... botched their Local response. NYC and New Jersey have some of the worst COVID numbers on the planet. They housed COVID patients in nursing homes for crying out loud. Yet, despite that, NYC hospitals never were overwhelmed. Many thousands of ventilators went unused and sat in warehouses. Military hospital ships basically went unused, and emergency military aid stations went unused around the US and were dismantled. We never got overwhelmed, which was 100% of the point of the lockdowns Part of being a leader in the military, of a nation... is to know when you must order people to their deaths, when to tell small lies and withhold information to avoid panics, or to prevent needless chaos. History is filled with such examples if you look for them. No scandal here. A scandal is the Obama administration breaking the law and covering it up to use the legal system and FBI to go after a political rival. You can't know how to respond to a virus without info. You can only speculate what it Might be like based on past outbreaks and what we should have done in hindsight. But as data is collected, you adjust, again and again as necessary. No scandal in that, that is simply good leadership following the science.
    2
  4010. 2
  4011. 2
  4012. 2
  4013. 2
  4014. 2
  4015. 2
  4016. 2
  4017. 2
  4018. 2
  4019. 2
  4020. 2
  4021. 2
  4022. 2
  4023. 2
  4024. 2
  4025. 2
  4026. 2
  4027. 2
  4028. 2
  4029. 2
  4030. 2
  4031. 2
  4032. 2
  4033. 2
  4034. 2
  4035. 2
  4036. 2
  4037. 2
  4038. Math teachers at the Bachelors or lower level should be people who are applied math degrees (engineers?), people who are good at math, but had to struggle to learn it like the average person. Math teachers need EMPATHY above all else. They need to be able to understand and relate to their student's struggles. Math teachers who were naturally gifted at math and never struggled with it are TERRIBLE teachers. These math people should NEVER be allowed to teach math to lower level students. Math teachers need to be able to teach things, explain things, more than one way. They need to understand that people don't "just get it". They need to be able to see why a person is struggling and immediately adapt and adjust their approach accordingly. They need to understand how and why students struggle, and adapt their teaching accordingly. Math needs to be taught with real world applications. Math teachers need to allow alternate solutions, so long as they are valid. Their way is Not the ONLY way. Math teachers need to give partial credit on problems if the student shows their work and only screwed up barely. Take points off for the errors, and point out why they got the wrong answer, not just that they got the wrong answer. I've watched so many students struggle thinking they sucked, when in reality they were doing EVERYTHING right, just making a minor mistake here and there, but they lost all credit for the problem. Once I showed them the mistakes they were making, and how to avoid making those simple errors ever again, they started getting A's. Lets say you have 5 calculus problems on an assignment worth 25 points. A person does the first problem right overall, but forgot to distribute a negative in one step, otherwise everything else was done 100% right. I'd take off 1 point for that and point it out, but give 4 points for doing the rest of the problem correctly. For each error they make I take off a point. And you can do this at any scale. If you had 25 problem assignment for 25 points, then I'd take off say .25 or .5 points for making a simple error in one of the problems. If we're doing Chain Rule, and the only mistake you made was totally messing up the application of the Chain Rule itself, then I might take off more points from that problem that a mere simple mistake (mark down 2 or 3 points out of 5, instead of just 1). But if all you do is tell students, "you're wrong", without telling them WHY, they will continue to struggle. Also, this approach teaches them to show their work, as they can get a higher grade by showing their work. if they don't show enough work for me to figure out where thy went wrong, and they got the wrong answer, then I take off full credit for that problem being wrong, rather than partial credit. They learn very quick to show their work after that. Let's say there are 5 different way to teach something, and your personally preferred method of teaching/learning is #4. But #1 is understood by 66% of students, #2 is understood by 45% of students, #3 is understood by 12% of students, #4 is understood by 57% of students, and #5 is understood by 82% of students, the first time you teach the subject to them in class. Then you need to be using the #5 method, regardless of you personal feelings on the matter, and save #4 for when 18% of your students show up at office hours looking for help. You want to teach a topic using the method that consistently reaches the greatest number of students, thus minimizing the number of students who need additional help after class, and maximizing the number of students who can help the few students who still don't get it. And then you have far more time to spend with fewer students 1-on-1 in office hours, maximizing the chances of them succeeding. And during your office hours you can try any of the 4 alternate methods that it takes to make them get it. Maybe what works best for that individual student is actually #3 or #2. In my years of experience teaching math to people of all ages, the number one reason people struggle with math is they never got a good grasp on the basics, or on basic algebra. Even when teaching/tutoring calculus students, the first thing I do with them if I've never worked with them before is test them on their basics (fractions, GEMA, groups, exponents, logarithms, subtraction and negatives, SOH CAH TOA, FOIL, graphing basics, etc.). If I find them lacking in anything critical, I first focus on remedial instruction before actually working on issues they have with their assignment. Then we get back to the issues at hand. And suddenly once they've been given fixes to things they struggle with, or finally got something explained to them properly for the first time in their lives, they start doing well in their assignments. My catch phrase when teaching math is always, "Why didn't they just say that to begin with?". Students always end up asking why teachers didn't just teach it to them the way I did years ago. They tell me how intuitive my methods are for them, and they go on to have success, and I gained a reputation as the guy to go to for help. Empathy is key.
    2
  4039. 2
  4040. 2
  4041. 2
  4042. 2
  4043. 2
  4044. 2
  4045. 2
  4046. 2
  4047. 2
  4048. 2
  4049. 2
  4050. 2
  4051. 2
  4052. 2
  4053. 2
  4054. 2
  4055. 2
  4056. 2
  4057. 2
  4058. 2
  4059. 2
  4060. 2
  4061. 2
  4062. 2
  4063. 2
  4064. 2
  4065. 2
  4066. 2
  4067. 2
  4068. 2
  4069. 2
  4070. 2
  4071. 2
  4072. 2
  4073. 2
  4074. 2
  4075. 2
  4076. 2
  4077. 2
  4078. 2
  4079. 2
  4080. 2
  4081. 2
  4082. 2
  4083. 2
  4084. 2
  4085. 2
  4086. 2
  4087. 2
  4088. 2
  4089. 2
  4090. 2
  4091. 2
  4092. 2
  4093. 2
  4094. 2
  4095. 2
  4096. 2
  4097. 2
  4098. 2
  4099. 2
  4100. 2
  4101. 2
  4102. 2
  4103. 2
  4104. 2
  4105. 2
  4106. 2
  4107. 2
  4108. 2
  4109. 2
  4110. 2
  4111. 2
  4112. 2
  4113. 2
  4114. 2
  4115. 2
  4116. 2
  4117. 2
  4118. 2
  4119. 2
  4120. 2
  4121. 2
  4122. 2
  4123. 2
  4124. 2
  4125. 2
  4126. 2
  4127. 2
  4128. 2
  4129. 2
  4130. 2
  4131. 2
  4132. 2
  4133. 2
  4134. 2
  4135. 2
  4136. 2
  4137. 2
  4138. 2
  4139. 2
  4140. 2
  4141. 2
  4142. 2
  4143. 2
  4144. 2
  4145. 2
  4146. 2
  4147. 2
  4148. 2
  4149. 2
  4150. 2
  4151. 2
  4152. 2
  4153. 2
  4154. 2
  4155. 2
  4156. 2
  4157. 2
  4158. 2
  4159. 2
  4160. 2
  4161. 2
  4162. 2
  4163. 2
  4164. 2
  4165. 2
  4166. 2
  4167. 2
  4168. 2
  4169. 2
  4170. 2
  4171. 2
  4172. 2
  4173. 2
  4174. 2
  4175. 2
  4176. 2
  4177. 2
  4178. 2
  4179. 2
  4180. 2
  4181. 2
  4182. 2
  4183. 2
  4184. 2
  4185. 2
  4186. 2
  4187. 2
  4188. 2
  4189. 2
  4190. 2
  4191. 2
  4192. 2
  4193. 2
  4194. 2
  4195. 2
  4196. 2
  4197. 2
  4198. 2
  4199. 2
  4200. 2
  4201. 2
  4202. 2
  4203. 2
  4204. 2
  4205. 2
  4206. 2
  4207. 2
  4208. 2
  4209. 2
  4210. 2
  4211. 2
  4212. 2
  4213. 2
  4214. 2
  4215. 2
  4216. 2
  4217. 2
  4218. 2
  4219. 2
  4220. 2
  4221. 2
  4222. 2
  4223. 2
  4224. Because you're pushing false political agenda that claims to be "science". We expect better. Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
    2
  4225. 2
  4226. 2
  4227. 2
  4228. 2
  4229. 2
  4230. 2
  4231. 2
  4232. 2
  4233. 2
  4234. 2
  4235. 2
  4236. 2
  4237. 2
  4238. 2
  4239. 2
  4240. 2
  4241. 2
  4242. 2
  4243. 2
  4244. 2
  4245. 2
  4246. 2
  4247. 2
  4248. 2
  4249. 2
  4250. 2
  4251. 2
  4252. 2
  4253. 2
  4254. 2
  4255. 2
  4256. 2
  4257. 2
  4258. 2
  4259. 2
  4260. 2
  4261. 2
  4262. 2
  4263. 2
  4264. 2
  4265. 2
  4266. 2
  4267. 2
  4268. 2
  4269. 2
  4270. 2
  4271. 2
  4272. 2
  4273. 2
  4274. 2
  4275. 2
  4276.  @vidard9863  "To give customers lower prices cutting labor costs is the obvious solution:" proving it was the corporation. "Customers want instant service" that's a blanket statement. but also very subjective. how long do you expect customers to wait? If you take far too long, of course they will go elsewhere. "Tradesmen used to not have to sell because you need their services, they will talk you out of buying things as likely as into buying things." you're not very bright. "If someone can't explain something in fairly simple terms they either haven't mastered the subject, or they don't want you to know what's going on." well you clearly don't know what you're talking about with this long-winded rambling response. "If they are baffling you with BS, they are trying to sell you something." like you're doing right now? "Inflation is making all the numbers look bad to working men." again, consumers aren't causing inflation. you just keep jumping from one random thing to another. Most of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "However businesses do need to make money. " wow, you just figured that out? "This is because a proper install is significantly more complicated, and expensive than a poor/cheap install, and has the highest risk of unexpected expense, " BS nonsense, spoken like a true sleezy salesman. "Affordable quality services without emphasis on sales are loss leaders. " not true at all. you're describing sleezy business, not good business. you're clearly not very good at this stuff. Seems you had a business, did crappy work and charged too much, had no business sense, went out of business, and blamed your customers.
    2
  4277. 2
  4278. 2
  4279. 2
  4280. 2
  4281. 2
  4282. 2
  4283. 2
  4284. 2
  4285. 2
  4286. 2
  4287. 2
  4288. 2
  4289. 2
  4290. 2
  4291. 2
  4292. 2
  4293. 2
  4294. 2
  4295. 2
  4296. 2
  4297. 2
  4298. 2
  4299. 2
  4300. 2
  4301. 2
  4302. 2
  4303. 2
  4304. 2
  4305. 2
  4306. 2
  4307. 2
  4308. 2
  4309. 2
  4310. 2
  4311. 2
  4312. 2
  4313. 2
  4314. 2
  4315. 2
  4316. 2
  4317. 2
  4318. 2
  4319. 2
  4320. 2
  4321. 2
  4322. 2
  4323. 2
  4324. 2
  4325. 2
  4326. 2
  4327. 2
  4328. 2
  4329. 2
  4330. 2
  4331. 2
  4332. 2
  4333. 2
  4334. 2
  4335. 2
  4336. 2
  4337. 2
  4338. 2
  4339. 2
  4340. 2
  4341. 2
  4342. 2
  4343. 2
  4344. 2
  4345. 2
  4346. 2
  4347. 2
  4348. 2
  4349. 2
  4350. 2
  4351. 2
  4352. 2
  4353. 2
  4354. 2
  4355. 2
  4356. 2
  4357. 2
  4358. 2
  4359. 2
  4360. 2
  4361. 2
  4362. 2
  4363. 2
  4364. 2
  4365. 2
  4366. 2
  4367. 2
  4368. 2
  4369. 2
  4370. 2
  4371. 2
  4372. 2
  4373. 2
  4374. 2
  4375. 2
  4376. 2
  4377. 2
  4378. 2
  4379. 2
  4380. 2
  4381. 2
  4382. 2
  4383. 2
  4384. 2
  4385. 2
  4386. 2
  4387. 2
  4388. 2
  4389. 2
  4390. 2
  4391. 2
  4392. 2
  4393. 2
  4394. 2
  4395. 2
  4396. 2
  4397. 2
  4398. 2
  4399. 2
  4400. 2
  4401. 2
  4402. 2
  4403. 2
  4404. 2
  4405. 2
  4406. 2
  4407. 2
  4408. 2
  4409. 2
  4410. 2
  4411. 2
  4412. 2
  4413. 2
  4414. 2
  4415. 2
  4416. 2
  4417. 2
  4418. 2
  4419. 2
  4420. 2
  4421. 2
  4422. 2
  4423. 2
  4424. 2
  4425. 2
  4426. 2
  4427. 2
  4428. 2
  4429. 2
  4430. 2
  4431. 2
  4432. 2
  4433. 2
  4434. 2
  4435. 2
  4436. 2
  4437. 2
  4438. 2
  4439. 2
  4440. 2
  4441. 2
  4442. 2
  4443. 2
  4444. 2
  4445. 2
  4446. 2
  4447. 2
  4448. 2
  4449. 2
  4450.  @AbelMcTalisker  The Wrights designed a lightweight engine. The Wrights scientifically invented the airplane propeller. The Wrights invented 3-axis control. The Wrights invented the Wind Tunnel and scientifically and painstakingly investigated airfoil designs. The Wrights only used catapults after 1904 to deal with rough terrain and lack of airports, and famously flew without catapults as well to show it wasn't necessary. Yet catapults have been used in aviation ever since, launching all sorts of planes from carriers, battleships, UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan (see the Shadow)... The Wrights produced an airplane so good, that no one else could match it for years afterward. Forward canard aircraft are common, and increasingly so as time goes on. Rafale, Mirage, Typhoon, Gripen, X-29, Long EZ, and many many more have done it and continue to do so. If aircraft of WW1 and the 1920s are so superior, why don't we see biplanes much at all anymore? Why don't we see radial engines anymore? I know the answers, do you? The Wrights were very scientific and deliberate in their methods, took detailed notes of everything, and asked questions about aviation no one prior to them had bothered to ask. They were flying nonpowered gliders superior to anyone else for years prior to their famous first powered flight (which didn't need or use a catapult). When Bleriot limped across the English Channel, the Wright Flyer was said to already be capable of crossing the Mediterranean. Look at how the Europeans reacted to the Wrights after their first flight demo in Europe. They acknowledged the wrights as the undisputed masters of powered flight at the time, and recognized the superiority of their work, which demonstrated long years of effort. No plane was that good having just been cobbled together overnight, it had clearly taken years to get such a capable and controllable plane designed and refined. The Wrights became too focused on patents and lawsuits, which prevented them from focusing on innovation later on. But their early work is indisputably superior to others at the time.
    2
  4451. 2
  4452. 2
  4453. 2
  4454. 2
  4455. 2
  4456. 2
  4457. 2
  4458. 2
  4459. 2
  4460. 2
  4461. 2
  4462. 2
  4463. 2
  4464. 2
  4465. 2
  4466. 2
  4467. 2
  4468. 2
  4469. 2
  4470. 2
  4471. 2
  4472. 2
  4473. 2
  4474. 2
  4475. 2
  4476. 2
  4477. 2
  4478. 2
  4479. 2
  4480. 2
  4481. 2
  4482. 2
  4483. 2
  4484. 2
  4485. 2
  4486. 2
  4487. 2
  4488. 2
  4489. 2
  4490. 2
  4491. 2
  4492. 2
  4493. 2
  4494. 2
  4495. 2
  4496. 2
  4497. 2
  4498. 2
  4499. 2
  4500. 2
  4501. 2
  4502. 2
  4503. 2
  4504. 2
  4505. 2
  4506. 2
  4507. 2
  4508. 2
  4509. 2
  4510. 2
  4511. 2
  4512. 2
  4513. 2
  4514. 2
  4515. 2
  4516. 2
  4517. 2
  4518. 2
  4519.  @richardparker1338  "There are over 800 in total on the globe." that is counting Embassies and other administrative locations. It actually have more like 20-30 combat capable bases around the globe. But the US is a Superpower, China is not. "Until 2011 China was not wasting its money on war weapons." remind me which year china built nukes, J-11, J-20, JF-17, etc...... "Even if China said, ok, Taiwan can become independent, do you really think the US would back off?" US is backed off right now. it all depends upon how beligerent CCP is "What would happen is that the US would build a huge military base on Taiwan and continue to provoke China, one way or another." but the US is not doing that, and has no intention to do so. You're just making crap up to argue. "Unless the US stops escalating against China, and the two nations enter a discourse on how to live together without war, there is only one outcome. " US hasn't escalated. It was teh CCP that leaked a report stating intent to invade Tawain by 2027. "China will never let itself be defeated, nor will it allow itself to be collonised." Mongols did it, Japan did it, US did it. China has a long history of being defeated and colonized. China has a long history of being numerous fragmented nations as well. "All sovereign countries in SE Asia are against this belligerence by the US. Including Taiwan. Just ask them." except that Tawain is a US Ally and buying weapons and asking for help if CCP invades. Vietnam is now a US ally, as is all of ASEAN, as is South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. China has been hostile to Philippines and other ASEAN nations and claims their territory. "China has explicitly stated that it wants a peaceful reunion. " an usurper always says that, but the fact is the CCP failed to completely overthrow the Republic of China in its coup. "Not a single Taiwanese wants a war." same for the US, but we will fight China as required just the same. "There are two million Taiwanese working on the mainland with huge investments." same for the US and other nations. But companies are decoupling from china and leaving too. Many vendors I work with are moving out, and we even ask them if they have facilities outside of china now too. China has become bad for business. Just look at the drop in outgoing shipping from China of late. "Those white American supremacist clowns in Washington should all go the Ukraine and fight on the front for six months. Maybe they wouldn't be so keen on wars after that." the white supremacist lie is communist propaganda. China is the single most racist nation on earth right now, just look at how they treat Africans, how they murder Tibetans, Uyghurs, and others. US fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for years, we know full well what war entails, US are professional warfighters, unlike most other nations who use amateur soldiers. We send those who WANT to fight, who are WILLING to fight. We don't like fighting without good cause though. So don't give us a reason. Many US politicians are combat vets or ex-military themselves. many US citizens have already gone to Ukraine to fight in the foreign Legion. Maybe CCP shouldn't pick fights when their people get trounced even by Indian army soldiers with rocks and sticks.
    2
  4520. 2
  4521. 2
  4522. 2
  4523. 2
  4524. 2
  4525. 2
  4526. 2
  4527. 2
  4528. 2
  4529. 2
  4530. 2
  4531. 2
  4532. 2
  4533. 2
  4534. 2
  4535. 2
  4536. 2
  4537. 2
  4538. 2
  4539. 2
  4540. 2
  4541. 2
  4542. 2
  4543. 2
  4544. 2
  4545. 2
  4546. 2
  4547. 2
  4548. 2
  4549. 2
  4550. 2
  4551. 2
  4552. 2
  4553. 2
  4554. 2
  4555. 2
  4556. 2
  4557. 2
  4558. 2
  4559. 2
  4560. 2
  4561. 2
  4562. 2
  4563. 2
  4564. 2
  4565. 2
  4566. 2
  4567. 2
  4568. 2
  4569. 2
  4570. 2
  4571. 2
  4572. 2
  4573. 2
  4574.  @colincampbell767  I don't see that as effective or necessary though. I've seen what happens when everyone works in silos of expertise. The cross-communication and awareness of what is going on is lost. When I design a product, I want everyone on the team involved and aware of the considerations of the other people. I want the buyers and accountants to understand the realities of what we're trying to do and why another prototype is needed by the engineers. I want the mechanical engineers to know why the electrical engineers need to be given more space to fit their components. I want the software engineers to understand how the operators will interface and use their product. I want the project managers to understand the amount of work they are putting their people through, and to listen to their people when they tell them which tools and training they need in order to complete the work efficiently and successfully. The entire team needs buy-in on the project, and everyone needs to have a basic understanding of the other considerations their work will affect. And I want smaller teams, breaking up various aspects into smaller jobs if necessary to keep the teams of a manageable size. I want Far fewer managers (no designing by committee) and micro managers. Give the individual workers more responsibility over their work, trust them more. They will perform better when you show trust and confidence in them, and you'll need less oversight then as well. People want their work to matter, and for their efforts to be recognized and appreciated. Having their managers isolated from them off dreaming up ridiculous ideas that the actual workers can't reasonably deliver is not a recipe for success. There should never be enough managers to justify them having their own "branch". NASA and many corporations' problem is that they already have too much bloat and too many "managers" and not enough workers (people that actually get the work done).
    2
  4575. 2
  4576. 2
  4577. 2
  4578. 2
  4579. 2
  4580. 2
  4581. 2
  4582. 2
  4583. 2
  4584. 2
  4585. 2
  4586. 2
  4587. 2
  4588. 2
  4589.  @SmallSpoonBrigade  I agree. It has been my experience than that vast majority of people have equal capacity to be good at something as another person. It comes down to personal motivation and desire to learn it. I am good at certain things in life because I Want to be good at them, and I put the time and effort in to learn them and practice them and get good at it. Other things I have no desire to learn, and so I don't, and I'lll never be good at those. Not that I couldn't , just that I don't Want to. it's the exception to the rule that a person might have a true learning disability, genetic defect, or also be a naturally gifted person at a particular thing. Most people are perfectly normal overall, and perfectly capable. Objectively, based on testing standards, repeated real-world performance both in multiple careers as well as in academia, etc. I can make the claim, and back it up, that I am in the top 1% of performers, intellectually, nationwide in the US. That being said, I have never encountered a skill or piece of knowledge that I have not been able to teach a middle schooler or high school aged student to do/understand. I love doing it too, seeing their eyes light up when they realize they can master "complex" ideas and skills is so rewarding. Turns out teaching is one of my talents, but the point is, every kid I have met or worked with has the potential to know and understand anything I do, or that others do. Some simply don't Want to learn, or don't Want to put in the effort to learn particular things. It comes down to personal motivation. Not everyone needs to be a musician, or a mathematician, or an engineer, etc either.
    2
  4590. 2
  4591. 2
  4592. 2
  4593. 2
  4594. 2
  4595. 2
  4596. 2
  4597. 2
  4598. 2
  4599. 2
  4600. 2
  4601. 2
  4602. 2
  4603. 2
  4604. 2
  4605. 2
  4606. 2
  4607. 2
  4608. 2
  4609. 2
  4610. 2
  4611. 2
  4612. 2
  4613. 2
  4614. 2
  4615. 2
  4616. 2
  4617. 2
  4618.  @davidkottman3440  "Assuming everything you claim is true, there is still no reason to think that Ukraine had the ability & knowledge to implement your tactics." You are 100% correct. and that is precisely why Ukraine needs to be hesitant to follow US military advice on how to fight this war. The higher up US military doesn't think like me, nor fight like me. And the way I fight, while not hard nor magical, is a type of fighting the average soldier and combat leader struggles to understand none the less. I'm only stating what went wrong, what should have been done differently, partly so people LEARN from it. "Much of the Kherson offensive last fall was carried out under a media blackout, & was obviously a very tough fight. It's not entirely clear what capabilities remained at that point..." The two major land grabs Ukraine achieved in 2022 were fought the way Ukraine fights, not the way the US fights, and it worked. They needed to keep that up. "I agree it's unfortunate that they didn't or couldn't follow-up on the momentum gained." exactly. I feel like too much outside influence stalled the advance. It's the greatest frustration I have, as Ukraine was on the cusp of being able to pull off a stunning victory and should have reclaimed most if not all of their land by now. But war is hard. Mastering real-life warfare is THE hardest job on earth, bar none (due to the sheer number of complex disciplines one must understand and account for simultaneously, but a few crazy people like me thrive with challenges like that). Most people will never come close to achieving such mastery. It's harder than being a physicist, brain surgeon, etc. And war wins or loses on the single most important job in the world, Leadership. There is no singular job more important in human history than good Leadership. Leadership is the most important job on earth, and master of war is the most difficult job on earth. Yet neither of these jobs is highly valued nor can you get good formal training in either of them.
    2
  4619. 2
  4620. 2
  4621. 2
  4622. 2
  4623. 2
  4624. 2
  4625. 2
  4626. 2
  4627. 2
  4628. 2
  4629. 2
  4630. 2
  4631. 2
  4632. 2
  4633. 2
  4634. 2
  4635. 2
  4636. 2
  4637. 2
  4638. 2
  4639. 2
  4640. 2
  4641.  @SmallSpoonBrigade  Excellent advice! I second everything you've said. I completed my Mechanical Engineering degree while working full time as an ME, spread out over 6yrs. I didn't have lots of time, so I didn't procrastinate on starting assignments, just like you suggest. I also happen to be an instructor as well in my previous careers. I tell students to tutor each other. Work together outside of class. You learn more from trying to teach it to someone else, than someone trying to explain it to you. At work even, I get stuck trying to come up with a solution to a problem, so I'll walk into another engineer's office and ask them to look at the problem. Often times I'll come up with the solution as I'm explaining to them what the problem is before they even have a chance to comment back. I do this knowing this may happen, which is why I do it. Sometimes verbalizing a problem aloud to another person makes all the difference in solving it. Also, two heads are better than one when it comes to problem solving. Sometimes the way I'm approaching the problem is different from how they do it, and they'll immediately see a different way to approach it I hadn't thought of. Or, I'll get fixated on a particular approach to solving the problem, and they'll point that out to me and suddenly the solution becomes obvious. Multiple heads looking at the same problem often results in better solutions that are reached faster. But you comments on efficient time management are very true too. Working a full-time job and taking classes for 6yrs straight, even through summer, I still managed to finish as the top engineering student in the college, despite having less time than all of my classmates to work on the same problems, and less time to study. I made better use of my time than they did.
    2
  4642. 2
  4643. 2
  4644. 2
  4645. 2
  4646. 2
  4647. 2
  4648. 2
  4649. 2
  4650. 2
  4651. 2
  4652. 2
  4653. 2
  4654. 2
  4655. 2
  4656. 2
  4657. 2
  4658. 2
  4659. 2
  4660. 2
  4661. 2
  4662. 2
  4663. 2
  4664. 2
  4665. 2
  4666. 2
  4667. 2
  4668. 2
  4669. 2
  4670. 2
  4671. 2
  4672. 2
  4673. 2
  4674. 2
  4675. 2
  4676. 2
  4677. 2
  4678. 2
  4679. 2
  4680. 2
  4681. 2
  4682. Why do people still talk like Russia has ANY chance of winning at this point. Russia's best units (airborne, Spetznaz, Chechnyans, etc) were defeated Months ago, and they are so desperate now they are sending untrained civilians to fight with no equipment. if that's the best they can do after mobilization, the Russian military is already eviscerated and on it's last leg. There is nothing left of any consequence in Russia for them to send to Ukraine that would make a difference at this point. They have lost more men in 7months than the US lost in Vietnam. Want to compare this to past Russian conflicts? Russia lost 15k troops in 9yrs in Afghanistan, 451 aircraft (75% of that was helicopters), only 150 tanks, 1300 misc vehicles, and 400 artillery, and 11k trucks. Over 10yrs. Russia has lost WAY more than that in only 7months in Ukraine. Contrast this to 7months in Ukraine with now well over 50k dead, countless more wounded and POWs. Hundreds of aircraft lost, including well over 100 fixed wing (about 8 more lost in just the last week or so?), over 1000 tanks lost or captured, thousands of trucks, artillery, air defenses, thousands of APC and other armored vehicles lost or captured. And tons of other weapons, ammo, etc. Russia can't even make more equipment to replace its losses and is buying artillery ammo from North Korea. And Russia is running out of missiles of all types, and those they fired had about a 60% failure rate. Russia is taking WW2-level casualties. The US didn't even lose people at this rate in WW2.
    2
  4683. 2
  4684. 2
  4685. 2
  4686. 2
  4687. 2
  4688. 2
  4689. 2
  4690. 2
  4691. 2
  4692. 2
  4693. 2
  4694. 2
  4695. 2
  4696. 2
  4697. 2
  4698. 2
  4699. 2
  4700. 2
  4701. 2
  4702. 2
  4703. 2
  4704. 2
  4705. 2
  4706. 2
  4707. 2
  4708. 2
  4709. 2
  4710. 2
  4711. 2
  4712. 2
  4713. 2
  4714. 2
  4715. 2
  4716. 2
  4717. 2
  4718. 2
  4719. 2
  4720. 2
  4721. 2
  4722. 2
  4723. 2
  4724. 2
  4725. 2
  4726. 2
  4727. 2
  4728. 2
  4729. 2
  4730. 2
  4731. 2
  4732. 2
  4733. 2
  4734. 2
  4735. 2
  4736. 2
  4737. 2
  4738. 2
  4739. 2
  4740. 2
  4741. 2
  4742. 2
  4743. 2
  4744. 2
  4745. 2
  4746. 2
  4747. 2
  4748. 2
  4749. 2
  4750. 2
  4751. 2
  4752. 2
  4753. 2
  4754. 2
  4755. the P-51 flew it's first combat sorties with the RAF 12months before teh P-47 ever flew a single combat sortie. The RAF used the P-51 for recon and ground attack for that first year. The very first mission they sent a ground attack mission into Germany, the first combat sortie of any allied fighter over Germany in WW2. And the RAF only lost 8 mustangs during that first year or 2 of missions. They even flew low level recon over berlin before the P-47 ever showed up. P-51 was faster at all altitudes. P-51 flew further. P-51 carried more bombs as a percentage of weight. P-51 was more maneuverable at all altitudes. P-51 required less maintenance man hours between sorties. P-51 cost half as much. P-51 used less fuel. P-51 used less oil. P-51 consumed less aluminum. P-51 could be produced far faster. P-51 was the best dive bomber of WW2. P-51 fought in more theaters and more wars than the P-47. P-51 began combat operation 1year before the P-47 ever did. P-51 stayed in USAF service until 1957. P-51 has won many famous air races, P-47 has never won a single race, and only ever entered into 2 races. P-51 holds numerous world records, including fastest propeller driven airplane ever. P-51 was easier for pilots to learn/transition. P-51 was used as a recon airplane. For the same cost in money, fuel, and oil, maintenance man hours, and manufacturing man hours, you could put 2x as many P-51 in the skies than you could P-47, in a war of logistics. P-51 used 25% shorter runways, needing less steel mat. P-51 accelerated faster. P-51 climbed faster. P-51 used up to 6x .50cal, 4x 20mm, rockets, napalm, 2x 500lb bombs, recon cameras, dropped supplies to troops in Italy, etc. And Preddy was shot down by friendly fire. P-47 pilots considered an airfield ground attack mission suicide and would do anything to get out of flying such a dangerous combat sortie. This is where most top mustang aces died, attacking airfields. Yet, P-47 suffered equally ridiculously high losses doing the exact same thing. Ground fire, being what got them, not enemy fighters. Consider the fact that the P-47 had 2 unarmored oil cooler radiators slung under the engine like a P-40, and that a hit to those resulted in total engine failure of the radial within 5min. Don't beleive em, just watch Greg's videos for more details and he even admits the same.
    2
  4756. 2
  4757. 2
  4758. 2
  4759. 2
  4760. 2
  4761. 2
  4762. 2
  4763. 2
  4764. 2
  4765. 2
  4766. 2
  4767. 2
  4768. 2
  4769. 2
  4770. 2
  4771. 2
  4772. 2
  4773. 2
  4774. 2
  4775. 2
  4776. 2
  4777. 2
  4778. 2
  4779. 2
  4780. 2
  4781. 2
  4782. 2
  4783. 2
  4784. 2
  4785. 2
  4786. 2
  4787. 2
  4788. 2
  4789. 2
  4790. 2
  4791. 2
  4792.  @adamatch9624  absolutely. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Part of the reason I never got hit was that I planned for the worst to the EXTREME compared to everyone else I served with. They just left it all up to chance for the most part, I did not. I gamed warfare to stack the deck in my favor. Turns out, there is a LOT of science behind winning/surviving at war on the individual level that most people will Never figure out nor learn about. There are tons of things you can do at the individual level to increase your odds. Luck is always a factor, but you can reduce the reliance on luck a LOT more than people would have you believe. problem is that few people Ever think about it deeply enough or long enough to figure it out. I spent YEARS of my life studying warfare to an extreme degree to be as successful as I was. I spent more of my free time studying warfare, than most colleges students spend on their homework in a four year degree (I have multiple degrees in engineering too, so I know how much people do/don't study). Most guys will Never spend a fraction as much time as I did trying to figure it out. But I didn't want to die, it was worth my time and effort to stay alive. It paid off spectacularly, and I'm still applying what I learned back them more than 20yrs later in my current career as an engineer. The other guys bugged me and joked about how much time I spent on the war. And then they'd ask me how I was able to do what I was able to do. They'd claim it was just luck, and every time they did that, the very next mission I'd go do it on command and prove to them it wasn't luck. If it were luck, i couldn't repeatedly do it on command. and I'd collect evidence to prove I wasn't lying. They always shut up after that. But they still never figured out how I was doing it. I offered to teach guys, but most let their "tough guy" pride get in the way of allowing themselves to learn. They just did not value their own lives. I've considered writing a book about everything I learned many times in the past 20yrs. but some of the info is still dangerous for our enemies to know, so I just can't write it, as it could make the battlefield even more dangerous for the average soldier if the enemy understood everything I shared.
    2
  4793. 2
  4794. 2
  4795. 2
  4796. 2
  4797. 2
  4798. 2
  4799. 2
  4800. 2
  4801. 2
  4802. 2
  4803. 2
  4804. 2
  4805. 2
  4806. 2
  4807. 2
  4808. 2
  4809. 2
  4810. 2
  4811. 2
  4812. 2
  4813. 2
  4814. 2
  4815. 2
  4816. 2
  4817. 2
  4818. 2
  4819. 2
  4820. 2
  4821. 2
  4822. 2
  4823. 2
  4824. 2
  4825. 2
  4826. 2
  4827. 2
  4828. 2
  4829. 2
  4830. 2
  4831. Faith is the belief in something , in the Absence of Proof. Science literally cannot disprove a person's faith, depending upon what it is (but most religions and faiths we're discussing generally cannot be disproven). I'm not a believer myself, but I also teach those with faith how to better understand their own faith, and help them to defend against bad science and those trying to force their beliefs on others (whether people of faith, or atheists, trying to force or coerce others into changing their beliefs). I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, so long as they don't use it to justify violence, criminal behavior, and don't try to force it on others. We can all live together just fine even if we disagree on things. I was raised Christian, my family still is Christian, but I am a person of science, and that change started at a very young age for me, more than a decade before I ever went to college. And I've helped many religious people in strengthening their faith (and not just Christians), even though I don't actually agree with them. But we have more in common than we disagree on in the end. Some of my best and most stimulating conversations were with smart and polite people of faith. I once had a Very long and interesting discussion of faith with a classmate, and we got into theoretical physics and everything. and in the end, he left feeling better about his beliefs, and I was happy for him, and I proved to him that I literally cannot prove his faith wrong, but nor could he prove his faith true, and I proved that some form of faith is necessary, even in science.
    2
  4832. 2
  4833.  @evanfontenot7000  " The Bible speaks about God and claims itself to be the final word on such." mind citing where it says it's the final word? and who gets to make that claim? the author? who are they to make such a claim? How do you know they are trustworthy? ow do you know they got it all correct? " If impossibility is proven then miracles are proven. " what does that even mean? mind explaining this statement? "Thus by logic if the Bible shows itself to be beyond human understanding then God is backed up by the Words of the Bible. " This is what is known as "word salad". By what logic, exactly, is the Bible proven to be beyond human understanding? Humans wrote the Bible after all. you're using circular logic, using something to prove itself. This is a logical fallacy. It's like using a word to define itself. If the Bible is incomprehensible to humans, then how can you be certain you're understanding it correctly? "Prove to me by Science that the Scriptures in Daniel and Isaiah and Ezekiel and Psalms and Genesis." Why should I? What is there that I need to prove? You're the one claiming the Bible is fact and proof of something. The responsibility is on your shoulders to prove your claims. You can't even address a single one of my questions. Instead you avoid my questions entirely, and just make up a bunch of your own nonsense to change the subject. "If one thing true the flood and one speaking in the name of such God prophecies the future then its believable." is English not your first language, because I can't understand this? The basis for the story of the flood is true, the manner in which it happened according to the bible is not true. But even if it were true, it has nothing to do with whatever you're attempting to say in the rest of the sentence. Lots of incoherent rambling going on here. Lots of words, with little being said.
    2
  4834. 2
  4835. 2
  4836. 2
  4837. 2
  4838. 2
  4839. 2
  4840. 2
  4841. 2
  4842. 2
  4843. 2
  4844. 2
  4845. 2
  4846. 2
  4847. 2
  4848. 2
  4849. 2
  4850. 2
  4851. 2
  4852. 2
  4853. 2
  4854. 2
  4855. 2
  4856. 2
  4857. 2
  4858. 2
  4859. 2
  4860. 2
  4861. 2
  4862. 2
  4863. 2
  4864. 2
  4865. 2
  4866. 2
  4867. 2
  4868. 2
  4869. 2
  4870. 2
  4871. 2
  4872. 2
  4873. 2
  4874. 2
  4875. 2
  4876. 2
  4877. 2
  4878. 2
  4879. 2
  4880. 2
  4881. 2
  4882. 2
  4883. 2
  4884. 2
  4885. 2
  4886. 2
  4887. 2
  4888. 2
  4889. 2
  4890. 2
  4891. 2
  4892. 2
  4893. 2
  4894. 2
  4895. 2
  4896. 2
  4897. 2
  4898. 2
  4899. 2
  4900. 2
  4901. 2
  4902. 2
  4903. 2
  4904. 2
  4905. 2
  4906. 2
  4907. 2
  4908. 2
  4909. 2
  4910. 2
  4911. 2
  4912. 2
  4913. 2
  4914. 2
  4915. 2
  4916. 2
  4917. 2
  4918. 2
  4919. 2
  4920. 2
  4921. 2
  4922. 2
  4923. 2
  4924. 2
  4925. 2
  4926. 2
  4927. 2
  4928. 2
  4929. 2
  4930. 2
  4931. 2
  4932. 2
  4933. 2
  4934. 2
  4935. 2
  4936. 2
  4937. 2
  4938. 2
  4939. 2
  4940. 2
  4941. 2
  4942. 2
  4943. 2
  4944. 2
  4945. 2
  4946. 2
  4947. 2
  4948. 2
  4949. 2
  4950. 2
  4951. 2
  4952. 2
  4953. 2
  4954. 2
  4955. 2
  4956. 2
  4957. 2
  4958. 2
  4959. 2
  4960. 2
  4961. 2
  4962. 2
  4963. 2
  4964. 2
  4965. 2
  4966. 2
  4967. 2
  4968. 2
  4969. 2
  4970. 2
  4971. 2
  4972. 2
  4973. 2
  4974. 2
  4975. 2
  4976. 2
  4977. 2
  4978. 2
  4979. 2
  4980. 2
  4981. 2
  4982. 2
  4983. 2
  4984. 2
  4985. 2
  4986. 2
  4987. 2
  4988. 2
  4989. 2
  4990. 2
  4991. 2
  4992. 2
  4993. 2
  4994. 2
  4995. 2
  4996. 2
  4997. 2
  4998. 2
  4999. 2
  5000. 2
  5001. 7:55 I was one of these people. I learned to "procrastinate early". Let's say I was given an assignment on Tuesday, that was due next Monday, I knew I'd typically procrastinate until Sunday night at 10pm before finally starting it and freaking out, staying up late working furiously to get it done on time. So, I started lying to myself, and changing the due dates. So instead of waiting until Sunday night and ruining my whole weekend, I'd tell myself it was due Wednesday instead, and I'd get it done Tuesday night. Massively reduced stress, and then I could help classmates, which in turn made me even Better at the material, and I could go into Friday with no homework on my plate and have the whole weekend to do as I liked stress free. I attended 6 colleges in 2 states over 17yrs and earned 4 degrees, all STEM, and graduated top of my class in every degree, and my lowest graduating GPA was 3.7, and my highest was 4.0. I have turned learning into a science over the course of my life, and use a myriad of tricks to excel in any topic I wish to learn. Being a Tutor, Mentor, and Instructor also helps you learn FAR better than just being a student. Over the course of those 17 years, I spent most of them tutoring and mentoring, and even was an Adjunct Instructor at one of the colleges while still taking classes as a student. Having to explain a concept to others so they will understand it, makes you understand it far better. Do study groups, be a tutor, procrastinate early, take notes BY HAND and type them up later as you organize them (this is a scientifically proven brain trick and critical to learning things better/faster), show your work when doing math (I used to not do this too, but I learned that I could use my homework as examples later, or see where I messed up later, and was critical when I was tutoring others in math to see their mistakes as well, and as an instructor I will give partial credit for errors if work is shown to be otherwise correct). Practice, practice, practice. Get a proper amount of sleep EVERY night. Do Everything you possibly can to get a good night's sleep Every night (time, darkness, routine, lights, noise, temperature, diet, etc.). I have TONS of other studying/learning tricks, many times more. I am considering putting them all into a book. I've been known to give lectures and presentations to various groups on this exact topic. School was my priority for sure, but not at the expense of my health nor life. And I even worked full-time as a Mechanical Engineer for 6yrs while earning my 4th degree and still managed to get my second highest graduating GPA (3.96).
    2
  5002. 2
  5003. 2
  5004. 2
  5005. 2
  5006. 2
  5007. 2
  5008. 2
  5009. 2
  5010. 2
  5011. 2
  5012. 2
  5013. 2
  5014. 2
  5015. 2
  5016. 2
  5017. 2
  5018. 2
  5019. 2
  5020. 2
  5021. 2
  5022. 2
  5023. 2
  5024. 2
  5025. 2
  5026. 2
  5027. 2
  5028. 2
  5029. 2
  5030. 2
  5031. 2
  5032. 2
  5033. 2
  5034. 2
  5035. 2
  5036. 2
  5037. 2
  5038. 2
  5039. 2
  5040. 2
  5041. 2
  5042. 2
  5043. 2
  5044. 2
  5045. 2
  5046. 2
  5047. 2
  5048. 2
  5049. 2
  5050. 2
  5051. 2
  5052. 2
  5053. 2
  5054. 2
  5055. 2
  5056. 2
  5057. 2
  5058. 2
  5059. 2
  5060. 2
  5061. 2
  5062. 2
  5063. 2
  5064. 2
  5065. 2
  5066. 2
  5067. 2
  5068. 2
  5069. 2
  5070. 2
  5071. 2
  5072. 2
  5073. 2
  5074. 2
  5075. 2
  5076. 2
  5077. 2
  5078. 2
  5079. 2
  5080. 2
  5081. 2
  5082. 2
  5083. 2
  5084. 2
  5085. 2
  5086. 2
  5087. 2
  5088. 2
  5089. 2
  5090. 2
  5091. 2
  5092. 2
  5093. 2
  5094. 2
  5095. 2
  5096. 2
  5097. 2
  5098. 2
  5099. 2
  5100. 2
  5101. 2
  5102. 2
  5103. 2
  5104. 2
  5105. 2
  5106. 2
  5107. 2
  5108. 2
  5109. 2
  5110. 2
  5111. 2
  5112. 2
  5113. 2
  5114. 2
  5115. 2
  5116. 2
  5117. 2
  5118. 2
  5119. 2
  5120. 2
  5121. 2
  5122. 2
  5123. 2
  5124. 2
  5125. 2
  5126. 2
  5127. 2
  5128. 2
  5129. 2
  5130. 2
  5131. 2
  5132. 2
  5133. 2
  5134. 2
  5135. 2
  5136. 2
  5137. 2
  5138. 2
  5139. 2
  5140. 2
  5141. 2
  5142. 2
  5143. 2
  5144. 2
  5145. 2
  5146. 2
  5147. 2
  5148. 2
  5149. 2
  5150. 2
  5151. 2
  5152. 2
  5153. 2
  5154. 2
  5155. 2
  5156. 2
  5157. 2
  5158. 2
  5159. 2
  5160. 2
  5161. 2
  5162. 2
  5163. 2
  5164. 2
  5165. 2
  5166. 2
  5167. 2
  5168. 2
  5169. 2
  5170. 2
  5171. 2
  5172. 2
  5173. 2
  5174. 2
  5175. 2
  5176. 2
  5177. 2
  5178. 2
  5179. 2
  5180. 2
  5181. 2
  5182. 2
  5183. 2
  5184. 2
  5185. 2
  5186. 2
  5187. 2
  5188. 2
  5189. 2
  5190. 2
  5191. 2
  5192. 2
  5193. 2
  5194. 2
  5195. 2
  5196. 2
  5197. 2
  5198. 2
  5199. 2
  5200. 2
  5201. 2
  5202. 2
  5203. 2
  5204. 2
  5205. 2
  5206. 2
  5207. 2
  5208. 2
  5209. 2
  5210. 2
  5211. 2
  5212. 2
  5213. 2
  5214. 2
  5215. 2
  5216. 2
  5217. 2
  5218. 2
  5219. 2
  5220. 2
  5221. 2
  5222. 2
  5223. 2
  5224. 2
  5225. 2
  5226. 2
  5227. 2
  5228. 2
  5229. 2
  5230. 2
  5231. 2
  5232. 2
  5233. 2
  5234. 2
  5235. Your idea of "should it be able to take damage?" is bullshit. 1) aircraft takes hits, aircraft is lost, pilot bails out, pilot is captured and possibly tortured or killed. Propaganda value for enemy, loss of valuable pilot to us, potential resources tied up rescuing pilot, bargaining chip for enemy. 2) aircraft takes hits, aircraft limps back, pilot is saved to fly again the next day. Aircraft is lost to damage, but spare parts can be salvaged. In both scenarios the plane is lost, but not always. Sometimes it's worth fixing. But either way there is no objective assessment here that the plane shouldn't bring the pilot back. You: "stay outside the danger zone/s" Spoken like a true desk warrior. you clearly don't understand the reality that is warfare. The danger zone is where these aircraft are MEANT to go, where they Must go by necessity. You can't always assume a permissive air environment. I suggest you study Vietnam and the SAM + AAA threat more closely to understand where the A-10 comes from. One A-10 in desert storm took a direct hit to the wing from a SAM and flew back to base. The picture has been hard to find lately, but try doing that with another plane. The A-10 was also designed before the dominance of guided precision/smart weapons, which have changed the need for striking from as low and as close. Judge the design of the plane for the environment it was designed for, not for the environment it now faces. You can judge its suitability going forward, but put its Design in context. Yes, gun vs precision guided munition with huge explosive shaped warhead against tanks? no brainer who wins that. But enough rounds on target can disable or kill a modern tank. The A-10 gun could still kill battle tanks like Saddam had, even if they didn't get much opportunity to do so with the gun specifically. The gun has other value against ALL OTHER vehicles. The bulk of any military is Not tanks, but trucks, APCs, etc that cannot survive the A-10 gin in the least bit. Also, guns are good against entrenched infantry. By your argument, we shouldn't make armored gun trucks either, because they shouldn't be built to survive in a dangerous environment, and we shouldn't mount 50cal machine guns on our trucks when we have javelin missiles, Carl Gustav and At-4 recoilless, etc. Yes, Maverick/Hellfire worked, they did the job they were designed to do, and can literally be fired from anything including a C-130 or a LCS navy warship. That in NO WAY is a condemnation of the gun. Many less F-16s were lost also because of their use of Towed Decoys that surely saved many. A-10s didn't have these.
    2
  5236. 2
  5237. 2
  5238. 2
  5239. 2
  5240. 2
  5241. 2
  5242. 2
  5243. 2
  5244. 2
  5245. 2
  5246. 2
  5247. 2
  5248. 2
  5249. 2
  5250. 2
  5251. 2
  5252. 2
  5253. 2
  5254. 2
  5255. 2
  5256. 2
  5257. 2
  5258. 2
  5259. 2
  5260. 2
  5261. 2
  5262. 2
  5263. 2
  5264. 2
  5265. 2
  5266. 2
  5267. 2
  5268. 2
  5269. 2
  5270. 2
  5271. 2
  5272. 2
  5273. 2
  5274. 2
  5275. 2
  5276. 2
  5277. 2
  5278. 2
  5279. 2
  5280. 2
  5281. 2
  5282. 2
  5283. 2
  5284. 2
  5285. 2
  5286. 2
  5287. 2
  5288. 2
  5289. 2
  5290. 2
  5291. 2
  5292. 2
  5293. 2
  5294. 2
  5295. 2
  5296. 2
  5297. 2
  5298. 2
  5299. 2
  5300. 2
  5301. 2
  5302. 2
  5303. 2
  5304. 2
  5305. 2
  5306. 2
  5307. 2
  5308. 2
  5309. 2
  5310. 2
  5311. 2
  5312. 2
  5313. 2
  5314. 2
  5315. 2
  5316. 2
  5317. 2
  5318. 2
  5319. 2
  5320. 2
  5321. 2
  5322. 2
  5323. 2
  5324. 2
  5325. 2
  5326. 2
  5327. 2
  5328. 2
  5329. 2
  5330. 2
  5331. 2
  5332. 2
  5333. 2
  5334. 2
  5335. 2
  5336. 2
  5337. 2
  5338. 2
  5339. 2
  5340. 2
  5341. 2
  5342. 2
  5343. 2
  5344. 2
  5345. 2
  5346. 2
  5347. 2
  5348. 2
  5349. 2
  5350. 2
  5351. 2
  5352. 2
  5353. 2
  5354. 2
  5355. 2
  5356. 2
  5357. 2
  5358. 2
  5359. 2
  5360. 2
  5361. 2
  5362. 2
  5363. 2
  5364. 2
  5365. 2
  5366. 2
  5367. 2
  5368. 2
  5369. 2
  5370. 2
  5371. 2
  5372. 2
  5373. 2
  5374. 2
  5375. 2
  5376. 2
  5377. 2
  5378. 2
  5379. 2
  5380. 2
  5381. 2
  5382. 2
  5383. 2
  5384. 2
  5385. 2
  5386. 2
  5387. 2
  5388. 2
  5389. 2
  5390. 2
  5391. 2
  5392. 2
  5393. 2
  5394. 2
  5395. 2
  5396. 2
  5397. 2
  5398. 2
  5399. 2
  5400. 2
  5401. 2
  5402. 2
  5403. 2
  5404. 2
  5405. 2
  5406. 2
  5407. 2
  5408. 2
  5409. 2
  5410. 2
  5411. 2
  5412. 2
  5413. 2
  5414. 2
  5415. 2
  5416. 2
  5417. 2
  5418. 2
  5419. 2
  5420. 2
  5421. 2
  5422. 2
  5423. 2
  5424. 2
  5425. 2
  5426. 2
  5427. 2
  5428. 2
  5429. 2
  5430. 2
  5431. 2
  5432.  @aldopedroso6212  "yet couldn't make a torpedo that would blow up if it hit a ship and was unlikely to hit a ship because it ran too low. Cut the crap." the torpedo worked. But it had a design flaw. Once remedied, it worked as advertised. The issue was human fallibility. A system, especially one as large as the US WW2 effort, is going to have its proportionate share of failures and flaws. Nothing is perfect. Doesn't mean the science wasn't being done, and the data collected. They knew there was an issue due to all the reports. "If the US HAD 600 nuke bombers, Japan would have seen more than one at a time." why? the US weren't blood thirsty. the US held back using other devastating weapons as well, out of a sense of morality and ethics. drop only as many as needed. and yes, they were in short supply right at teh end of the war. But Japan didn't know that. Th US hoped one would be enough. Japan figured the US only had one. So the US dropped one more to prove it wasn't a fluke, and the Japanese realized they were in trouble (not realizing the US didn't have a third ready yet and were bluffing at that moment). Just because you can/could, doesn't mean you will/should. Also, each mission ran the risk of failure, and each nuke mission had multiple aircraft along, and not all made it. "If the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed more people, a half year before did not end the war, neither would destroying the nuke cities. " wrong. it took hundreds of B-29 to do what a single B-29 with a nuke could do. that's a force multiplier, and Japan's leaders where smarter than you and understood this concept. ""Emperor, a city was destroyed!" "Fire or explosive?" "A little bit of both. And they used one bomb." "Was it worse?" "About the same." "Well keep me informed."" yes, but after the 2nd bomb, the Emperor surrendered. He understood. you do not.
    2
  5433. 2
  5434. 2
  5435. 2
  5436. 2
  5437. 2
  5438. 2
  5439. 2
  5440. 2
  5441. 2
  5442. 2
  5443. 2
  5444. 2
  5445. 2
  5446. 2
  5447. 2
  5448. 2
  5449. 2
  5450. 2
  5451. 2
  5452. 2
  5453. 2
  5454. 2
  5455. 2
  5456. 2
  5457. 2
  5458. 2
  5459. 2
  5460. 2
  5461. 2
  5462. 2
  5463. 2
  5464. 2
  5465. 2
  5466. 2
  5467. 2
  5468. 2
  5469. 2
  5470. 2
  5471. 2
  5472. 2
  5473. 2
  5474. 2
  5475. 2
  5476. 2
  5477. 2
  5478. 2
  5479. 2
  5480. 2
  5481. 2
  5482. 2
  5483. 2
  5484. 2
  5485. 2
  5486. 2
  5487. 2
  5488. 2
  5489. 2
  5490. 2
  5491. 2
  5492. 2
  5493.  @sundoga4961  sure, kick, scream, and sling insults. That works very time. "The entire purpose of government is to provide services for the populace" 100% wrong. the gov exists to secure the borders of the nation first and foremost. then to conduct trade and alliances with foreign nations. Then to enforce the rule of law and settle disputes. Beyond that there is little gov should be doing. And in the US the federal go is supposed to leave pretty much the rest up to the states to handle. It is Not the role of gov to provide healthcare, insurance, free shit (welfare for lazy people), nor to restrict what toxins individuals freely choose to ingest, nor to tell people what cars, stoves or otherwise they should buy. that is left to the free market, and it worked really well until the gov intervened. OSHA has not increased workplace safety more than was already happening. Welfare has done worse than charity to reduce poverty. Gov interference in healthcare is why it can be so expensive in the US. "But to me, the solution would be a properly regulated and stepped income tax, starting at zero tax for the first bracket and rising to somewhere around 75% at the highest bracket." we already have a stepped bracket. The last time they had taxes that high it stopped investments, and resulted in more tax dodging, and the gov brought in LESS taxes than it did with Lower tax rates. " Second, it shifts the greatest burden of paying taxes to those who are both the most able to pay without suffering injury, and who benefit the most from the very system they are responsible for supporting" that is already the case. the top 50% of US earners pay pretty much All the taxes. And the top 10% or less pay something like 50% of all the taxes. and that's with a top tax of something like 39%. But myself and others run small businesses, and when they lowered taxes a few years ago, the economy took off like a drag car and prices dropped, States were having surplus. then they came back and removed all the tax breaks and things slowed back to a crawl and prices went up again. "Third, a high level of taxation on corporate profits encourages companies to reinvest profits back into the company", but that's not what happens, a lot is sent offshore to hide in tax havens. "I do like the idea for commercial property. If we included rental residential property in that, it would act as a downward stressor for rent levels, too." you're insane, it drive rent prices sky high. It's very obvious you have no understanding of how taxes work. Price fixing is a disaster too, especially for housing. those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. open a damned economics and history book.
    2
  5494.  @sundoga4961  you're a pretty awful historian then. Being a historian doesn't make you an expert in economics and business though. "Plus, you would prevent such things as government being involved in roads, zoning and other city planning, provision of necessary resources such as water, electricity and gas, and whole hosts of services they either provide or pay others to provide. " wrong, that is for the states. it would still happen. " Well, no, actually. Before such things as standards and practices, consumer law and employment law, the American consumer was getting comprehensively screwed. Besides the most egregious examples - Company Scrip and Stores, cross-market Trusts and area-control agreements come to mind - there was no guarantees of quality of goods, lifespan, or safety of foodstuffs. A perfect example occurs during the US Civil War, to the Federal Government, as it happens. Soldiers in the field were opening cans of meat and finding the contents to be rotten. That can't happen to properly canned meat...unless it was rotten when it was canned." Yes, there will always be examples to cherry pick from, but they were not the norm. but back then, most people grew their own food, so not an issue. Also, when the gov is purchasing things in a war, they have a right to impose standards, as a customer. But they don't have the right to restrict private sales between private individuals. "They also continue to function in situations where charities are overwhelmed - in both Great Depressions, hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly from starvation because they couldn't find work, couldn't earn a living and the charities had nothing for them." not the role of gov to provide jobs or welfare. The people combined bad business practices with bad farming practices in a time of extreme warming and drought. Banking regulations help, and people learning to farm better (by suffering the consequences of bad practices and learning not to do it again) fix that. No jobs programs or welfare needed. "Bullshit. OSHA was enacted because nothing much WAS happening." that's a lie. Workplace safety was trending up, workplace deaths and accidents trending down. The trend did not accelerate after OSHA came along, and now OSHA has become far too overbearing that it actually prevents businesses from existing at all. "Charity has never done any good at all in reducing poverty, " that is a lie. While charity was going on (and it still is), poverty was trending down, but after welfare came about, the rate at which poverty was declining slowed down, and even started reversing and going up since COVID and Biden's inflation magnification policies. Charity also does more to deal with natural disaster relief than gov does, and that is a proven fact. "in both Great Depressions, hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly from starvation because they couldn't find work, couldn't earn a living and the charities had nothing for them." nobody owed them anything. survival is YOUR personal responsibility. To force others to provide for you against their will is Slavery. You advocate for slavery. They failed to act in a smart manner to safeguard their survival, and they died as a result. Actions have consequences. "dropping taxes does stimulate the economy...in the short term. In some cases, it's very much the right thing to do. But long-term it causes problems." Wrong, the tax breaks always end before long term data can be collected. But having no taxes at all doesn't hurt an economy one bit, it only hurts gov spending. Having taxes hurts an economy, no matter how little, as it takes money from people who would have spent or invested it back into the economy. You're arguing the wrong things, from teh wrong perspective. " again, not true. Investment was just fine in the 1950s and 1960s with significantly higher tax levels. In the 1970s...we had the oil crisis and the economic disruption of losing the Vietnam War, " you claim it was good to have high taxes in the 50s and 60s, but then acknowledge it was actually bad instead, but use events from later to explain why it was bad. you can't cite the future as a reason for what happened in the past. And data of tax rates and gov revenues is very clear, the US brought in less taxes at high tax rates, and there was more tax dodging as a result. The gov brings in more taxes overall, in lower tax environments by virtue of volume of economic activity and people worrying less about low taxes. "Tax haven systems only work when the government permits them to. Witness the tightening of foreign investment laws in the US in the 1920s, which simply closed the gate - it defined monies sent overseas as profits and required immediate payment of tax owing. A brute force solution, we could do better now, but it worked. And again, the 1950s and 1960s disagree with you - much more money was being reinvested and much less going as dividends to shareholders." shows how little you know. there is always a way to cheat the system, and every law you pass to close one loophole creates two more new loopholes. It's a result of complexity. "Your argument (for want of a better word) makes no sense. If a rental agency or private owner must either get a tenant or pay higher levels of tax, they will be incentivized to do what they can to get a tenant - such as dropping rents. Increasing rent would only make it LESS likely to find a tenant!" wow you're dumb. The problem with rent is that people can't simply wait it out and go homeless waiting for the owner to lower their rates, whereas the owner can wait months to years. So people pay the rate that is available or they don't. The higher taxes will simply be passed along to the tenant, or the owner will simply stop renting out their private property altogether. you are a terrible historian, if you are even a historian at all.
    2
  5495. 2
  5496. 2
  5497. 2
  5498. 2
  5499. 2
  5500. 2
  5501. 2
  5502. 2
  5503. 2
  5504. 2
  5505. 2
  5506. 2
  5507. 2
  5508. 2
  5509. 2
  5510. 2
  5511. 2
  5512. 2
  5513. 2
  5514. 2
  5515. 2
  5516. 2
  5517. 2
  5518. 2
  5519. 2
  5520. 2
  5521. 2
  5522.  @SDGLFDNC  "maybe we should take some of the heat out of this conversation." Be the change you want to see in teh world. "I would personally like to see good, but not vicious insults" speak for yourself. No "viscous insults" came from me. Just facts and fair criticism. "One interesting thing I saw in this video is the blunt force trauma from plate impact. My takeaway lesson is that armor is invaluable, but not unstoppable." That is the way armor has Always been. We've always known this. Most armor cannot stop more than 2-3 rounds depending upon caliber. And so most ammo can penetrate body armor if you hit it multiple times. A .50cal can go through about 5 layer of military ballistic glass, and it takes a .30-06 3 shots to do the same thing, for example. Guys in my unit shot their own plates and helmets, and at close range the 5.56 from our M16s went right through. We had Level 2 and Level 3 AP plates during my deployments. Sometimes it takes 2 shots to penetrate. But size and velocity are factors in penetration. Smaller objects punch though easier than larger diameter objects. You can even penetrate things like tanks with smaller weapons like 20mm, if you keep hitting the same spot enough times. Each shot helps weaken teh armor a little more each time until something gets through. Also, not are regions of a target are equally armored. "They suggested that the fractured rib could cause a lung puncture." Yes, that could happen, but you'll live. In OIF/OEF, sucking chest wounds became a thing we focused on and it saved tons of lives. We also focused more on tourniquets and quick clot, than in previous wars. Combat medicine improved Dramatically after 9/11. We studied combat death statistics and everything in learning how to prevent needless deaths by knowing what injuries killed the most people and how to detect injuries and fix them. We developed procedures that were radically different too, such as stripping guys down to nothing after getting hit to ensure we didn't miss a secondary wound. Armor was redesign for quick release to get it off, and we carried combat shears to cut clothing and other gear off in a hurry. Seconds and minutes count when someone is bleeding out. "I have heard about chest impacts causing hearts to stop (like leggy blonds), and I wonder if a high energy dump from a bullet on the sternum would cause heart stoppage." My heart stopped once in Iraq, but not from a bullet. A 500lb IED blast knocked the wind out of me and made my heart stop. I've never heard a single real-world case of someone's heart stopping due to a bullet striking their body armor. A bullet does not carry that kind of energy.
    2
  5523.  @SDGLFDNC  "hey man, your response is exactly what I’m talking about. " yes, clearly you're allergic to facts and scientific debate. "You are clearly upset about something, it comes out clear in your sentence structure." you're projecting. reading into things too much You're reading what's not there. How about you stop making false accusations and stick to facts and evidence? " Also the fact that you took the time to select individual lines to criticize out of a good faith statement." WTF? There is no such thing as a good faith statement", stop making up BS. Yes, I quote specific lines so that one, people know exactly what I'm referring too, ensuring they have proper context from which to understand. And two, so that they know I'm not misquoting them. This is how debate works, maybe you should read up more on it. If you can't handle it, too bad. "There is nothing fair about your criticism, simply because you are showing that you are not engaging in good faith. " nothing fair? in what way? "good faith" has nothing to do with this. Stop trying to make this some sort of religious debate. Stop trying to derail the conversation with Red Herrings. "Argue if you wish, but I bow out of that." then what even was the point of this whole religious diatribe you wrote? Here you are arguing, yet not providing a single valid counter argument, not providing a single shred of proof of anything, just a bunch of hokey opinions and childish nonsense. Where are the facts? where is the substance that proves you right and me wrong? If you're truly right, you should be able to make your case easily. But instead you make up nonsense. You also falsely accused me of "vicious" insults, like a woke feminist would, and you failed to provide an example of such a "vicious" insult I made. Stop whining. Stop playing the victim. You're not a victim.
    2
  5524. 2
  5525. 2
  5526. 2
  5527. 2
  5528. 2
  5529. 2
  5530. 2
  5531. 2
  5532. 2
  5533. 2
  5534. 2
  5535. 2
  5536. 2
  5537. 2
  5538. 2
  5539. 2
  5540. 2
  5541. 2
  5542. 2
  5543. 2
  5544. 2
  5545. 2
  5546. 2
  5547. 2
  5548. 2
  5549. 2
  5550. 2
  5551. 2
  5552. 2
  5553. 2
  5554. 2
  5555. 2
  5556. 2
  5557. 2
  5558. 2
  5559. 2
  5560. 2
  5561. 2
  5562. 2
  5563. 2
  5564. 2
  5565. 2
  5566. 2
  5567. 2
  5568.  @qblox8018  "The most stupid line in my life, " Then why did you share it? Not sure where you got that quote from. Bringing 3rd party argument into the mix, changing the argument to suite your needs. US didn't struggle at Normandy, they were being cautious. They broke out and reached Berlin. How long after the Normandy invasion did the US reach Berlin? remind us all? There is always give and take in war, win some, lose some, but the end result is what matters. Are you seriously going to try to claim Russia never lost ground to Germany? Are you going to claim Russia was never encircled? How many times has Russia won wars due to Weather rather than actual fighting? "1m American soldiers versus 500k German soldiers. " because we're not idiots. we always strive to overmatch. We actually fight to win, unlike russia who fights to spill blood. "Just think about it" what's to think about? the US utterly defeated Germany, all while keeping Russia alive with Lend Lease. Even Stalin backs me on this. "And what's the point of mentioning russian war crimes in ukraine? " because russia commits far more war crimes. and they are still doing it now. All russia knows is murder. "U also should include ur beloved Ukraine as post Soviet country so they count as red army members back in ww2" they are not my "beloved", they are fighting Russia and I love it. "so they count as red army members back in ww2"" no one claimed otherwise. but it also explains why the Ukraine military sucks at offensive warfare too. they are learning, but they still suck at doing what the West excels at.
    2
  5569.  @stipebalenovic6497  " Soviets fought with the best Germany had." never fought Rommel. Rommel fought the Allies and built the Normandy defenses. Many top German aces slayed on the eastern front, but almost all of them that faced Western Allies were killed or suffered mental breakdowns. Even Eric Hartmann was downed a few times by Mustangs. Germans rotated through many fronts. Look how many tanks Rudel slayed in Russia. "In offensive wars, after a long peace or a purge you will often have crap officers. Long defence is a bit different." you clearly know nothing about warfare. "Don't think because Russia today can't do anything right that the Soviets after 6 years of wars were just dummies." oh but they are. After 6yrs they learned nothing, and in the 80yrs since they learned even less. We study the Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere to learn how Not to lose (study the russian failures and why they failed). We study Germans like Ritchthofen, Rommel, Hartmann and Galland, and American battles to learn how to Win. "Even Soviets later were formidable and actually knew a thing or two," Examples? Proof? "Iraq wars were not the norm, those are exceptions, Saddam left his flank open and that was it, and they had no air cover. " you clearly lack understanding of military things. Saddam's forces met the US forces in battle, and had superior numbers, and got slaughtered. They had tons of Russian aircraft including Mig25, Mig29, and more, and the most densely defended airspace on earth, so how come they got slaughtered? And F-15E killed a Mi-24 in air with a bomb for crying out loud. And an F-111 scored a maneuver kill against a superior aircraft. And Iraqis surrendered by the thousands to drones from the battleships. Yes, Iraq wars are not the norm. It was the US in peak form at the time, against the 3rd largest tank army on earth, and the most heavily defended airspace on earth, with tons of the Best Russian equipment anyone could get, outside of Russia. And if a country like Iraq stands no chance against the US, what chance does anyone else stand? Iraq was FAR more formidable than Ukraine even, with a larger and equally advanced air force, FAR larger tank force, FAR more air defenses. And yet Russia lost it's entire modern army in Ukraine. Even resorting to fighting with T-55 tanks and unable to fly their aircraft in Ukraine airspace. They navy is getting destroyed by a country with no navy. Their ships are being sunk in port. "Who would win? There would be a peace negotiation and the border would be pulled in a way like we have in Korea. Everyone was pretty much done with it." what are you talking about? Korea was not the defeat you try to claim, and if we picked it back up tomorrow, NKorea would be reunified finally with SKorea. You have no idea how badly people want to finish that fight.
    2
  5570. 2
  5571. 2
  5572. 2
  5573. 2
  5574. 2
  5575. 2
  5576. 2
  5577. 2
  5578. 2
  5579. 2
  5580. 2
  5581. 2
  5582. 2
  5583. 2
  5584. 2
  5585. 2
  5586. 2
  5587. 2
  5588. 2
  5589. 2
  5590. 2
  5591. 2
  5592. 2
  5593. 2
  5594. 2
  5595.  @nicholasbrown668 " ive asked twice now what your plan is and you go on another Pierre Sprey rant" you've responded to me numerous times, never once specifically asking what teh solution was. usually you're just hurling baseless insults. And who is Pierre Sprey anyways? you keep brining him up. Did he hurt you? "Also I proved you wrong on ideology" not in the slightest. you simply stated it's been around a long time. that doesn't make me wrong. "if you've actually studied Pashtunwali you'd understand why it has survived millinea against dozens of empires and kingdoms, hundreds of ideologies and religions" I have studied the past conflicts, and not one fo them Ever attempted anything like how I would attempt it. "The Taliban use Pashtunwali with Deobani to bring together all the groups both liberal and radical, Deobani Fundamentalism has been rooted in the educated class and the religious classes for a hundred years now and is heavily taught in their religious schools" lot of talk, lot of BS there. Taliban use VIOLENCE and murder to force people to comply. Many people in Afghanistan oppose Taliban rule, but simply lack the will to stand up to them. Outsiders will stand up to them, but lack understanding hot to actually defeat them. Taliban are not fantasy warriors of magical intellect and invincible military strategy. When I was in Afghanistan, they stopped even trying to attack my unit, and me specifically, as they learned we couldn't be beaten. We did similar in Iraq too with Al Qaeda. But it takes hours to explain to people how we achieved that. But it too is simple, once you understand the details. "Again how as an outsider and invader do you expect them to comply with you dictating your religion? You said you were raised religious yes? How would you feel if an outsider came to your country and started dictating how your priests and preachers taught? Would you comply with that and be happy? Would you submit to that?" Well, I wouldn't be dictating religion to them at all for one. Being raised religious does not mean I am religious, nor am a religious zealot, nor would I impose religion on anyone. I am a Constitutionalist, and freedom of religion is paramount (so longa s you do not try to impose it upon others). But any person with common sense would have known this and not made such baseless and false accusations against me. The US never dictated to Afghans how they should practice their religion (aside from teh violence). We specifically avoided their places of worship and avoided the religious issues entirely. And my solution has nothing to do with religion, changing religion, imposing religion, etc. But you'd know this if you actually read what I wrote, as I never once made a claim of this nature. You're projecting your own feelings onto me, and making up false arguments, false accusations. If I were living in Afghanistan under Taliban rule and the US came to oust the Taliban, I'd be doing everything in my power to help them and to implement my plan in the Taliban's absence. It's all about who is the "bad guy", which determines who I choose to support in a given situation. The US was not actually the bad guy, and many people liked that we ousted the Taliban....until Biden pulled us out like a moron.
    2
  5596. 2
  5597. 2
  5598.  @Newie69MK  Yes, once people learned of the Zero, upon seeing a Ki-43 they'd regularly mistake it for a Zero. Easy to do when detailed info like we have now wasn't available, and when you sometimes only get a few moments to observe some of the details of the design, and probably not from favorable angles. But the shock comes from mistaken identity, or from stupidly trying to outmaneuver it rather than sticking with Boom and Zoom tactics. Both are easy mistakes, even today. Just observe people playing WW2 simulators and watch them make the exact same mistakes constantly. But the Zero was objectively better in testing, the Japanese did dogfight them against each other. And The Zero's early victories soon evaporated as later models of the various designs came along that negated the early advantages. Did you know the P-39Q when rated at only 1200hp, had a 3k ft service ceiling advantage, a 50mph speed advantage, and a 700fpm climb rate advantage over teh Zero? And it's known the P-39Q engine was capable of 1700-2200hp. Imagine what an additional 500-1000hp would add to those numbers? P-39 in 1941 was at a disadvantage unless it came into the fight with superior altitude. But by late war, the P-39Q, F4F-4, P-40N were easily superior to the Zero (which had minimal to no real improvement over the course of the war). Japan simply lacked the resources and know-how at that time to make better engines. Also, only ~10k Zeros were built in teh war, where as many allied aircraft Each were built in comparable or greater numbers (F4U, F6F, F4F, P-40, P-51, P-47, P-38, P-39, Spitfire, etc). I find it fascinating how much myth and misunderstanding still surrounds the Zero. It's a fascinating airplane, with a fascinating story, it's fearsome reputation early on Was deserved, but it was not nearly as good as people try to claim by 1943 either. I've been studying it in great detail, and mostly from the Japanese perspective and sources.
    2
  5599. 2
  5600. 2
  5601. 2
  5602. 2
  5603. 2
  5604. 2
  5605. 2
  5606. 2
  5607. 2
  5608. 2
  5609. 2
  5610. 2
  5611. 2
  5612. 2
  5613. 2
  5614. 2
  5615. 2
  5616. 2
  5617. 2
  5618. 2
  5619. 2
  5620. 2
  5621. 2
  5622. 2
  5623. 2
  5624. 2
  5625. 2
  5626. 2
  5627. 2
  5628. 2
  5629. 2
  5630. 2
  5631. 2
  5632. 2
  5633. 2
  5634. 2
  5635. 2
  5636. 2
  5637. 2
  5638. 2
  5639. 2
  5640. 2
  5641. 2
  5642. 2
  5643. 2
  5644. 2
  5645. 2
  5646. 2
  5647. 2
  5648. 2
  5649. 2
  5650. 2
  5651. 2
  5652. 2
  5653. 2
  5654. 2
  5655. 2
  5656. 2
  5657. 2
  5658. 2
  5659. 2
  5660. 2
  5661. 2
  5662. 2
  5663. 2
  5664. 2
  5665. 2
  5666. 2
  5667. 2
  5668. Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
    2
  5669. 2
  5670. 2
  5671. 2
  5672. 2
  5673. 1
  5674. 1
  5675. 1
  5676. 1
  5677. 1
  5678. 1
  5679. 1
  5680. 1
  5681. 1
  5682. 1
  5683. 1
  5684. 1
  5685. 1
  5686. 1
  5687. 1
  5688. 1
  5689. 1
  5690. 1
  5691. 1
  5692. 1
  5693. 1
  5694. 1
  5695. 1
  5696. 1
  5697.  @roberto8650  I never said I went to Harvard, I said I had an opportunity to attend Harvard on a full ride. But I have been to Boston and been within 10k of Harvard as well. You must be a terrible lawyer with such lack of attention to detail. Isn't reading written words accurately an important skill for a lawyer? You're very proud of your shell corps though. Which indicates to me what type of lawyer you are. I never said it was difficult to setup a shell corp. I merely proposed the idea of a cap, and you didn't like it. Clearly I struck a nerve with the idea of caps. But you have no alternative ideas. seems to me you work for one of these real estate companies and want to ensure they continue to be able to corner the market and drive up prices. "This is the solution. If you're not interested in it, that's up to you. But I'm fucking tired of morons discarding the answer and telling us we don't have an answer." But you never stated what the solution was. I can't reject something you never said. You rejected my idea, and refused to offer a different solution. I doubt you're not a lawyer, you're just an immature troll that thinks insults win arguments. Do you also use insults with a judge or opponent in court too? Every lawyer I've ever talked to before was more professional than you, actually cited laws or gave good logic and reasoned explanations. But I wouldn't trust you as a lawyer for anything. If you were my lawyer, I'd expect to lose any case I was in. State your solution, or accept that you are contributing nothing of value to the discussion.
    1
  5698. 1
  5699. 1
  5700. 1
  5701. 1
  5702. 1
  5703. 1
  5704. 1
  5705. 1
  5706. 1
  5707. 1
  5708. 1
  5709. 1
  5710. 1
  5711. 1
  5712. 1
  5713. 1
  5714. 1
  5715. 1
  5716. 1
  5717. 1
  5718. 1
  5719. 1
  5720. 1
  5721. 1
  5722. 1
  5723. 1
  5724. 1
  5725. 1
  5726. 1
  5727. 1
  5728. 1
  5729. 1
  5730. 1
  5731. 1
  5732. 1
  5733. 1
  5734. 1
  5735.  @CycleWerkz  "It is to show clearly that your claimed credentials cannot be true." so you think being long winded on climate disproves who I am? My view of your intelligence is dropping lower with every comment. I started out with pretty high regard, now you're in the gutter. "I'm exposing you for fraudulent claims." oh really, quote me exactly what I said about my credentials that is fraudulent. "When you failed to accept my overly gracious apology with continued attack, that's when you engaged the huckleberry. " there was nothing "overly gracious" about anything you said. If you feel debate is an "attack", you're none too bright. Debate is science. Deal with it. But I think you simply got an ego check and aren't taking it well. "So now I will strip down everything you wrote and explain why you cannot have possibly earned a BSME. " you realize BSME is not about climate, right? But go ahead, make a fool of yourself. "And further, I contend that you never started the courses. If you ever took any Physics courses, it all went in one ear then out the other. You really should stop making this claim as you do not know nearly enough to get away with it. " bold claims, better have hard evidence for this. And yet you accuse me of attacking you, no evidence to support that. Projection much? "Early in this thread you claimed you had substantial knowledge in this subject matter. Here's your quote, "I'm a Mechanical Engineer, thermodynamics, heat transfer, chemistry, physics, etc." This statement is redundant because all the listed studies are required in the BSME degree plan." I never claimed to have "substantial knowledge", only that I did a deep dive into it. That quote has nothing to do with me claiming to have "substantial knowledge" on the issue. You're not very good at this are you? The point of my comment is that most people have NO idea what an ME curriculum even covers, and I can't assume your level of knowledge and understanding, so I made it clear for your or anyone else's benefit. But go ahead, and read into it what isn't there. "You made claim you had substantial studies in Chemistry, but then walked it back "I'm no Chemist"; as a lame excuse for your initial comment massive errors. " you're lying again. I never claimed to have "substantial studies in chemistry", i merely stated having chemistry knowledge sufficient to understand the issue. But go ahead, keep spinning lies. This is getting entertaining. And other people will be able to fact check you in our comments. I am not a chemist, and so by stating that, i am qualifying my statements and telling people that I'm no expert in chemistry and that they should double check for themselves what I am saying. But you're so dumb you can't understand this. I know kids smarter than you. "You should really stop trying to read my comments as you lack the prerequisite knowledge to understand it." then why write them? who are you writing it for if you're addressing it to me? and you claim to be smart. Yet here I am picking apart your lies. "You are definitely not trying to write a research paper as you are not even qualified to read a scientific research paper." Anyone can write a research paper, so long as it adheres to the rules of science. Something you're not doing now. But if I'm not qualified, as you falsely claim, then you are even less qualified. You've let emotions override logic. Yet I am the one who holds world records, world firsts, do work for NASA and others, and whose other successes are already being discussed in college history courses. But keep going, this is a fascinating study of the human mind. "The irony of your next statement epitomizes your fraud. "You have no basis upon which to make such an absurd hypothesis. I provided nowhere near enough context for you to draw this conclusion," Here's why this is so much fun. I did not make a hypothesis I made an accusation. There is no Engineer anywhere who would misuse the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is only used as a word by scientists as a step in the Scientific Method. it is a very advanced step only taken when all observations confirm the statement. This point is so driven the first year, you would not be able to make this mistake. The Arts majors use hypothesis very differently. Even if you tried to use the non-scientific definition, your usage was completely wrong. This definition is a proposed explanation with little evidence needing further investigation. So it could never be a conclusion. " wow, lot of word salad there to try to justify yourself. Twisting and squirming to try to make it seem like you were right and I was wrong. But you can't win when you made baseless accusations that can't be backed up with factual evidence. You literally accused me of fraud, without evidence. And as of yet, you've still failed to quote me where I said anything fraudulent, only putting words in my mouth and accusing me of things I never said. I'm still waiting for you to quote me where I committed fraud....... A hypothesis is more than a WORD, it is a whole Sentence, maybe more, in which you make an assertion which you believe to be true. Next step is to provide OBJECTIVE evidence to support your assertions, which you have failed to do thus far. I knew what a hypothesis was in middles school. the fact you had to learn it in first year of college tells me a lot about you. It's clear the art major here is you. "You actually did provide ample information to determine you are lying about your credentials. I actually spelled it all out in detail. You do not know enough to understand why the proof is evident. " you spelled out Nothing. where is your evidence? what did you spell out in detail. you rambled on about hypothesis definitions, credentials, made multiple false accusations, lied, slung insults, but never once provided a shred of evidence to support your hypothesis that I am, "lying about your credentials". "Face it, you're exposed." exposed? I think the general public who bother to waste their time reading this will come to a different conclusion.
    1
  5736.  @CycleWerkz  "You keep demanding things I've already provided. YOU provided all the evidence needed to disprove your claims. " ridiculous claims require evidence. you THINK you've proven something, but have not. "When you claimed a BSME, it includes collegiate Chemistry and Physics completion." exactly, thus having a background knowledge of physics and chemistry helps figuring out climate change propaganda. " So your claim of this degree equals your claim to these studies. The fact you don't know this indicates you never even started this degree plan." uh, wtf? are you brain damaged? "Your first comment demonstrates you do not have a fundamental understanding of thermal dynamics. " you keep saying this stuff, but have yet to quote me on where I went wrong to claim I have no education in thermodynamics (which you couldn't even spell correctly by the way). " None of these issues would have been the thoughts of anyone having completed the first year of Pre-ME anywhere in the world. And if you had done even the simplest point-n-click reading, you would have known all this. Therefore you claim you did a deep dive is falsified. " exactly, ME has nothing to do with climate, and thus my knowledge of climate is not proof of ME degree, or lack thereof. Your argument is childishly stupid. You're trying to claim lack of knowledge in climate is proof a person has no degree in an unrelated topic. This is HIGHLY unscientific on your part. this is woke communist logic. "Your written definition of Hypothesis above is completely wrong and further proves my point. " what i wrote is not THE definition of a hypothesis, it's how it works. But we' know you're too stupid to grasp that. Here is the actual definition of a hypotheis though, "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation." Yet you claim, "A scientific Hypothesis is very much not a guess. It does not need additional research. " in direct opposition to the formal scientific definition. And yes, a hypothesis MUST be researched, tested, and validated, to be true. It MUST be challenged and get repeatable results each time it is challenged to remain true. "Once this group is well convinced their equation cannot be disproven, only then can the publish a Hypothesis." wrong, that's woke gov "science". You pose the hypothesis, then test it to verify it holds up, then subject it to criticism and counters to see if it continues to hold up. As the REAL definition states, the hypothesis is the STARTING POINT. "Every claim you make is fully discredited." simply stating your unfounded opinions doesn't make it true. But I see how the woke indoctrination you received works. "I have provided detailed proof of everything in extensive detail." and I have refuted you at every turn.
    1
  5737. 1
  5738. 1
  5739. 1
  5740. 1
  5741. 1
  5742. 1
  5743. 1
  5744. 1
  5745. 1
  5746. 1
  5747. 1
  5748. 1
  5749. 1
  5750. 1
  5751. 1
  5752. 1
  5753. 1
  5754. 1
  5755. 1
  5756. 1
  5757. 1
  5758. 1
  5759. 1
  5760. 1
  5761. 1
  5762. 1
  5763. 1
  5764. 1
  5765. 1
  5766. 1
  5767. 1
  5768. 1
  5769. 1
  5770. 1
  5771. 1
  5772. 1
  5773. 1
  5774. 1
  5775. 1
  5776. 1
  5777. 1
  5778. 1
  5779. 1
  5780. 1
  5781. 1
  5782. 1
  5783. 1
  5784. 1
  5785. 1
  5786. 1
  5787. 1
  5788. 1
  5789. 1
  5790. 1
  5791. 1
  5792. 1
  5793. 1
  5794. 1
  5795. 1
  5796. 1
  5797. 1
  5798. 1
  5799. 1
  5800. 1
  5801. 1
  5802. 1
  5803. 1
  5804. 1
  5805. 1
  5806. 1
  5807. 1
  5808. 1
  5809. 1
  5810. 1
  5811. 1
  5812. 1
  5813. 1
  5814. 1
  5815. 1
  5816. 1
  5817. 1
  5818. 1
  5819. 1
  5820.  @jmw1500  90% of PhDs were worthless to begin with. A PhD today is as valuable as toilet paper. decades ago it used to mean something. And some of the smartest people who ever lived weren't PhDs. You can also get a PhD in engineering, and theoretical physics isn't as hard as you try to claim. the problem is people chasing crap theories. Many of the most famous physicists never used any breath taking math. They simply had good ideas and theories, and successfully proved them. But to have the right theory in the first place, before doing the math, is half the battle. today, most physicists are chasing their tails as they lack basic comprehension of critical ideas, concepts and theories. I teach theoretical physics to kids and college students all the time. Everyone thinks it's super hard, until I break down the key concepts for them, and they are always shocked they can understand it. It's no different than people drumming up fear of calculus, when in reality I have been able to teach calculus 1 to kids as young as 6th grade who haven't even taken Algebra 1 yet. It's stupid easy. Engineering is one of the sciences. Applied Science is most accurate. But as engineers, we're constantly inventing things that never existed, posing hypothesis and testing them. And some engineers have made huge advances in our understanding of physics and other sciences throughout history. Engineers just go about it from a different angle, but how we do it is much closer to how Newton and Einstein came up with the theories they are most famous for, than how modern physicists pursue their crap theories.
    1
  5821. 1
  5822. 1
  5823. 1
  5824. 1
  5825. 1
  5826. 1
  5827. 1
  5828. 1
  5829. 1
  5830. 1
  5831. 1
  5832. 1
  5833. 1
  5834. 1
  5835. 1
  5836. 1
  5837. 1
  5838. 1
  5839. 1
  5840. 1
  5841. 1
  5842. 1
  5843. 1
  5844. 1
  5845. 1
  5846. 1
  5847. 1
  5848. 1
  5849. 1
  5850. 1
  5851. 1
  5852. 1
  5853. 1
  5854. 1
  5855. 1
  5856. 1
  5857. 1
  5858. 1
  5859. 1
  5860. 1
  5861. 1
  5862. 1
  5863. 1
  5864. 1
  5865. 1
  5866. 1
  5867. 1
  5868. 1
  5869. 1
  5870. 1
  5871. 1
  5872. 1
  5873. 1
  5874. 1
  5875. 1
  5876. 1
  5877. 1
  5878. 1
  5879. 1
  5880. 1
  5881. 1
  5882. 1
  5883. 1
  5884.  @alexturnbackthearmy1907  All german manufacturing used manufacturing machinery made in the US. Same for the British. Neither the Germans nor the UK at the time could match the level of quality of machining and machinery the US was producing in the 1930s and 1940s. And so they were all buying their mills, lathes and such from the US to manufacture their aircraft, tanks, engines, etc. The US was so good, they even improved the RR Merlin engines when produced under license by Packard. They tweaked things in the design to make them even higher quality and better for manufacturing. The US had such high tolerances on some of it's radial engines, they didn't even use seals or gaskets to keep the oil in. The Germans struggled before and during the war to match teh US and UK engine cooling technology. the UK an US could produce high pressure radiators to cool their engines. By operating at higher pressures they could use smaller radiators to cool their engines more efficiently, reducing weight and drag. The Germans struggled to achieve similar, and there attempts led to the radiator pipes expanding like balloons under pressure, blocking all air flow and preventing cooling. This prevented the German engines from achieving even higher performance numbers than they did. The US could mass produce tanks, aircraft, ships, and weapons on a speed and scale no one else could match, all while achieving higher performance and reliability and serviceability than the Germans could do. Yes, some parts were cast, and other parts machined, and other parts stamped, and other forged, etc. You can't single out one example vehicle and make a basis for judging everything else. The US were welding all sorts of things, bolting other things, etc. Engine parts are still cast today, as are other parts. it just depends upon the design, requirements, and cost effectiveness and speed of production.
    1
  5885. 1
  5886. 1
  5887. 1
  5888. 1
  5889. 1
  5890. 1
  5891. 1
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. 1
  5897. 1
  5898. 1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902. 1
  5903. 1
  5904. 1
  5905. 1
  5906. 1
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 1
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921. 1
  5922. 1
  5923. 1
  5924. 1
  5925. 1
  5926. 1
  5927. 1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940. 1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951. 1
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957. 1
  5958. 1
  5959. 1
  5960. 1
  5961. 1
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. 1
  5966. 1
  5967. 1
  5968. 1
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981. 1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. 1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995. 1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998. 1
  5999. 1
  6000. 1
  6001. 1
  6002. 1
  6003. 1
  6004. 1
  6005. 1
  6006. 1
  6007. 1
  6008. 1
  6009. 1
  6010. 1
  6011. 1
  6012. 1
  6013. 1
  6014.  @XERXESDOE  no, I replied to one comment, before seeing you commented again. so I ended up replying separately. And yet you think that's some sort of a diss... "I’ve cited multiple paragraphs, you literally cannot put a link on YouTube comments anymore either. " you can use links. and yes, you've typed stuff. but refuse to list the titles and specifics of where you got that info from. Do they not teach citations anymore? did you fail school and never learn how to type a citation? Title, author, date, etc.? "Sorry you’re just wrong. Literally use google. Stop trying to argue something Google can disprove in under a minute." that's an invalid argument, you cannot simply assert something as true without supporting evidence. "if me telling you it’s shocking people don’t know stuff, the internet isn’t for you." you really can't read, can you? comprehension, it's a skill you lack. It means I already knew, hence not shocked. You might want to call up your elementary school teachers and as for a refresher in reading. "what makes the argument invalid? " Lack of facts supported by evidence. Lack of citation of sources for independent verifications of your claims. I have over 300 books on WW2 aviation history, and another 100+ books n aerospace engineering in my living room library. I've never come across the claim the FW190D9 was superior to the P-51 in any of my decades of research. So if you share your source, I can look it up and verify your claims. Feelings and emotions have no place in a debate about facts. Keep yours and your childish whining to yourself. "I just get the feeling you’re a very bored troll. No way you’re on the internet spouting stuff you can disprove with a single search." no, I stop people like you from spreading lies. If it's so easy to verify, then why can't you cite a Single Source to verify your claims?
    1
  6015. 1
  6016. 1
  6017. 1
  6018. 1
  6019. 1
  6020. 1
  6021. 1
  6022. 1
  6023. 1
  6024. 1
  6025. 1
  6026. 1
  6027. 1
  6028. 1
  6029. 1
  6030. 1
  6031. 1
  6032. 1
  6033. 1
  6034. 1
  6035. 1
  6036. 1
  6037. 1
  6038. 1
  6039. 1
  6040. 1
  6041. 1
  6042. 1
  6043. 1
  6044. 1
  6045. 1
  6046. 1
  6047. 1
  6048. 1
  6049. 1
  6050. 1
  6051. 1
  6052. 1
  6053. 1
  6054. 1
  6055. 1
  6056. 1
  6057. 1
  6058.  @rebelliousfew  You claim BVR is not a dogfight, contrary to ALL evidence. You claimed to know fighter pilots who agree with you. So it's on YOU to share those names. It's not my job to prove your argument for you. "And why must I give names when these are people you are unable to contact, let alone know of?" because you're lying, and this statement only proves that. Doesn't matter if I know them personally, there are records of every fighter pilot, I can look them up. "You refuse to provide facts yourself, but if you wanna keep deluding yourself, simply because you, supposedly, served then that’s your issue. " What facts have I refused to provide? And nothing I claimed is based solely on my service, nor conditional on my credentials. I only brought it up when you made a false claim about me having never served. I was only refuting that specific lie. " To me, it sounds like you were not a pilot in either branch, so why don’t you leave the terminology and explanations to the people who have flown? " I am both an airplane and helicopter pilot, and flight instructor of both. And as a civilian I am now an Aerospace and Mechanical engineer, who even does work for NASA and others. I also am an amateur historian, with emphasis on military and aviation history. So, I have flown, I teach aerodynamics, aircraft design, engineering, history, and more. I also fly, teach people to fly, and design airplanes. What flying experience do you have? you try to discredit me for not having flight experience and military experience, both of which are false. So what is YOUR military and flight experience that gives you teh right to speak on this (according to your own arguments)? " I’ll say it again, the various pilots I have previously spoke to ALL unanimously agree that a dogfight occurs within visual range, and I’m quite avid in military aviation myself, a bit of a nerd if you will, and I have personally never heard the term of a dogfight being used for BVR engagements. You like telling me I’m wrong, but can you prove it?" you may be a "nerd" about aviation, but you are decades away from knowing half as much about it as I do. Yes, BVR is a dogfight. "A dogfight, or dog fight, is an aerial battle between fighter aircraft that is conducted at close range. Modern terminology for air-to-air combat is air combat maneuvering (ACM), which refers to tactical situations requiring the use of individual basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) to attack or evade one or more opponents." BVR requires an individual pilot to engage in, "tactical situations requiring the use of individual basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) to attack or evade one or more opponents." if you don't maneuver in relation to your opponent in BVR with the proper tactics, you will die. the range has increased, but maneuvering remains. The tactics used in BVR are also used inside visual range prior to a merge. And in team tactics, you can be in a merge with one opponent and BVR with another opponent at the same time. And both threats have to be out maneuvered. "Beyond Visual Range combat ( BVR ) is a kind of aerial warfare which is fought at a range the pilot can´t see his enemy with his own eyes" yet, you can see an opponent miles before a merge occurs, and must use BVR in that interim distance, while fighting within visual range, using the tactics of BVR. Making BVR a visual range fight as well. People regularly refer to it as a "BVR Dogfight". Also, many aircraft have IR/visible cameras to visually see their opponents even in BVR. Using radar is no different than using goggles, scope, or binoculars to enhance the biological limitations of the human and allow them to see further. The problem here is people fail to define terms appropriately and try to over classify things. It's a never ending problem of scientists and corporate bean counters to over classify everything and then create far too many irregularities and contradictions. A definition is valid if and only if its premises guarantee the conclusion. As you can see, I have proven the definition of BVR and Dogfight you use does not hold up in a lot of cases and ways. Webster dictionary definition of a Dogfight: "a fight between two or more fighter planes usually at close quarters" Notice is says USUALLY, not ALWAYS. That is a formal (official) dictionary definition of the term in the English language. And it holds up to scrutiny as it allows for BVR situations, and doesn't create issues in visual ranges beyond merge distances.
    1
  6059.  @rebelliousfew  wrong. that unofficial definition, never defined "close range", and as I proved as well, with visual range scenarios, that the definition was invalid. And then I cited an OFFICIAL definition that backed up what I said. But nice try cherry picking. "You originally made the claim that BVR can be a dogfight, not me, I simply stated it isn’t and asked for your evidence. So go ahead, what is your evidence? " I cited the defintion of a dogfight from an official dictionary, you conveniently chose to ignore it. "All you did was quote an English dictionary" Yeah, that's the official source for definitions? Where are you getting YOUR claims from? Name YOUR sources. " Either way, I don’t need some English dictionary definition to define what a dogfight is, all I’m concerned is with what the pilots themselves refer to it as" So, you admit I am right, as I am supported by the official defintion,a nd you reject facts in favor of baseless opinions of random unqualified people who only exist in your imagination. "All you did was quote...part of a Wikipedia article" Yes, and Wikipedia is not a valid source, so we can't use its defintion. "You claim this, but then turn around and say that a dogfight can occur at BVR, despite this part of your quote being contradictory to your claims. " No, I didn't claim it, I cited an example of a definition idiots like you would google and cite, and proved it supported my claims. I then went on to cite a legit official primary source, which you rejected, in favor of your "feelings".
    1
  6060. 1
  6061. 1
  6062. 1
  6063. 1
  6064. 1
  6065. 1
  6066. 1
  6067. 1
  6068. 1
  6069. 1
  6070. 1
  6071. 1
  6072. 1
  6073. 1
  6074. 1
  6075. 1
  6076. 1
  6077. 1
  6078. 1
  6079. 1
  6080. 1
  6081. 1
  6082. 1
  6083. 1
  6084. 1
  6085. 1
  6086. 1
  6087. 1
  6088.  @B_Estes_Undegöetz  I am a CFI-I in both Airplanes and Helicopters, and a Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer. Wing Loading is very relevant. When pulling Gs, your wing loading is increasing. The aircraft is effectively getting heavier. The wings can only supply so much lift at a given airspeed, and so to maintain flight at a given altitude must increase AOA to compensate as the G-load increases. This puts your AOA closer to its max angle at a higher airspeed. Now, a 60deg banked turn, while descending and not trying to hold altitude, induces how much G-load on your aircraft? 2G? No, only 1G is on your aircraft. The 2Gs in a 60deg banked turn only applies when maintaining altitude in the turn. This is something many pilots and CFIs struggle with. Another concept many pilots and CFIs alike struggle with, is the concept of maneuvering speed, and why maneuvering speed increases with weight. Do you understand what an Accelerated Stall is, and what causes it? Also, an airplanes minimum published flying speed (stall speed, Vs and Vso), is calculated for Max Gros Weight. But if you lighten the plane up, you can stall the aircraft well below stalling speed, depending upon how much payload capacity your aircraft has relative to the weight of the airplane. I would demonstrate this with student pilots even in a lightly loaded C172 by flying slow flight with the airspeed dropping to zero (position error combined with standard instruments not working well below ~40kts). But we were still flying and maintaining altitude, and the airspeed needle visibly went lower than published stall speed before dropping away to zero. Can you cite a single place in any of the FAA publications where it says, “disturbed airflow over the wings”? I'd like to see what they have to say on teh issue. What causes disturbed airflow over the wings? Did you know turbulent flow, and flow separation over the wings is occurring Well above stalling speed? What makes a "laminar flow airfoil" different from other airfoil shapes? How does curvature of a wing produce lift? I bet you don't actually know. It's not Bernoulli's principle, as to use Bernoulli you have to have 3 conditions (one of which doesn't exist in real world, as well as constriction of airflow (venturi effect), which has been shown not to be a factor. There is a far better explanation out there, a new principle, by a much younger Aerospace engineer who is alive today. Can you explain the role and purpose of flaps, and what effect they have on stall speed? Most pilots and CFIs cannot. They only know the book answer and only know how and when to use them when their checklist and/or procedures tell them to.
    1
  6089. 1
  6090. 1
  6091. 1
  6092. 1
  6093. 1
  6094. 1
  6095. 1
  6096. 1
  6097. 1
  6098. 1
  6099. 1
  6100. 1
  6101.  @MatthewVanston  What? Russia only survived Germany's initial attack with US help, and Hitler's stupidity. Then Russia barely held on for years in the midst of Germany splitting its attention on England and Africa and the Mediterranean. If the US hadn't taught Russia how to mass produce tanks and helped them build factories, and hadn't provided Lend Lease to feed and arm its forces, and the Allies hadn't bleed Germany in Africa, Italy, England, and elsewhere Germany would have better been able to take on Russia. And even then, with all that help for Russia, Russia still lost 24mil people in WW2 fighting the Germans and being an Axis aggressor against Poland, and Finland. Like Italy, Russia started the war, and Russia started WW2 on the Axis, not with the allies. And Russia, unlike the Allies, kept all the countries it captured in WW2, and became an aggressor worse than Hitler and Germany in the end. How many people did the Russians kill in Europe during the Cold War? How many did they kill in Gulags? How many political purges? Russia killed more people than Hitler did, started WW2, was a ember of the Axis powers, and struggled to stand against Germany even with help from the US and with Germany fighting a war on multiple fronts when Russia only had a single front to deal with. Russia is no victor or hero of WW2, they are the villain, and many Allies wanted to attack Russia before the war ended, and even the Germans wanted to join the allies at the end of the war and continue the fight against Russia. And then Russia proceeded to align and ally itself with dictators and despots around the world and threatening the world with annihilation. Russia did nothing to win the war in the Pacific either. They did nothing in Africa or the Atlantic. They had no strategic bombing capability, and benefited wholly from the US/UK strategic bombing of Germany from the very early days. Russia couldn't even defeat Finland. Russia went up against countries with little to no real industrial might and still got demolished. The T-34 was based on US tank technology. Factories were built with US help. P-40, P-39, A-20, and other aircraft were provided to the Russians which they used to great success and continued to use after WW2 into the Korean war. The Russia airforce was so bad that German Aces racked up massive kill tallies with ease. When those same aces transferred to the Western front to face US/UK fighters, they suffered mental break downs or were quickly killed in short order. Many of the top surviving aces of Germany in WW2 never faced the US/UK fighters very much, if at all, in WW2 for one reason or another. The US lost only a few hundred thousand people in all of WW2, despite fighting almost everywhere in every capacity. Russia lost 24mil, and estimated 12mil of those were killed by their own gov (the Russian gov).
    1
  6102. 1
  6103. 1
  6104. 1
  6105. 1
  6106. 1
  6107. 1
  6108. 1
  6109. 1
  6110.  @amywalsh2001  One thing that's fun to look at is PhD thesis papers. The ones people got PhDs for submitting. And the number of them I look at that draw conclusions from inconclusive data, have inadequate sample sizes, have no control group/s, do not isolate enough variables, don't have a diverse enough sample group for what is being evaluated, etc is alarming. These failures are core fundamentals of any scientific study. Violating any of them invalidates a study or calls into question its results. And yet people are actually getting degrees with this crap. Ever seen one of the many studies that shows that at least 60% of all published research is invalid? They know this by testing the studies to see if they are repeatable, or by identifying the major flaws among the types I mentioned. There is even a Nobel Prize in physics that was awarded to a physicist for his study on Dark Matter that was invalid, had anyone actually bothered to review his results and his conclusions. People have called for him to give the Nobel Prize back, but he refuses. But no, you do Not need unlimited access to all these papers. Why would you want to read all these garbage papers anyways? focus on the ones that truly matter that people have validated. But even better than looking at other people's work, do your OWN work. That was the Whole point of college after all, to learn skills to go Advance human knowledge, to contribute something New to society. College is Not about retreading ground others have already covered. Stop following in the footsteps of others and actually contribute something New to society. Advance a field of understanding, invent something, discover something, propose a Wholly new and unique theory about something. Stop being a follower and repeating what's already been done. Truly intelligent people don't have to be lead. They seek knowledge and discoveries all on their own, no matter the circumstances they are in. They find a way, they devise new understandings regardless what everyone else is doing.
    1
  6111. 1
  6112. 1
  6113. 1
  6114. 1
  6115. 1
  6116. 1
  6117. 1
  6118. 1
  6119. 1
  6120. 1
  6121. 1
  6122. 1
  6123. 1
  6124. 1
  6125. 1
  6126. 1
  6127. 1
  6128. 1
  6129. 1
  6130. 1
  6131. 1
  6132. 1
  6133. 1
  6134. 1
  6135. ​ @AnneofAllTrades  Yes, I agree completely with this. I actually tutor many people in math because of this. I'm of the opinion that people with degrees in math and physics should not be allowed to teach math except in topics beyond Calculus 3 and Differential Equations (the highest math most engineers and other Bachelors in STEM require). They tend to be too good, too intuitive at math, and have insufficient empathy with their students' struggles. They cannot relate to their students struggles and cannot present the material in an effective manner as a result. I'm a Mechanical Engineer and a Flight Instructor, who was always top of my class in math, but still struggled with it and had to learn it same as everyone else. I never feared math, I've always done well at math, but I'm not a natural at it either. But more than that, I have a talent for seeing the world through other peoples' eyes, and understanding why they are struggling, and tailoring my instruction accordingly on the fly. I've always attributed this elevated level of empathy of mine to being an avid reader of books, both novels and technical. I've been going through math curriculum from the basics all the way through Calc3/Diff Eq. I think I could teach kids all the math you need up to Algebra in only 2 years of school. The rest of the time would be spent practicing. I've also been able to teach kids basic Algebra as young as 2nd grade, and Calculus 1 to high school freshmen who are still in Algebra 1. Over the years I've come across key areas and skills students struggle with, and a series of easily remedied common mistakes people make. I focus on building these skills, avoiding the easy mistakes, and teaching real-world math and applications to help with reasoning and problem solving. But at the end of the day, sufficient amounts of practice is the only way to really get it and make it stick long term.
    1
  6136. 1
  6137. 1
  6138. 1
  6139. 1
  6140. 1
  6141. 1
  6142. 1
  6143. 1
  6144. 1
  6145. 1
  6146. 1
  6147.  @thesugardaddy7037  "You have to have ALOT of things line up for you to "do whatever you want". " Not true at all for most things. only for very elite and rare things. "How many little kids say they wanna be an astronaut when they are older? How many actually accomplish it?" not because they couldn't, but because they refused to put in the level of time, commitment, and effort necessary to achieve it. But those kids who DID commit to it sufficiently, achieved it. "The ones who became astronauts were the ones who put the work in but also were intelligent enough naturally to make the cut. " not true. I have worked with NASA, and a 20yr NASA Astronaut trainer I knew even recommended I apply to the program because she said I was a perfect fit. She trained astronauts for 20yrs, so she would know. But we had discussed the types of people who apply and succeed and about how many that did get through that shouldn't have, or did not get through that should have. Intelligence is not as critical as one thinks. Money is far more important, especially these days. But many astronauts had questionable intelligence. "The person who isn't intelligent enough can put in all of the work he wants, it doesn't change the fact that he just isn't smart enough. " Wrong, it means they didn't put in enough EFFORT. or they kept stubbornly making mistakes they failed/refused to fix that stopped them from succeeding. Few people realize just how much effort it takes to succeed. "Simply "putting in the work" doesn't work if you just aren't good at something." 100% false. if you try hard enough, long enough, with actual intent to learn, then eventually you WILL figure it out and become good at it. Yes, some people have to work harder to achieve teh same level of proficiency, but when they do match teh more natural person, they will actually be superior to the person who learned it more easily, for teh same level of skill and proficiency. As the person who struggled more will understand the topic and issues far more deeply and intimately by the time they finally figure it out.
    1
  6148. 1
  6149. 1
  6150. 1
  6151. 1
  6152. 1
  6153. 1
  6154. 1
  6155. 1
  6156. 1
  6157. 1
  6158. 1
  6159. 1
  6160. 1
  6161. 1
  6162. 1
  6163. 1
  6164. 1
  6165.  @old-pete  you are missing my entire point. It went right over your head. Let's say to power an entire nation, we needed 1000 gas-fired power plants. Now you go and replace those with 1,000,000 wind turbines. But now, over the course of every 20yrs, you have to tear down and rebuild every single one of those turbines. You have to rebuild the grid 100%, every 20yrs. This is NOT feasible nor sustainable. Wind power is such a minor fraction of total global energy production right now, yet already contributes nearly 10% of all global plastics waste annually. If we converted everyone to 100% wind power magically, then our annual global plastic waste would increase something like ten fold over what it already is today. And every 20yrs we'd have to rebuild from scratch. Look at the wind turbine graveyards all over the western countries, the incinerators that burn old turbines, the ones that fail prematurely, the number of birds already being decimated by turbines that are still only a fraction of energy production. How many birds would die annually if we multiplied the number of turbines by 20? Wind turbines also disrupt local weather patterns and rainfall, creating droughts downwind , and causing flooding in places that never used to get so much rain. We can already see these effects, but they'd get so much worse with 20x as many wind farms everywhere. Traditional power plants are cheaper, longer lasting, and more sustainable. We don't have to rebuild the entire grid every couple decades either.
    1
  6166.  @old-pete  "Well maintained they can run longer than 20 years." And many will still fail, get destroyed by factors beyond maintenance's control.... "Wind provides nearly as much electricity as nuclear power worldwide." Only becasue Nuclear plants are being torn down by idiots like you. And govs basically ban them from being built. Few new ones have been built in the time I've been alive. "You do not replace the grid, you replace the power plants." Yes, that's what I've been saying. Congratulations, you can read. "Windturbines are industrial sized mass production and are easy to replace." No, they are not. Not when you have enough of them to power the US. the manpower required to replace/maintain all of them would be staggering. And we'd need all new grid infrastructure to get power where wind turbines don't work (such as where I live) "I suggest you check your plastic waste numbers, you are off by at least a factor 100." if you could refute it, you would. "Fossil fuel powerplants kill 35times more birds for each produced kWh." how do you figure that? What is your evidence? "Coal power plants produce tentimes more waste than windturbines for each produced kWh just by counting the coal ash, which is indeed toxic and radioactive." here I was talking about nuclear and gas power. nice try at a red herring loser. "The floodings get worse because of climate change, not windturbines." nope, try again. CO2 doesn't control temps. and CO2 doesn't change rainfall patterns. Wind turbines change rainfall by sucking energy out of the atmosphere, causing wind patterns to change, and rain to drop upwind of where it normally would have in places that never used to get that much rainfall. CO2 can't do that. One positive side effect, wind turbines have disrupted tornado formation. Your refusal to face facts doesn't make me wrong. "Turbine graveyards are the responsibility of the countries that allow them. Other countries do not. The blades can all be recycled." nice cop out. Except, you can't recycle fiberglass composites. They are either stored, buried, or chopped up and burned in incinerators to make electrcity. If you know of a recycling method that is scalable and sustainable, name it.
    1
  6167. 1
  6168. 1
  6169. 1
  6170. 1
  6171. 1
  6172. 1
  6173. 1
  6174. 1
  6175. 1
  6176. 1
  6177. 1
  6178. 1
  6179. 1
  6180. 1
  6181. 1
  6182. 1
  6183. 1
  6184. 1
  6185. 1
  6186. 1
  6187. 1
  6188. 1
  6189. 1
  6190. 1
  6191. 1
  6192. 1
  6193. 1
  6194. 1
  6195. 1
  6196. 1
  6197. 1
  6198. 1
  6199. 1
  6200. 1
  6201. 1
  6202. 1
  6203. 1
  6204. 1
  6205. 1
  6206. 1
  6207. 1
  6208. 1
  6209. 1
  6210. 1
  6211. 1
  6212. 1
  6213. 1
  6214. 1
  6215. 1
  6216. 1
  6217. 1
  6218. 1
  6219. 1
  6220.  @stevennguyen4993  "These are not considered hobbies in a sense that you won't have much use for engineering knowledge and skills when you're working full time as an attorney for a pharmaceutical giant" not true. Engineering has been a hobby of mine for years, before becoming an engineer, and i still do it as a hobby on the side. I also dabble in law and political theory too. I've had multiple lawyers try to get me to go into law, one offered me a job too because he was so impressed. Understanding law can be extremely useful in business and such. I've put my legal knowledge to use more than once in more than one field of work (and again, offered a job as a result of those efforts, but turned it down). Aerodynamics and theoretical physics are additional hobbies of mine. As are history, with an emphasis on military history. I am also a skilled and proven tactician with combat experience in which I put my ideas to the test personally, with unmatched success. I am also an Airplane and Helicopter CFII. I was an Adjunct Instructor at a college for a bit. I was asked by three of my professors to become a professor of engineering, but I turned them all down. I have also been asked to be a history professor and a Math professor more than once each. I've made a passion/hobby of trying to teach math better to more students at all levels. I spent over 10 years teaching math to college students to test and refine my methods. Even college professors mistake me for being a professor when they see me teaching. Students think I'm a professor, and I've even had various other college staff mistakenly think I was employed by the college as a professor. I love teaching, but I have great success by doing it MY way, not theirs. Law, math, history, engineering knowledge, etc, all make me more adept at understanding business issues, and being able to better read the market, trends, evaluate risks, and understand cost/benefit, etc. Physics, math, and engineering all overlap. Engineers make good soldiers. Soldiers make disciplined workers and good leaders. I have many hobbies, from flying, to engineering, to history, to Math, to physics, to philosophy, to political/economic theory, to racing, to firearms, to military strategy/tactics/logistics, and much more. These are great skills. But so are leadership (military, business, teaching...), handwriting, communication (military, aviation, HAM radio, teaching, speaking...), negotiating, empathy, etc. if you can't see how such skills and hobbies have value, you are not fit to be giving others advice.
    1
  6221. 1
  6222. 1
  6223. 1
  6224. 1
  6225. 1
  6226. 1
  6227. 1
  6228. 1
  6229. 1
  6230. 1
  6231. 1
  6232. 1
  6233. 1
  6234. 1
  6235. 1
  6236. 1
  6237. 1
  6238. 1
  6239. 1
  6240. 1
  6241. 1
  6242. 1
  6243. 1
  6244. 1
  6245. 1
  6246. 1
  6247. 1
  6248. 1
  6249. 1
  6250. 1
  6251. 1
  6252. 1
  6253. 1
  6254. 1
  6255. 1
  6256. 1
  6257. 1
  6258. 1
  6259. 1
  6260. 1
  6261. 1
  6262. 1
  6263. 1
  6264. 1
  6265. 1
  6266. 1
  6267. 1
  6268. 1
  6269. 1
  6270. 1
  6271. 1
  6272. 1
  6273. 1
  6274. 1
  6275. 1
  6276. 1
  6277. 1
  6278. 1
  6279. 1
  6280. 1
  6281. 1
  6282. 1
  6283. 1
  6284. 1
  6285. 1
  6286. 1
  6287. 1
  6288. 1
  6289. 1
  6290. 1
  6291. 1
  6292. 1
  6293. 1
  6294. 1
  6295. 1
  6296. 1
  6297. 1
  6298. 1
  6299. 1
  6300. 1
  6301. 1
  6302. 1
  6303. 1
  6304. 1
  6305. 1
  6306. 1
  6307. 1
  6308. 1
  6309. 1
  6310. 1
  6311. 1
  6312. 1
  6313. 1
  6314. 1
  6315. 1
  6316. 1
  6317. 1
  6318. 1
  6319. 1
  6320. 1
  6321. 1
  6322. 1
  6323. 1
  6324. 1
  6325. 1
  6326. 1
  6327. 1
  6328. 1
  6329. 1
  6330. 1
  6331. 1
  6332. 1
  6333. 1
  6334. 1
  6335. 1
  6336. 1
  6337. 1
  6338. 1
  6339. 1
  6340. 1
  6341. 1
  6342. 1
  6343. 1
  6344. 1
  6345. 1
  6346. 1
  6347. 1
  6348. 1
  6349. 1
  6350. 1
  6351. 1
  6352. 1
  6353. 1
  6354. 1
  6355. 1
  6356. 1
  6357. 1
  6358. 1
  6359. 1
  6360. 1
  6361. 1
  6362. 1
  6363. 1
  6364. 1
  6365. 1
  6366. 1
  6367. 1
  6368. 1
  6369. 1
  6370. 1
  6371. 1
  6372. 1
  6373. 1
  6374. 1
  6375.  @beastnas69  "I was talking about making college an elite thing again lol people haven’t realized they can’t afford it." I think you deeply misunderstand the issue. College was MORE affordable in the past than it is today. What made college "elite" back then? Colleges had Limited admissions. And only the SMARTEST could get in. Money wasn't what determined admission, it was intelligence. to get in you had to be in the top percentage of the population intellectually. When I was in high school, you had to be in teh top 30% of you graduating class to even be considered for applying to college. and then, students would have to write essays, take tests, and apply to multiple colleges in the hopes that maybe One college would accept them. Families and schools celebrated publicly when a student was accepted to a college as it was a big deal for the community. Many students had to apply to 5 or more colleges just to get a single acceptance letter, and some never got any acceptance letters. And then a rare few of us got multiple acceptance letters and we got to decide which offer to accept. I was even offered scholarships by a few colleges to try to entice me to choose them. During high school graduation, the town made a big deal of my college acceptance and announced it specifically to the entire town, as I was accepted for Aerospace at a rather prestigious engineering school with a scholarship. Getting a degree in engineering was far more prestigious back in the day than it is now. Engineers used to be revered. Nowadays everyone is accepted, so long as you can "afford" it and they have enough seats. but there are so many colleges now to choose from that there is no lack of seats available. But by letting anyone in, the quality of education is necessarily poor, save as when "no child left behind" decimated public education. "Just because you can get an own loan does not mean you can afford. People are starting to wake up" Waking up is not the same as turning things around through corrective action.
    1
  6376. 1
  6377. 1
  6378. 1
  6379. 1
  6380. 1
  6381. 1
  6382. 1
  6383. 1
  6384. 1
  6385. 1
  6386. 1
  6387. 1
  6388. 1
  6389. 1
  6390. 1
  6391. 1
  6392. 1
  6393. 1
  6394. 1
  6395. 1
  6396. 1
  6397. 1
  6398. 1
  6399. 1
  6400. 1
  6401. 1
  6402. 1
  6403. 1
  6404. 1
  6405. 1
  6406. 1
  6407. 1
  6408. 1
  6409. 1
  6410. 1
  6411. 1
  6412. 1
  6413. 1
  6414. 1
  6415. 1
  6416. 1
  6417. 1
  6418. 1
  6419. 1
  6420. 1
  6421. 1
  6422. 1
  6423. 1
  6424. 1
  6425. 1
  6426. 1
  6427. 1
  6428. 1
  6429. 1
  6430. 1
  6431. 1
  6432. 1
  6433. 1
  6434. 1
  6435. 1
  6436. 1
  6437. 1
  6438. 1
  6439. 1
  6440. 1
  6441. 1
  6442. 1
  6443. 1
  6444. 1
  6445. 1
  6446. 1
  6447. 1
  6448. 1
  6449. 1
  6450. 1
  6451. 1
  6452. 1
  6453. 1
  6454. 1
  6455. 1
  6456. 1
  6457. 1
  6458. 1
  6459. 1
  6460. 1
  6461. 1
  6462. 1
  6463. 1
  6464. 1
  6465. 1
  6466. 1
  6467. 1
  6468. 1
  6469. 1
  6470. 1
  6471. 1
  6472. 1
  6473. 1
  6474. 1
  6475. 1
  6476. 1
  6477. 1
  6478. 1
  6479. 1
  6480. 1
  6481. 1
  6482. 1
  6483. 1
  6484. 1
  6485. 1
  6486. 1
  6487. 1
  6488. 1
  6489. 1
  6490. 1
  6491. 1
  6492. 1
  6493. 1
  6494. 1
  6495. 1
  6496. 1
  6497. 1
  6498. 1
  6499. 1
  6500. 1
  6501. 1
  6502. 1
  6503. 1
  6504. 1
  6505. 1
  6506. 1
  6507. 1
  6508. 1
  6509. 1
  6510. 1
  6511. 1
  6512. 1
  6513. 1
  6514. 1
  6515. 1
  6516. 1
  6517. 1
  6518. 1
  6519. 1
  6520. 1
  6521.  @InTimeTraveller  "cars are never repaired by people who have no idea about cars," what an ignorant statement. what are you, 12yrs old? "In fact there are memes about your "friend who can do it cheaper" and with your car that's asking for trouble." and where do you think those memes come from? They are the result of people who have no clue what they are doing fixing cars. you just proved yourself wrong. but you know how to learn? by doing it and making mistakes. "The time when you could just repair a car by yourself at home was when the cars were relatively simple with very few interconnected systems compared to today, basically during the '50s or sth. Modern day cars are way too complex and integrate way too much electronics in order to be able to do that. And with electronic devices that's basically impossible if you have no electronics knowledge." wrong again. I fix my car all the time. Most electronics fixes are basic, things a child can do, including swapping out components. But yes, newer cars are getting so complex that even mechanics can no longer work on them, let alone the average person. But that wasn't the case in until the 2000s models of cars. 1990s and earlier cars were perfectly serviceable for the average person. I should know, I lived it and still own and fix such vehicles. you must be Gen Z. "Having an unskilled person being able to repair a device is a nice to have but not a must have. It's a luxury problem. " wrong again. for ALL of human history, being able to hire someone to fix things for you was LUXURY. Only in modern times has this lazy behavior become "normal". We grew up learning this stuff as kids. you haven't learned anything in childhood by comparison. "Let's first get to the point where most of our modern devices are repairable by repair shops and then worry about whether unskilled people can do it." That's how it USED to be, back when it was possible for unskilled labor to fix things. You ignorant fool. "BTW in factories either you have very strict procedures for operators or you train the operators first or both to manufacture or assemble the products. For repairs you actually have trained engineers." no, you do not. I am an engineer. I am FAR too expensive to waste my skills performing field service and repair. they literally hire unskilled people like you off the streets to fix things because you're cheap labor, and people like me have Far more important things to do.
    1
  6522. 1
  6523. 1
  6524. 1
  6525. 1
  6526. 1
  6527. 1
  6528. 1
  6529. 1
  6530. 1
  6531. 1
  6532. 1
  6533. 1
  6534. 1
  6535. 1
  6536. 1
  6537. 1
  6538. 1
  6539. 1
  6540. 1
  6541. 1
  6542. 1
  6543. 1
  6544. 1
  6545. 1
  6546. 1
  6547. 1
  6548. 1
  6549. 1
  6550. 1
  6551. 1
  6552. 1
  6553. 1
  6554. 1
  6555. 1
  6556. 1
  6557. 1
  6558. 1
  6559. 1
  6560. 1
  6561. 1
  6562. 1
  6563. 1
  6564. 1
  6565. 1
  6566. 1
  6567. 1
  6568. 1
  6569. 1
  6570. 1
  6571. 1
  6572. 1
  6573. 1
  6574.  @משה-ב1ט  Iron dome and such don't use superconductors, and both are based on technology older than me. Proven tech. you clearly are not a combat vet, or youd understand why superconductors wont hold up in combat on the types of nergy weapons i tested. How many eenergy weapons have you tested in actual combat? I've never said tech would never work, blah, blah, blah. you said that. you tried putting words in my mouth and are making false accusations. "In my experience, when a Yank "senior engineer" or whatever claims that a thing can't be done or won't work, that's pretty good indication in itself that the thing CAN be done and WILL work." then you don't know much about math nor physics. We're reaching the literal limits of the laws of physics now in many fields, including the one I work in. you are ignorant if you think there are no limits to technology. I bet you also think battery energy density will continue to increase forever too? "You keep forgetting that you've been a decade behind in the relevant technological areas since at least the turn of the century. " not even remotely true. Name one case example of this? wow, look at you going off ona tirade. Yes, DEI and crap is ruining colleges, but I'm not one of those morons, and we don't hire such people. we can't afford to in our industry. "We'll build the "impractical" system, then you'll buy the IP, slap a McDonnell logo on it, and pretend it's yours. That's how these things work." somebody is butt hurt and jealeous. Name an example fo this happening?
    1
  6575. 1
  6576. 1
  6577. 1
  6578. 1
  6579.  @OzixiThrill  "First things first - You overreacted to a joke. As in... WAY overreacted." Did I? are you sure? What is your evidence? how do you define "WAY overreacted"? I don't care if it's a joke, if it's a terrible joke. "Another case of you missing the point. Tell me, where did your rations and ammo come from, during those conflicts? Did you forage your own food? Did you barter for your own ammo? Or was there, oh I don't know, a continent sized country defended by oceans that was supplying you?" Yes, I have devised tactics that specifically call for foraging supplies, to achieve a specific objective. sometimes that's what you have to do, and we did perform our own unsanctioned "logisitics" operations and missions at times. "Another case of you missing the point. " in what way. you never provide a valid counter argument, you just ask questions and expect me to make your case for you. how about stating a single fact that can be verified that supports ANYTHING you siad? "Now, I considered agreeing with the other guy about how you've been lying about your background, but then... You managed to lose in Afghanistan, despite occupying the place for a decade. And somehow, that performance sits in line with this level of understanding of warfare." and this is how I know you have no clue and are losing. you are quick to whip out the ad hominems and other logical fallacies. You can doubt my background, but you can't disprove it, but I can prove it. but, now that calls into question YOUR background and qualifications, if you try to discredit mine. So state what makes you think you have any clue what you are saying is true. What experience are you drawing upon? we didn't lose in Afghanistan. We won with EASE. my unit and the US military won every battle and had the country under total control with no real casualties for years. Our bumbling idiot of a president prematurely pulled us out before teh country was stable and ready to stand alone. we pulled out, bu choice, not due to military defeat. the fact you can't even figure that out discredits literally any other claims you make about miltiary matters.
    1
  6580. 1
  6581. 1
  6582. 1
  6583. 1
  6584. 1
  6585. 1
  6586. 1
  6587. 1
  6588. 1
  6589. 1
  6590. 1
  6591. 1
  6592. 1
  6593.  @barnabusdoyle4930  "Another reason Abrams aren’t being used effectively in Ukraine is because, unlike the black flags we fought in the Middle East, Russia is actually capable of fighting back." wrong. if the US were in Ukraine, using M1 to attack Russia, they'd work just fine. We designed them for how we fight, and how we fight works. "The countermeasures Russia is using has benched the Abrams while other lighter tanks are still being used effectively in Ukraine at least to a degree. " you mean land mines taking out the tracks? Yeah, we have mine clearing capabilities that Ukraine lacks. " Drone warfare has seemed to have made heavy armor, at least the NATO designs significantly less effective in warfare." not at all. even RPGs just bounce off the Abrams. The Drones would need one hellacious warhead to penetrate a US abrams. But even more so, Drones only work in defensive warfare, not so much when US is on teh offensive. Also, Abrams and more in teh US military have HIGH powered jammers, preventing simple drones from approaching. They'd have to use those fiber ones, but to set them up requires teh US to not be on teh offensive, which wouldn't happen. We move too fast for the likes of Russia to respond properly. "How excited do you think Taiwan will be to be our pawn against China seeing how badly Ukraine is getting shredded by Russia?" Ukraine is getting shredded? how do you figure that? Russia is the one losing tens of thousands of armored vehicles in only a couple years.
    1
  6594. 1
  6595. 1
  6596. 1
  6597. 1
  6598. 1
  6599. 1
  6600. 1
  6601. 1
  6602. 1
  6603. 1
  6604. 1
  6605. 1
  6606. 1
  6607. 1
  6608. 1
  6609. 1
  6610. 1
  6611. 1
  6612. 1
  6613. 1
  6614. 1
  6615. 1
  6616. 1
  6617. 1
  6618. 1
  6619. 1
  6620. 1
  6621. 1
  6622. 1
  6623. 1
  6624. 1
  6625. 1
  6626. 1
  6627. 1
  6628. 1
  6629. 1
  6630. 1
  6631. 1
  6632. 1
  6633. 1
  6634. 1
  6635. 1
  6636. 1
  6637. 1
  6638. 1
  6639. 1
  6640. 1
  6641. 1
  6642. 1
  6643. 1
  6644. 1
  6645. 1
  6646. 1
  6647. 1
  6648. 1
  6649. 1
  6650. 1
  6651. 1
  6652. 1
  6653. 1
  6654. 1
  6655. 1
  6656. 1
  6657. 1
  6658. 1
  6659. 1
  6660. 1
  6661. 1
  6662. 1
  6663. 1
  6664. 1
  6665. 1
  6666. 1
  6667. 1
  6668. 1
  6669. 1
  6670. 1
  6671. 1
  6672. 1
  6673. 1
  6674. 1
  6675. 1
  6676. 1
  6677. 1
  6678. 1
  6679. 1
  6680. 1
  6681. 1
  6682. 1
  6683. 1
  6684. 1
  6685. 1
  6686. 1
  6687. 1
  6688. 1
  6689. 1
  6690. 1
  6691. 1
  6692. 1
  6693. 1
  6694. 1
  6695. 1
  6696. 1
  6697. 1
  6698. 1
  6699. 1
  6700. 1
  6701. 1
  6702. 1
  6703. 1
  6704. 1
  6705. 1
  6706. 1
  6707. 1
  6708. 1
  6709. 1
  6710. Correct. They buy mansions on the coast, fly private jets, live lavish and energy intensive lives, while telling the poor they aren't poor enough. Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
    1
  6711. 1
  6712. 1
  6713. 1
  6714. 1
  6715. 1
  6716. 1
  6717. 1
  6718. 1
  6719. 1
  6720. 1
  6721. 1
  6722. 1
  6723. 1
  6724. 1
  6725. 1
  6726. 1
  6727. 1
  6728. 1
  6729. 1
  6730. 1
  6731. 1
  6732. 1
  6733. 1
  6734. 1
  6735. 1
  6736. 1
  6737. 1
  6738. 1
  6739. 1
  6740. 1
  6741. 1
  6742. 1
  6743. 1
  6744. 1
  6745. 1
  6746. 1
  6747. 1
  6748. 1
  6749. 1
  6750. 1
  6751. 1
  6752. 1
  6753. 1
  6754. 1
  6755. 1
  6756. 1
  6757. 1
  6758. 1
  6759. 1
  6760.  @dr.dylansgame5583  Capitalism didn't fail to do its job. Gov failed to enforce capitalism and instead chose to line their pockets with the wealth from corporatism instead. It is not a failure of Capitalism, but of gov failing to uphold the law. Gov is the entity that pushed consumerism on the American public in the 1950s, but their consumerist propaganda campaign actually started back in the 1920s after WW1. The gov wanted to grow the economy faster, but Americans were content with what they had and didn't seek more. So the US gov employed the propaganda machine they'd created in WW1 to trick the US population into being consumerist. The gov Manipulated the free market, and have since failed to uphold anti-trust and monopolistic laws and protect the little guy. The gov creates barriers to entry in creating new businesses, and in getting jobs, that big corporations lobbied the gov for. Regulations like occupational licensing are about restricting who can do what jobs so people can get higher wages, groups like the Doctor's Union in the US that are a private entity that can strip away a doctor's medical license at will, and that artificially restricts the number of medical doctors in the US to drive their wages up. Private non-gov entities that control who in the US can legally cut another person's hair and such nonsense. FDA being almost wholly funded by big pharma corporations, and thus beholden to them. None of this is capitalism, it is corporatism, in which gov has surrendered its authority over to private entities.
    1
  6761. 1
  6762. 1
  6763. 1
  6764. 1
  6765. 1
  6766. 1
  6767. 1
  6768. 1
  6769. 1
  6770. 1
  6771. 1
  6772. 1
  6773. 1
  6774. 1
  6775.  @catreecemacleod7556  "Like 1/2 the people you interact with won't be stupider than you are probably just because you don't really get to run into the people who are really, really dumb that often. They can't function in basic society for the most part, so you're probably not going to encounter them. " not true, they are out there every day. If you understand statistics you'll know that the majority of people are distributed about the mean, meaning most people I meet each day are very near average. "Also, the more complicated a task you're doing, the less likely you are to encounter them" you have a point there. "so something like just reading the youtube comments is a pretty big buffer because they need to be literate and know how to use a computer at a basic level for you to really encounter someone on here for instance." most people can read and write, you're more likely to meet relatively dumb people on the internet than anywhere else. "So the chances are that it's less than half the people you'll interact with will be stupider than you are. In fact, given the people you interact with will often be people like your family doctor, your pharmacist, teachers and other professionals, you'll find a lot of them will be above average, so this makes it again even more unlikely. " I don't have a doctor or pharmacist. I'm actually so healthy I self diagnose myself even while in teh doctor's office, and they agree with me. I'm smart enough to not need a doctor and only go as required for periodic physicals required for the work I do. I almost never see the same doctor twice. While in college I taught the classes better than the professors did, so much so the professors thought I was one of their coworkers. I have been offered a job as a college professor multiple times, I did teach at a college for a time, I mentor people all teh time though on teh side, in math, history, engineering, physics, etc. I'm one of the top in my profession where I work, and it's a very small field and highly competitive. But I know where I stand on the distribution, I have proven it so many times over now in more than one way too. I score in the top 1% not just intellectually, but performance-wise too, and have scored there since grade school. I guarantee you 99% of the people I meet each day are, relatively speaking, "dumber" than me. I take no pride in that, I think the average person is nearly as capable as me. There is nothing I know or can do I can't teach to someone else. But I beat people by besting them in every category overall, not just any one. I am not the best in the world at any one thing I can do either (I easily could, if I focused all my energy on just that thing for enough years), again my advantage lies in the overall abilities. But it gives me a strange perspective knowing this. Call it arrogance, but it's not arrogance when you can and have backed it up time and again. I know my limits, but also what I'm capable of. "The question becomes more about how often do you go to McDonald's or Walmart, for your chances for that 1 out of 2 people statistic to come true." people watching can be fun, and annoying too. " it means you will probably never encounter the dumbest people.", oh but I have, and do. It's not that hard, unless you're a shut-in.
    1
  6776. 1
  6777. 1
  6778. 1
  6779. 1
  6780. 1
  6781. 1
  6782. 1
  6783. 1
  6784. 1
  6785. 1
  6786. 1
  6787. 1
  6788. 1
  6789. 1
  6790. 1
  6791. 1
  6792. 1
  6793. 1
  6794. 1
  6795. 1
  6796. 1
  6797. 1
  6798. 1
  6799. 1
  6800. 1
  6801. 1
  6802. 1
  6803. 1
  6804.  @KuariThunderclaw  Just because I don't preach hate for cops like you, doesn't meant I alternatively worship cops. you are using a false equivalency, and you clearly only see the world in black and white like a typical communist does. Good vs evil, well, that's not the real world. Yes, some cops are bad and I want them punished and held accountable accordingly as anyone else does. But not all cops are bad, and cops are Necessary for a functioning society. George Floyd was not murdered, he committed suicide by drug overdose, all evidence shows that. George Floyd was a violent criminal, and the cops were being Extremely accommodating to him and using standard procedures at the time. How are Republicans suppressing votes? You need an ID to do Anything else in society, so requiring an ID to vote is common sense to ensure only US citizens are voting, and people are not ballot harvesting, as was happening and some people went to jail for it. Food and drinks have nothing to do with voting. It's not the heat of summer in November, and people can bring their own food and drinks if they like. But giving stuff to people waiting to vote can be construed as voter manipulation, so it can be a fine line depending on how it's done. I've never heard people worrying about food and drink in voting lines though. "Hell, half the crap is so indefensible, you have to pretend its just about ID when if that were really the issue, they'd make sure every registered voter automatically gets a voter ID and be done with it". Most people already DO have an ID, so what's the problem? What is indefensible? We aren't pretending ID is an issue, it Is an issue. There are other issues too, yes, so why are you fixating only on voter ID then? The Democrats are teh same as they've always been. The "shift" has never actually happened if you actually know your history. That is a Democrat lie. The first blacks in Congress were all Republicans. Democrats suppressed black voters, implemented Jim Crow and other tactics. And now they are race bating and claiming blacks can't succeed on their own because they aren't as smart and capable as white people. The Democrats have now resorted to Marxist brainwashing of children in schools to convince people of their lies.
    1
  6805. 1
  6806. 1
  6807. 1
  6808. 1
  6809.  JauDonna Daniels  convicted by a jury that feared for their safety. Microaggressions, privilege, victim, you're using the words of teh fragile people. Needing safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc. I just want stupid people to stay out of my life and personal business. But you are bent on brainwashing the world into living poor and under communist rule with rampant violence. Still waiting on an explanation for what sort of solutions, society, rules, changes, etc will solve all these problems your perceive to exist? Start listing alternatives if you're so smart. If i was fragile, I'd run away. But I have nothing to fear from you except your stupidity. Stupid people in large numbers can cause great harm. What factual history isn't being taught? the 1619 project? Becasue that is 100% bullshit fabrication. What esle isn't being taught that you claim is factual? What about the first American female millionaire being a black woman? What About Frederick Douglas? What about MLK Jr and his vision for America? What About the first double spy in American history being black? What about all teh white people who died freeing the slaves? What about how the US gov abolished the slave trade upon Winning the Revolution? What about Jefferson writing the abolition of slavery into the first draft of the Declaration of Independence? What about Jefferson writing the abolition of slavery into the first draft of the Constitution? What about the whites in the south who opposed slavery and tried to help escaped slaves but the Democrats passed laws making it illegal for whites to help freed slaves? What about the first Blacks in Congress being Republicans? What about the Drug war? what about the destruction of the black family unit with the use of gov welfare? and on and on and on........Is that the sort of history you are talking about?
    1
  6810. 1
  6811. 1
  6812. 1
  6813. 1
  6814. 1
  6815. 1
  6816. 1
  6817. 1
  6818. 1
  6819. 1
  6820. 1
  6821. 1
  6822. 1
  6823. 1
  6824. 1
  6825. 1
  6826. 1
  6827. 1
  6828. 1
  6829. 1
  6830. 1
  6831. 1
  6832. 1
  6833. 1
  6834. 1
  6835. 1
  6836. 1
  6837. 1
  6838. 1
  6839. 1
  6840. 1
  6841. 1
  6842. 1
  6843. 1
  6844. 1
  6845. 1
  6846. 1
  6847. 1
  6848. 1
  6849. 1
  6850. 1
  6851. 1
  6852. 1
  6853. 1
  6854. 1
  6855. 1
  6856. 1
  6857. 1
  6858. 1
  6859. 1
  6860. 1
  6861. 1
  6862. 1
  6863. 1
  6864. 1
  6865. 1
  6866. 1
  6867. 1
  6868. 1
  6869. 1
  6870. 1
  6871. 1
  6872. 1
  6873. 1
  6874.  @dabo5078  "China is largest in producing Paper being cited. Are you telling me every single North American research university is citing hot garbage for their stuff?" YES "Obviously, you are so brainwashed that you don't understand the global patent system or the concept of paper citation." I understand it perfectly. Citation does not equate to "correct" or "truth", usually ignorance. I read papers and love picking them apart for failure to use large enough sample sizes, lack of sample diversity, lack of placebo, lack of controlling for variables, lack of repeatability, lack of citing assumptions or identifying biases, etc. I also hold tens of patents, and could have had well over 100 patents to my name if not for the fact they cost money and chasing down worthless patents is a waste of time and money. Also, we file patents Defensively, rather than offensively. Do you know what that means? "Also, the fact that most shipping containers and ports in the world *yes including America is built by Chinese companies." you're proud of producing metal boxes? hahaha!!!! And no, the Chinese did not build Boston harbor, San Francisco, Ney York, Charlotte, New Orleans, Duluth, etc. What a stupid lie. It is literally illegal for chinese companies to produce things like US combat aircraft, nuclear carriers, nuclear submarines, and many other defense items. I'm involved in that world in more ways than one, and deal with it every day. "Just ask yourself what engineering feat did the US achieve in the past decade? The only thing remotely successful I can think of a is barley reusable rocket that currently can't take off anymore since the Russians cut off the engine supply." Are you talking about the Falcon 9, that never used russian engines? That has flown more than pretty much any rocket in history? You mean Starship, the largest and cheapest rocket per ton to ever fly? no reusable US rocket ever used russian engines. Largest computers in the world (CCP computers have never been independently verified and so do not count as they are likely lying). Curious how you focus on teh last decade only, becasue if we opened it up more you'd have to admit CCP has accomplished next to nothing. But yes, teh US and others have accomplished many things, but due to teh nature of high technology, teh impacts seem less significant with each advancement. But we can look at things like the Black hole images, James Webb, first aircraft on Mars, first space tourism, world's largest plane, breakthroughs in aerodynamics, hypersonic missiles that can actually hit a target, holding every single hypersonic record in history, etc. Now list the accomplishments of CCP in last decade, besides COVID. And things others have already done don't count.
    1
  6875.  @dabo5078  " As far as I know American engineers are overcoming nothing" well, you don't know much, so that's not saying much. Fixating on the obvious things and ignoring all the things of consequence. The US public has been trying to defund Artemis and such for decades. But convenient how you ignore every single other rocket company and their successes in teh same time period. Meanwhile CCP is still dropping toxic fuel and rocket boosters on villages like a 3rd world nation. "Finally, you talk about the largest supercomputer yet none of them had been built." built, run, and independetly verified. Frontier system is a Cray computer. Cope harder. "Everyone talks, but talks mean nothing when no results are produced which is the current state of the American engineering community." as you literally ignore everything Elon Musk and others does. Literally refusing to accept facts and reality. Meanwhile US has a flying 5th gen fighter, hypersonic missiles that actually work, weapons that are destroying Russia like child's play in Ukraine even the legacy military systems, etc. "One thing I would get props to them is that they finally brought down the sky-high cost of the F35 after more than 10 years." it was never that expensive to begin with. the media reported lifetime costs including fuel, spare parts, ammo and weapons, maintenance personnel costs, etc. for 20yrs of service. the purchase price was never that high. And F-35s have cost less than 4th gen European jets for many years now. It was always going to be competitive long run due to production numbers. "Experience means very little in cutting-edge professions such as engineering" and this is why China sucks, they think experience doesn't matter. wow "(it only matters for the project management aspect, which once again the US is bad at)" project management is the least important part of engineering. the least competent engineers get those jobs. But I get how you'd have it backwards living in a communist society your whole life. "this is not a trade job, you need to constantly keep up with the newest development in theory and research community to not be left hopelessly behind." trade jobs are fundamental and require far more intelligence and problem solving skills than management. the fact you think so little of trades is part of your problem. that's why your buildings and dams collapse. garbage workmanship. There is a reason the world associates China with cheap low quality crap. "PS The guy did get kicked out for his skin color, otherwise, why would he leave his salary in America worth hundreds to thousands of times that of in China and better quality of life in the 50s? Also nuclear technology were achieved when the entire mainland was under strict western sanctions. Don't know how you got to the point where American capital helped in that regard." 1950s?!?! hahaha CCP was pathetic back then, no bearing on today. Also, why are you afraid to give me his name? Why would he leave his salary? maybe the CCP threatened him and his family if he didn't return? happens all the time. "Don't know how you got to the point where American capital helped in that regard." because you're not paying attention to what I actually said, and you're conflating things.
    1
  6876. 1
  6877. 1
  6878. 1
  6879. 1
  6880. 1
  6881. 1
  6882. 1
  6883. 1
  6884. 1
  6885. 1
  6886. 1
  6887. 1
  6888. 1
  6889. 1
  6890. 1
  6891. 1
  6892. 1
  6893. 1
  6894. 1
  6895. 1
  6896. 1
  6897. 1
  6898. 1
  6899. 1
  6900. 1
  6901. 1
  6902. 1
  6903. 1
  6904. 1
  6905. 1
  6906. 1
  6907. 1
  6908. 1
  6909. 1
  6910. 1
  6911. 1
  6912. 1
  6913. 1
  6914. 1
  6915. 1
  6916. 1
  6917. 1
  6918. 1
  6919. 1
  6920. 1
  6921. 1
  6922. 1
  6923. 1
  6924. 1
  6925. 1
  6926. 1
  6927. 1
  6928. 1
  6929. 1
  6930. 1
  6931. 1
  6932. 1
  6933. 1
  6934. 1
  6935. 1
  6936. 1
  6937. 1
  6938. 1
  6939. 1
  6940. 1
  6941. 1
  6942. 1
  6943. 1
  6944. 1
  6945. 1
  6946. 1
  6947. 1
  6948. 1
  6949. 1
  6950. 1
  6951. 1
  6952. 1
  6953. 1
  6954. 1
  6955. 1
  6956. 1
  6957. 1
  6958. 1
  6959. 1
  6960. 1
  6961. 1
  6962. 1
  6963. 1
  6964. 1
  6965. 1
  6966. 1
  6967. 1
  6968. 1
  6969.  @jedimindtrix2142  "Once you fight and engage enough units you can tell who is going to be a problem to fight and who isn't." Exactly right. and when you want to win, you avoid what's strong and attack what is weak. " I think we are in an interesting transition period in terms of weaponry. Things are starting to change at a pretty rapid rate and the design of systems are starting to get less recognizable to their contemporary counter parts. Give it another 20 to 30 years and I think the standard kit of the military across the board will be quite different from what we currently have in the field. It seems every 50 years or so the weapons available for war take a massive leap." I'm not so sure about this. Things like targeting and sensors are improving, but the basic rifle is not changing that much. batteries are heavy, electronics are a liability (they die, get broken, are tough to ruggedize unless small enough...). Things are getting better, but weight needs to go down, not up. simplicity is paramount in combat. Need to be able to rely on your gear, and fix it in the field, or it's not worth having. I won many times in combat because of my knowledge of "old school" techniques and skills. Skills others take for granted. Now, as an engineer, I am doing the same again. Constantly able to solve problems, design solutions, and do it quickly, and others can't understand what my secret is. It's old school knowledge they deem obsolete and take for granted. But that old school knowledge and skills are harder to master, making it near impossible for my opponents to ever catch up to me or match me in skill as I have many years head start on them, and much more committed to winning than they are. The point is anyone can do as I do, if they put in the time and commitment, and people could learn a thing or two from that, with lots of military application. The basics of a rifle are what they are, hard to improve. It will improve, but how much? There is a point of diminishing returns in the evolution of a technology, improvements start to slow. Militaries need to be cheap, flexible, light, easy to train, high volume, reliable, rugged, serviceable, etc. I have many times weaponized others' technologies against them in training, to prove to them they are overly dependent upon it, and that I can still beat them without it. They need to learn the nuances of when, and when not, to use something. And they also start to fail to learn the fundamentals of war as they spend more time mastering high tech gear. And without the fundamentals, they will always lose against someone like me. Look at how long a given rifle, fighter jet, vehicle, lasts in service these days compared to history. the more advanced things get, the longer they tend to last in service as it's hard to justify teh costs necessary to replace them with something that is actually better. And eventually the price of more advanced gear is fragility, lack of reliability, difficulty of repair, high cost, low volume, etc. All the hallmarks of a failed military model. Combat always devolves into the fundamentals eventually. Just look at Ukraine. They are back to WW1 style trench/artillery fighting with almost no airpower to speak of on either side. Tanks are getting wiped out, so artillery and infantry are doing the heavy lifting, same as they did in the 1800s. And both Russia and Ukraine sucks at the fundamentals of warfare. Ukraine is noticeably better than Russia, but they still suck overall.
    1
  6970. 1
  6971. 1
  6972. 1
  6973. 1
  6974. 1
  6975. 1
  6976. 1
  6977. 1
  6978. 1
  6979. 1
  6980. 1
  6981. 1
  6982. 1
  6983. 1
  6984. 1
  6985. 1
  6986. 1
  6987. 1
  6988. 1
  6989. 1
  6990. 1
  6991. 1
  6992. 1
  6993. 1
  6994. 1
  6995. 1
  6996. 1
  6997. 1
  6998. 1
  6999. 1
  7000. 1
  7001. 1
  7002. 1
  7003. 1
  7004. 1
  7005. 1
  7006. 1
  7007. 1
  7008. 1
  7009. 1
  7010. 1
  7011. 1
  7012. 1
  7013. 1
  7014. 1
  7015. 1
  7016. 1
  7017. 1
  7018.  @perryallan3524  "Only 1 thing needs to stop working at the wrong time. Noting insane about it. " Such as? name the thing that creates a single point of failure for both steering and propulsion at the same time? "and the Captain was not blamed for that very minor collision." very minor collision......not total loss of teh ship, in which teh captain would have been sacked. "However, a general rule in emergencies is you deal with the emergency 1st, and communicate last." you have enough crew to do both at teh same time. As a professional pilot, I have to deal with teh emergency AND communicate that emergency, all by myself. If a whole deck crew can't handle it, all the more reason to sack the Captain. A distress call take a mere few seconds from a single person on the crew. "Aviation has great saying: Aviate, Navigate, and communicate... in that order of priority. Lots of crashes in history when people communicated 1st. " yes, but we still manages to do all three, by ourselves, in about 30seconds. So buck up and do better. If a crew is so incompetent they can handle it, teh Captain needs ot be sacked for lack of leadership. "In a real emergency you first overfly the runway at low altitude and wag your wings" NO, you do NOT do that! I do know what coloring book you got that from, but that is NOT what you do. I'm a CFII in both helicopters and airplanes and you absolutely NEVER do that. You declare an emergency and you LAND! Everyone else has to get out of your way. most emergencies don't allow a second pass to the runway. In helicopters were on the ground in 30sec or less from the moment of almost Any serious emergency. Stick to talking about things you have a clue in and leave the rest to professionals like myself. "There have been aircraft who safely landed without any radio communcation at all with the airport. " radio communication isnt even required to fly in most cases to begin with, it's not an emergency to not have a radio. but we have other ways of communicating without radio then. And if without radio, you're flying where no one can help you until on the ground anyways. "Same rules apply to driving a ship or car. Do what you can to control the ship or vehicle, try to navigate, and when and if you have time communicate." False, all these examples involve 1-2 person crews, not a fully staffed ship with dedicated communications personnel.
    1
  7019. 1
  7020. 1
  7021. 1
  7022. 1
  7023. 1
  7024. 1
  7025. 1
  7026. 1
  7027. 1
  7028. 1
  7029. 1
  7030. 1
  7031. 1
  7032. 1
  7033. 1
  7034. 1
  7035. 1
  7036. 1
  7037. 1
  7038. 1
  7039. 1
  7040. 1
  7041. 1
  7042. 1
  7043. 1
  7044. 1
  7045. 1
  7046. 1
  7047. 1
  7048. 1
  7049. 1
  7050. 1
  7051. 1
  7052. 1
  7053. 1
  7054. 1
  7055. 1
  7056. 1
  7057. 1
  7058. 1
  7059. 1
  7060. 1
  7061. 1
  7062. 1
  7063. 1
  7064. 1
  7065. 1
  7066. 1
  7067. 1
  7068. 1
  7069. 1
  7070. 1
  7071. 1
  7072. 1
  7073. 1
  7074. 1
  7075. 1
  7076. 1
  7077. 1
  7078. 1
  7079. 1
  7080. 1
  7081. 1
  7082. 1
  7083. 1
  7084. 1
  7085. 1
  7086. 1
  7087. 1
  7088. 1
  7089. 1
  7090. 1
  7091. 1
  7092. 1
  7093. 1
  7094. 1
  7095. 1
  7096. 1
  7097. 1
  7098. 1
  7099. 1
  7100. 1
  7101. 1
  7102. 1
  7103. 1
  7104. 1
  7105. 1
  7106. 1
  7107. 1
  7108. 1
  7109. 1
  7110. 1
  7111. 1
  7112. 1
  7113. 1
  7114. 1
  7115. 1
  7116. 1
  7117. 1
  7118. 1
  7119. 1
  7120. 1
  7121. 1
  7122. 1
  7123. 1
  7124. 1
  7125. 1
  7126. 1
  7127. 1
  7128. 1
  7129. 1
  7130. 1
  7131. 1
  7132. 1
  7133. 1
  7134. 1
  7135. 1
  7136. 1
  7137. 1
  7138. 1
  7139. 1
  7140. 1
  7141. 1
  7142. 1
  7143. 1
  7144. 1
  7145. 1
  7146. 1
  7147. 1
  7148. 1
  7149. 1
  7150. 1
  7151. 1
  7152. 1
  7153. 1
  7154. 1
  7155. 1
  7156. 1
  7157. 1
  7158. 1
  7159. 1
  7160. 1
  7161. 1
  7162. 2.5 to 3 billion internal combustion engines? That's all? There is no way that number is correct. Each car in every country. Personal vehicles, military vehicles, commercial vehicles of all kinds. Race cars. Taxis, buses, trains, etc. Airplanes, many with more than 1 engine. Military aircraft, helicopters, airships, drones... Consider that many aircraft have 2-4+ engines Each as well as an APU. Remote control vehicles. Cars, planes, helicopters, tanks, model rockets, etc. that use internal combustion engines. Agricultural equipment like pumps, tractors, harvesters, etc. Construction equipment like cranes, dozers, excavators, loaders, forklifts, skid steers, logging equipment, garbage trucks, dump trucks, etc. Lawn mowers, snow blowers, weed whackers, leaf blowers, snowmobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, generators, pumps, pressure washers, chainsaws, etc. Missiles, rockets, spacecraft... Museums....over one hundred years of accumulated internal combustion powered things, and internal combustion engines. Many museums contain hundreds or thousands of such engines, Each. Ships and boats, including sailboats, ocean shipping, ferries, submarines, speedboats, racing boats, fishing boats, dinghies, warships, cruise liners, etc. Most Americans I know own at LEAST 4-5 things powered by an internal combustion engine. I know others who own far more things powered by internal combustion engines (easily 20+ for one person). Obviously many people in less developed nations don't have that, and that drags the averages down. But there are almost 8bil people on earth, and we're counting things owned by governments, businesses, militaries, museums, and more, not to mention the accumulation of engines over the past 100+yrs.
    1
  7163. 1
  7164. 1
  7165. 1
  7166. 1
  7167. 1
  7168. 1
  7169. 1
  7170. 1
  7171. 1
  7172. 1
  7173. 1
  7174. 1
  7175. 1
  7176. 1
  7177. 1
  7178. 1
  7179. 1
  7180. 1
  7181. 1
  7182. 1
  7183. 1
  7184. 1
  7185. 1
  7186. 1
  7187. 1
  7188. 1
  7189. 1
  7190. 1
  7191. 1
  7192. 1
  7193. 1
  7194. 1
  7195. 1
  7196. 1
  7197. 1
  7198. 1
  7199. 1
  7200. 1
  7201. 1
  7202. 1
  7203. 1
  7204. 1
  7205.  @seannewman5391  "They will go away with newer batteries like LFP and Sodium." no they wont "I am talking specifically of the likelihood you house will burn down because of an EV fire. It is Extremely unlikely in comparison to other causes." yet, homes, parking garages, ocean transport ships , etc. are starting on fire. No one is banning ICE from hospitals and parking garages and more, but they are EV. Also, look at EV ownership insurance rates....insurance rates tell the truth. Insurance on coastal properties isn't going up, proving climate change and sea level rise is not a real threat. but EV insurance rates are sky high, proving they are a threat. And insurance companies are choosing not to insure buildings with EVs parked inside, proving they are a threat. Not one insurance policy cites appliance fires as a house fire risk. How does an EV fire happen, vs how a typical house electrical fire happen? Do you even know the difference? Bet you don't. 1) you have no clue how many EV house fires, so you just made up a wild guess, and so none of your math is valid. 2) how catastrophic are most house fires due to other causes? EV is catastrophic loss. Many house fires are minor and easily put out without losing the entire building, often times with only minor damage. thing is, you specifically avoid stating the cause and conditions of non-EV fires. "Here we are now with the technology moved on 30 years and its even better still, and in another 20 years time this won't be a discussion point anymore." and yet we STILL charge the batteries in kevlar fire bags even today.......
    1
  7206. 1
  7207. 1
  7208. 1
  7209. 1
  7210. 1
  7211. 1
  7212. 1
  7213. 1
  7214. 1
  7215. 1
  7216. 1
  7217. 1
  7218. 1
  7219. 1
  7220. 1
  7221. 1
  7222. 1
  7223. 1
  7224. 1
  7225. 1
  7226. 1
  7227. 1
  7228. 1
  7229. 1
  7230. 1
  7231. 1
  7232. 1
  7233. 1
  7234. 1
  7235. 1
  7236. 1
  7237. 1
  7238. 1
  7239. 1
  7240. 1
  7241. 1
  7242. 1
  7243. 1
  7244. 1
  7245. 1
  7246. 1
  7247. 1
  7248. 1
  7249. 1
  7250. 1
  7251. 1
  7252. 1
  7253. 1
  7254. 1
  7255. 1
  7256. 1
  7257. 1
  7258. 1
  7259. 1
  7260. 1
  7261. 1
  7262. 1
  7263. 1
  7264. 1
  7265. 1
  7266. 1
  7267. 1
  7268.  @chuapg1518  Bullets? sure, they better be able to make those. It's well known Russia turned to North Korea weeks ago for artillery ammo. Artillery ammo is basic, and is russia can't mass produce artillery ammo, they have much more serious issues. A rifle is far more complex than artillery ammo. Russia does keep a lot of stuff is deep storage, but not good sealed storage. T-62 and T-55 tanks have not been produced for decades, yet Russia is still digging them out for use in Ukraine none the less. they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for equipment, especially things they can't produce under sanctions. A russian draftee/conscript showed video from his phone of the rifle he was given and it was an old soviet era AK-47 (modern Russian military uses AK-74 variants), that had corrosion on teh barrel, gas tube etc. The barrel and tube will be fine, but the corrosion on the receiver and top cover was really bad, and who knows how bad the corrosion inside the action is. The rifles were clearly not stored properly, and if that one is so badly corroded, you know the others kept with it are too. Stuff corrodes, I know this as both a combat veteran and as a mechanical engineer, some of it wont affect performance, some will. But it speaks to the complete lack of proper equipment and logistical support the russians have. you have to take the sum total into consideration and see the bigger picture, and everything I brought up is directly related to what you said, even if you personally didn't bring it up or mention it.
    1
  7269. 1
  7270. 1
  7271. 1
  7272. 1
  7273. 1
  7274. 1
  7275. 1
  7276. 1
  7277. 1
  7278. 1
  7279. 1
  7280. 1
  7281. 1
  7282. 1
  7283. 1
  7284. 1
  7285. 1
  7286. 1
  7287. 1
  7288. 1
  7289. 1
  7290. 1
  7291. 1
  7292. 1
  7293. 1
  7294. 1
  7295. 1
  7296. 1
  7297. 1
  7298. 1
  7299. 1
  7300. 1
  7301. 1
  7302. 1
  7303. 1
  7304. 1
  7305. 1
  7306. 1
  7307. 1
  7308. 1
  7309. 1
  7310. 1
  7311. 1
  7312. 1
  7313. 1
  7314. 1
  7315. 1
  7316. 1
  7317. 1
  7318. 1
  7319. 1
  7320. 1
  7321. 1
  7322. 1
  7323. 1
  7324. 1
  7325. 1
  7326. 1
  7327. 1
  7328. 1
  7329. 1
  7330. 1
  7331. 1
  7332. 1
  7333. 1
  7334. 1
  7335. 1
  7336. 1
  7337. 1
  7338. 1
  7339. 1
  7340. 1
  7341. 1
  7342. 1
  7343. 1
  7344. 1
  7345. 1
  7346. 1
  7347. 1
  7348. 1
  7349. 1
  7350. 1
  7351. 1
  7352. 1
  7353. 1
  7354. 1
  7355. 1
  7356. 1
  7357. 1
  7358. 1
  7359. 1
  7360. 1
  7361. 1
  7362. 1
  7363. 1
  7364. 1
  7365. 1
  7366. 1
  7367. 1
  7368. 1
  7369. 1
  7370. 1
  7371. 1
  7372. 1
  7373. ​ @kmarie7051  some valid points. but it's a fact feminism is an arm of the communist agenda. it si a fact no fault divorce and other changes to teh fabric of society have resulted in teh problems we have now. and most men had no say nor part in those changes. they were not responsible for tearing society apart at its core. these changes were enacted before most men alive today were born. "No woman could force or make a man stop spending time with his friends if that man chooses to." really? yes they can. women call men creepy, accuse them of harassment and rape to get them arrested all the time. Women declare all men pedophiles and rapists, and then wonder why men avoid them for fear of being arrested. " If your friends wanted to spend time with you badly enough then they probably would, regardless if their spouses liked it or not." shows how clueless you are. Most people are NPCs, and do not think for themselves. And if men don't play smart, she'll divorce him and leave him destitute when she steals all his assets, retirement, gets alimony, etc.. "Have you ever thought you might be the common denominator here and people might not want to spend time with you because of your attitude and hostility towards other by thinking everyone else around you is the problem?" No. As these same people don't spend time with anyone else either. they have few to no friends themselves. I spend time with people, just not them. I spend time with people who aren't petty, actually want to have fun and enjoy life and other people's company. I spend time with people who aren't constantly trying to compete with me. But I can still comment on the realities of the society we find ourselves in just the same.
    1
  7374. 1
  7375. 1
  7376. 1
  7377. 1
  7378. 1
  7379. 1
  7380. 1
  7381. 1
  7382. 1
  7383. 1
  7384. 1
  7385. 1
  7386. 1
  7387. 1
  7388. 1
  7389. 1
  7390. 1
  7391. 1
  7392. 1
  7393. 1
  7394. 1
  7395. 1
  7396. 1
  7397. 1
  7398. 1
  7399. 1
  7400. 1
  7401. 1
  7402. 1
  7403. 1
  7404. 1
  7405. 1
  7406. 1
  7407. 1
  7408. 1
  7409. 1
  7410. 1
  7411. 1
  7412. 1
  7413. 1
  7414. 1
  7415. 1
  7416. 1
  7417. 1
  7418. 1
  7419. 1
  7420. 1
  7421. 1
  7422. 1
  7423. 1
  7424. 1
  7425. 1
  7426. 1
  7427. 1
  7428. 1
  7429. 1
  7430. 1
  7431. 1
  7432. 1
  7433. 1
  7434. 1
  7435. 1
  7436. 1
  7437. 1
  7438. 1
  7439. 1
  7440. 1
  7441. 1
  7442. 1
  7443. 1
  7444. 1
  7445. 1
  7446. 1
  7447. 1
  7448. 1
  7449. 1
  7450. 1
  7451. 1
  7452. 1
  7453. 1
  7454. 1
  7455. 1
  7456. 1
  7457. 1
  7458. 1
  7459. 1
  7460. 1
  7461. 1
  7462. 1
  7463. 1
  7464. 1
  7465. 1
  7466. 1
  7467. 1
  7468. 1
  7469. 1
  7470. 1
  7471. 1
  7472. 1
  7473. 1
  7474. 1
  7475. 1
  7476. 1
  7477. 1
  7478. 1
  7479. 1
  7480. 1
  7481. 1
  7482. 1
  7483. 1
  7484. 1
  7485. 1
  7486. 1
  7487. 1
  7488. 1
  7489. 1
  7490. 1
  7491. 1
  7492. 1
  7493. 1
  7494. 1
  7495. 1
  7496. 1
  7497. 1
  7498. 1
  7499. 1
  7500. 1
  7501. 1
  7502. 1
  7503.  @hitime2405  "I have given you the only fact applicable for the criteria of the best fighter, it shot down the most number of enemy aircraft" that is NOT the criteria for teh best fighter, and it most definitely is not the SOLE criteria. this is your unqualified and baseless opinion, nothing more. "wonder why I’m having to keep on repeating it," because you're an idiot. Repeating the same things over and over, expecting a different outcome. You're mad you can't force your opinions on others. Something in your brain snapped over this topic and you can't let it go. Lots of possible reasons. "but the point is none of those achieved shooting down the most enemy aircraft, can’t you get that?" I get that it among allied fighters, it achieved teh most kills, but that means it was not the top killer of airplanes in WW1 either, otherwise it would not need the qualifier. Many say the Dr.1 scored teh most kills overall, with only 320 aircraft built. Also, getting 1200 total kills when 5400 Camels were produced is not that great either. That means on average 1:5 Camels scored a kill. Add that the 5200 SE5a built. Where as if the Dr.1 scored around 1200 kills, that means the average Dr.1 scored about 3-4 kills per airplane on average, easily making it the best fighter of WW1 based on your criteria. Contrast that to 320 Dr.1, and 3,300 D.VII built. And 4,900 Albatross fighters built. And consider the Camel fought on a Front manned by Australians, Canadians, British, French, Americans, etc. all flying combat sorties of their own. Just as the US scored large kills with overwhelming numbers in WW2. We haven't even considered the Nieuports, SPADs, and other airplanes built that faced off against the Germans. When you look at the big picture, the Camel didn't score that well overall, and the SE5a scored nearly the same number of total aerial victories. The best airplane is the one judged to be the objective best overall airplane when all else is equal (1vs1 fight, same pilot in both airplanes of infinite skill, etc.). Which airplane comes out on top more often than not against all comers in an equal fight? that is teh best fighter of WW1. Would you also argue the F-22 is not superior to the F-15, F-16, and F-14, given their high kill totals, seeing as the F-22 has no 1v1 kills? Surely you must believe the F-22 to be inferior, given the other aircraft have hundreds of victories.
    1
  7504.  @hitime2405 " okay so now you know I was correct in pointing out the Camel was the best fighter of WW1" You're delusional. I never said it was. I dare you to quote me in context what made you claim this. "even though today there are a number of faithful replicas flying with modern built rotary engines, with pilots reporting good flying experience" I was just talking to a number of people building replica WW1 airplanes less than a month ago (not the guys in New Zealand though), and most are opting NOT to put rotary engines in due to safety. The airplanes with rotary engines are dangerous and prone to accidents. The rare few replicas in the US with rotaries are well known and talked about. Most opt to use a more reliable and safer radial engine. Makes the airplanes much safer. Rotary Camels are dangerous to any pilot, it only takes once. We are seeing a rash of fatal airplane accidents lately, most by high time professional pilots, and even the low time pilots often had more flying experience than WW1 pilots. And they are crashing plans easier to fly than a Camel. I don't claim the Camel was the worst of WW1, simply not the BEST. It's called "nuance". the world is not black and white. "Now we have that cleared up I’m intrigued by your point of how the US would have won the war by themselves, " Haha! We have not cleared up anything. You blatantly misrepresented me, and made false statements in this response. here is your false claim, "okay so now you know I was correct in pointing out the Camel was the best fighter of WW1". When you've proven ready to listen to facts, and have logical and civil discussions, then maybe we can talk more. but you still have not proven nor backed up your claim the Camel was best, in fact I proved the Dr.1 by your own criteria was best. By your logic you must think the F-22 is an inferior modern fighter.
    1
  7505. 1
  7506. 1
  7507. 1
  7508. Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
    1
  7509. 1
  7510. 1
  7511. 1
  7512. 1
  7513. 1
  7514. 1
  7515. 1
  7516. 1
  7517. 1
  7518. 1
  7519. 1
  7520. 1
  7521. 1
  7522. 1
  7523. 1
  7524. 1
  7525. 1
  7526. 1
  7527. 1
  7528. 1
  7529. 1
  7530. 1
  7531. 1
  7532. 1
  7533. 1
  7534. 1
  7535.  @andreworiez8920  Not one of those light carriers you mention can launch as many fighter jets from a single ship as a US LHA or LHD. One US light carrier can launch over 26 F-35. And not one of those other light carriers launches anything other than AV-8 and F-35B either. Nice failed attempt to cherry pick. F-35A can’t fly off regular carriers either. B-25 flew off carriers in 1942, 1944, 1992, 2000. So less than 6 times. But more than you claim. U-2 flew off carriers with nothing more than a Tailhook, and they did it for decades. “After the test program the C-130 NEVER landed on a carrier again, and the US Navy developed the C-2 Greyhound.” but it was a success, and not deemed impossible, and under consideration once again. And it’s wing was no less tight to the island than the U-2. U-2 is even harder to land, let alone on a carrier, but they did that for decades none the less. OV-10 CAN and HAS flown from carriers. You claim it can’t be done, it can. And I notice how you cherry pick only the OV-10 and ignore the A-29 and Air Warden, because you know they can do it too. Lame. “FYI I grew up in a US Navy household.” No one cares. Doesn’t make you right. I’m a combat veteran, professional airplane and helicopter pilot and an Aerospace engineer. So what? Doesn’t make you any less of an ignorant moron. “I have been onboard multiple active duty carriers....” and I stayed in a Hotel 8 once. If that’s the best you can do, you’re pathetic. Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, and you're not even an authority. So lame.
    1
  7536. 1
  7537. 1
  7538. 1
  7539. 1
  7540. 1
  7541. 1
  7542. 1
  7543. 1
  7544. 1
  7545. 1
  7546. 1
  7547. 1
  7548. 1
  7549. 1
  7550. 1
  7551.  @Thekilleroftanks  You keep commenting on my comments, thinking you're correcting me, but you've been wrong about what I said every time. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. One, the Zero was a good design, and yes, it had more potential left in it. But that's not what I said is it? I said Western designs, of the same period early in the war, were not Inferior. Totally different than what you are insinuating. Also note, that I was not talking about the Zero alone, I was talking about ALL Japanese aircraft of the period. The F4U was Absolutely a superior aircraft to the Zero and most early Japanese aircraft of WW2. The P-38 was also very successful in the Pacific against the Japanese, as were the P-40s and F4F once the pilots learned simply not to turn fight the Japanese. F4Fs were still in widespread service in the Pacific at the end of WW2 and were holding their own. Plenty of early war aces in the F4F and P-40 as well against the Japanese. Just as the F4F was improved, but not a superior design, with newer engines, so too could the Zero be improved. But the Zero was never going to be the all around performer that other designs proved given the focus on weight and maneuverability. There was simply less room left for improvement. Many other late war Japanese designs were much better than the zero and started getting on-par with Western designs, but too little too late. The video was claiming that All Japanese early war designs were overall superior to All Western Early war designs, and that simply is not true. The F4U was a 1930s design and went on to be one of the best fighters in all of WW2, up there with the P-47N, P-51, Ta-152, Sea Fury, Mosquito, etc. Many of the best WW2 designs were western fighters, and the F4U was one of the earliest and oldest. The P-38 was no slouch, and the F4F is more evenly matched with the Zero than most people want to accept. The F4F had different strengths and weaknesses than the Zero, but in capable hands, the victor of a fight between a Zero or F4F early in the war would come down to pilot skill, knowledge, and discipline to fight his fight and not get suckered into fighting the opponent's fight. The P-40 also fought Zeros in the southern Pacific and Alaska, and performed well against many early war Japanese designs other than the Zero. Might I suggest reading up on the Flying Tigers, and Robert Scott's story. The P-40 was not inferior to early Japanese designs.
    1
  7552. 1
  7553. 1
  7554. 1
  7555. 1
  7556. 1
  7557. 1
  7558. 1
  7559. 1
  7560. 1
  7561. 1
  7562. 1
  7563. 1
  7564. 1
  7565. 1
  7566. 1
  7567. 1
  7568. 1
  7569. 1
  7570. 1
  7571. 1
  7572. 1
  7573. 1
  7574. 1
  7575. 1
  7576. 1
  7577. 1
  7578. 1
  7579. 1
  7580. 1
  7581. 1
  7582. 1
  7583. 1
  7584. 1
  7585. 1
  7586. 1
  7587. 1
  7588. 1
  7589. 1
  7590. 1
  7591. 1
  7592. 1
  7593. 1
  7594. 1
  7595. 1
  7596. 1
  7597. 1
  7598. 1
  7599. 1
  7600. 1
  7601. 1
  7602. 1
  7603. 1
  7604. 1
  7605. 1
  7606. 1
  7607. 1
  7608. 1
  7609. 1
  7610. 1
  7611. 1
  7612. 1
  7613. 1
  7614. 1
  7615. 1
  7616. 1
  7617. 1
  7618. 1
  7619. 1
  7620. 1
  7621. 1
  7622. 1
  7623. 1
  7624. 1
  7625. 1
  7626. 1
  7627. 1
  7628. 1
  7629. 1
  7630. 1
  7631. 1
  7632. 1
  7633. 1
  7634. 1
  7635. 1
  7636. 1
  7637. 1
  7638. 1
  7639. 1
  7640. 1
  7641. 1
  7642. 1
  7643. 1
  7644. 1
  7645. 1
  7646. 1
  7647. 1
  7648. 1
  7649. 1
  7650. 1
  7651. 1
  7652. 1
  7653. 1
  7654. 1
  7655. 1
  7656. 1
  7657. 1
  7658. 1
  7659. 1
  7660. 1
  7661. 1
  7662. 1
  7663. 1
  7664. 1
  7665. 1
  7666. 1
  7667. 1
  7668. 1
  7669. 1
  7670. 1
  7671. 1
  7672. 1
  7673. 1
  7674. 1
  7675. 1
  7676. 1
  7677. 1
  7678. 1
  7679. 1
  7680. 1
  7681. 1
  7682. 1
  7683. 1
  7684. 1
  7685. 1
  7686. 1
  7687. 1
  7688. 1
  7689. 1
  7690. 1
  7691. 1
  7692. 1
  7693. 1
  7694. 1
  7695. 1
  7696. 1
  7697. 1
  7698. 1
  7699. 1
  7700. 1
  7701. 1
  7702. 1
  7703. 1
  7704. 1
  7705. 1
  7706. 1
  7707. 1
  7708. 1
  7709. 1
  7710. 1
  7711. 1
  7712. 1
  7713. 1
  7714. 1
  7715. 1
  7716. 1
  7717. 1
  7718. 1
  7719. 1
  7720. 1
  7721. 1
  7722. 1
  7723. 1
  7724. 1
  7725. 1
  7726. 1
  7727. 1
  7728. 1
  7729. 1
  7730. 1
  7731. 1
  7732. 1
  7733. 1
  7734. 1
  7735. 1
  7736. 1
  7737. 1
  7738. 1
  7739. 1
  7740. 1
  7741. 1
  7742. 1
  7743.  @twolak1972  If the P-51 was merely Average, then the P-47 was below average. And what aircraft were better than the P-51? interesting the ONLY ETO Medal of Honor went to a P-51 pilot.- Single handedly took on tens of fighters. how many P-47s have done that? Robert Johnson himself praised the A-36, and dedicated dive bomber variant o f the P-51 that was beloved by its pilots. A-36 pilots Hated the P-47 and preferred the P-47. get their books and read for yourself. How many Me262 and Me163 kills do P-47 have? Test pilots of the Luftwaffe hated the P-47, said it was slow, sluggish, heavy, accelerated slowly, climbed slowly, only did well around 25k ft. They loved the P-51 though, as did the Japanese pilots. The Germans described the P-47 as a dog. The famous air battle of the 352nd where a P-51 damaged by 20mm cannon, lost oil, aileron, and more, and still downed 3 aircraft (2 of them after taking damage) and managed to land back at base. Many top German aces (200+ kills) flew against mustangs late in the war. Many German aces survived the war, including Hartmann, Galland, etc. Hartmann was even downed by Mustangs. the top ace ever in history beaten by rookie mustang pilots, was never beaten by a P-47. German pilots also flew short range missions accompanied by some of the most experienced pilots in Europe. Not every pilot was a green new pilot. But US and other pilots rotated home as hero aces and to be flight instructors, with far less total experience than their German counterparts. Germans spent a higher percentage of their total flying experience in combat, where the Allied pilots spent a lot of time in cruise flight. The Production of German aircraft didn't slow until late in the war. Many of the top German aces never fought on the western front until late in the war. Even Hartmann was bested by less experienced Mustang pilots. Many top German aces fell to Mustangs. The average German pilot had less initial training, but also had more average combat experience than western fighter pilots on account of fighting for far longer. You can't claim total kills determines the better fighter, otherwise the P-39 is the top US fighter of the war. And you can't claim the P-40 is superior to the Sea Fury on account of the fact the P-40 has more kills. So kills of the P-47 or F6F alone doesn't make them top fighters. You must consider top speed (P-51 wins), range (P-51 wins), climb rate (P-51 wins), acceleration (P-51 wins), high altitude maneuverability( P-51 wins), low altitude speed (P-51 wins), Low altitude maneuverability (P-51 wins), toughness/rugged (p-47 wins), Firepower (P-47 wins, only sometimes, Mustangs also use 4x 20mm cannons, A-36 were better dive bombers), Cost (P-51 wins), maintenance per sortie (P-51 wins), fuel burn rate (P-51 wins), aluminum resources consumption (P-51 wins), manufacturing time (p-51 wins), ease of pilot training (P-51 wins), takeoff distance required (P-51 wins), Pilots workload and ergonomics (P-51 wins), which were fast enough to be air racers (P-51 wins), which holds multiple speed records (P-51 wins), which holds numerous air race victories (P-51 wins), lowest drag (P-51 wins), superior aerodynamics (P-51 wins), etc. And in stateside dogfights for bragging rights, the P-47 lost to literally everything (P-40, P-38, F4U, F6F, P-51, etc.) as it only performs well at altitude once its gotten up to speed. down low it's slower and less maneuverable than a P-40. it's an overweight pig. the heaviest single engine fighter of WW2, yet the lighter F4U used the same engine. Think about what that weight loss does for speed, maneuverability, climb rate, acceleration, and turning performance. % of max gross allocated for pilot, fuel, and weapons: P-47: 57% P-51: 63% F4U: 63% % of max gross specifically allocated to carrying bombs P-47: 14% P-51: 8% F4U: 27% Typical max bomb load: P-47: 2500lb P-51: 1000lb F4U: 4000lb Carrier capable? P-47: no P-51: yes (more suitable than the seafire, and none of the F4U's bad carrier qualities) F4U: yes (not the best carrier fighter, but it worked well enough) Another factor, the P-47 shared the skies with the P-51 for a long time, and so are you saying when the P-51 came along, the P-47 was fighting inexperienced rookie German pilots? And thus the P-47 total kills is inflated? Or are you saying that German rookie pilots only existed AFTER the P-47 were largely removed from service over Germany that rookie pilots were on the scene? In which case the P-51s encountered lots of top pilots in the early days of the transition from P-47s to P-51s. In the PTO, P-47s were relegated to ground attack only, in less critical areas of combat, and not used as fighters. They were no match for the Japanese fighters.
    1
  7744. 1
  7745. 1
  7746. 1
  7747.  @jacktattis  "We did not need it we had the best in the Spitfire" that is not a valid argument, it proves nothing. You didn't need it, that's fine. You didn't want it, that's fine. Doesn't mean it was superior. The Brits weren't using their spitfires for CAS though, weren't escorting bombers to Japan though. Weren't using spitfires as Dive bombers though. Weren't using the spitfire on regular/daily long range or high altitude escorts though. Most models of spitfire lacked the long legs (range) too. They were more complicated to build and repair too, due to their elliptical wing. And the Spitfire was not as fast either. show me some spitfire speed records if you think it was faster. The Spitfire was also not as goof of a carrier aircraft as the P-51 either. The narrow weak landing gear and other issues required significant redesign before full carrier adoption (basically a whole new airplane), where as sea trials with a P-51 proved it worked better than expected as a carrier fighter (still would have gotten some modification), but wasn't adopted due to the jets already coming on the scene. The spitfire was beautiful and well performing aircraft, and icon of WW2 and one of my favorites, but it was not as good as a mustang overall, and it's history and lack of versatility a lack of service post-WW2 shows this. Where was the Spitfire in Korea for example? The Sea Fury was a better overall aircraft than the Spitfire. Why no spitfires in air racing if it was "fast"? yet the F4U, P-51, Sea Fury, F8F and even the P-39 had successes there, and many still do.
    1
  7748. 1
  7749. 1
  7750. 1
  7751. 1
  7752. 1
  7753. 1
  7754. 1
  7755. 1
  7756. 1
  7757. 1
  7758. 1
  7759. 1
  7760. 1
  7761. 1
  7762. 1
  7763. 1
  7764. 1
  7765. 1
  7766. 1
  7767. 1
  7768. 1
  7769. 1
  7770. 1
  7771. 1
  7772. 1
  7773. 1
  7774. 1
  7775. 1
  7776. 1
  7777. 1
  7778. 1
  7779. 1
  7780. 1
  7781. 1
  7782. 1
  7783. 1
  7784. 1
  7785. 1
  7786. 1
  7787. 1
  7788. 1
  7789. 1
  7790. 1
  7791. 1
  7792. 1
  7793. 1
  7794. 1
  7795. 1
  7796. 1
  7797. 1
  7798. 1
  7799. 1
  7800. 1
  7801. 1
  7802. 1
  7803. 1
  7804. 1
  7805. 1
  7806. 1
  7807. ​ @alexanderbarkman7832  Yes, RPG AT is a HEAT round like all the others. RPG is recoilless weapon, like all the others too. Rocket propelled, charge propelled, etc. really doesn't matter. Has no part in how the warhead works. But it has one MAJOR difference, the nose of the RPG is thin and can be crushed/deformed. If the tip detonator passes between the metal of the bar armor, the nose cone will hit first instead fo the detonator and crush the warhead, or catch it, and prevent it from detonating or forming the jet. But a round like the US M40 recoilless rifle fires a round with a solid nose, and when it hits bar armor it bends the bar armor instead of being deformed. "If the round detonates to far from the target it has reduced penetration" this is true. but an RPG-7 that detonates on the side of light armor (APC, MRAP, IFV..) assuming no bar armor, reactive armor, or standoff armor, can easily penetrate one side and clean out the other. Despite passing through all the internal air volume inside those wide vehicles.... The air gap between one side of the vehicle and the other is FAR greater than standoff/bar armor distances. If it can penetrate through many layers of hull armor spaced many feet apart, it can easily still penetrate the outer hull from 1-2ft away. The bar armor defeats the RPG specifically, by crushing the HEAT warhead before it is able to detonate properly and form the jet. If the warhead is miss-shapen, it cannot for a jet when the explosive charge goes off. ​
    1
  7808. 1
  7809. 1
  7810. 1
  7811. 1
  7812. 1
  7813. Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
    1
  7814. 1
  7815. 1
  7816. 1
  7817. 1
  7818. 1
  7819. 1
  7820. 1
  7821. 1
  7822. 1
  7823. 1
  7824. 1
  7825. 1
  7826. 1
  7827. 1
  7828. 1
  7829. 1
  7830. 1
  7831. 1
  7832. 1
  7833. 1
  7834. 1
  7835. 1
  7836. 1
  7837. 1
  7838. 1
  7839. 1
  7840. 1
  7841. 1
  7842. 1
  7843. 1
  7844. 1
  7845. 1
  7846. 1
  7847. 1
  7848. 1
  7849. 1
  7850. 1
  7851. 1
  7852. 1
  7853. 1
  7854. 1
  7855. 1
  7856. 1
  7857. 1
  7858. 1
  7859. 1
  7860. 1
  7861. 1
  7862. 1
  7863. 1
  7864. 1
  7865. 1
  7866. 1
  7867. 1
  7868. 1
  7869. 1
  7870. 1
  7871. 1
  7872. 1
  7873. 1
  7874.  @Ryan-093  "my brother in christ " I'm not your brother and I'm not religious. "you clearly don't have better things to do with your time if you spend so much of it constantly dealing with blocking ads" your ignorant. I don't lift a finger to block ads. Software does all the work for me. I rarely even ever have to think about it. It happens automatically, updates are automatic. I work in teh computer industry and see what changes day to day. " I've never seen an ad on YT in years and have never had to reconfigure 3rd-party apps/extensions because they stopped working." Same here. I haven't watched an ad in years either. I even forgot Youtube ran ads at all until recently when it became a hot topic for debate. I don't reconfigure anything. I open web browsers, and start browsing. "YT Premium is the best subscription I have." Good for you. I don't care. I never asked your opinion about it. "And by additional features i mean things like playing videos with the screen locked on my phone, and being able to resume a video between desktop website and my phone app seamlessly" those ares standard free features of youtube. I can seemlessly pickup videos wehre i left off on different computers, phones, apps, and even browsers, so long as I'm logged in. " and knowing that the creators i watch are being compensated" you can do that without a youtube subscription. By paying YT, only a fraction of your fee goes to creators. or you could donate to them directly, that would be even better. " the ability to use YT Music," most musicians post their songs on Youtube free. And I have my own music I listen to anyways. my own playlists. I own my music outright. "which also includes all the custom/fan-made tracks uploaded to normal YT." yeah, those are free on youtube. Everything you list i get, for free. Most of it is free even without adblockers and without a YT subscription. I don't even run adblockers in all of my web browsers and I still don't see YT ads at all.
    1
  7875. 1
  7876. 1
  7877. 1
  7878. 1
  7879. 1
  7880. 1
  7881. 1
  7882. 1
  7883. 1
  7884. 1
  7885. 1
  7886. 1
  7887. 1
  7888. 1
  7889. 1
  7890. 1
  7891. 1
  7892. 1
  7893. 1
  7894. 1
  7895. 1
  7896. 1
  7897. 1
  7898. 1
  7899. 1
  7900. 1
  7901. 1
  7902. 1
  7903. 1
  7904. 1
  7905. 1
  7906. 1
  7907. 1
  7908. 1
  7909. 1
  7910. 1
  7911. 1
  7912. 1
  7913. 1
  7914. 1
  7915. 1
  7916. 1
  7917. 1
  7918. 1
  7919. 1
  7920. 1
  7921. 1
  7922.  @Красиваясоветскаядевушка  "Wow, you americans must really feel so cool with those fancy 104:1 kill ratios achieved against 3rd world armies with badly trained pilots, air supperiority and not state of the art soviet technology." As opposed to taking a numerically and Technologically superior air force into Ukraine and getting curb stomped?!!??! Don't forget all the times US and Russian pilots faced off in Korea, Vietnam, etc. with the US coming out on top. Keep in mind that MOST F-16 kills were NOT scored by US pilots/aircraft, same is true for the F-15 and F-14. Most F-16 kills were also scored by other nation's pilots. Hahahahaha! "The most modern soviet jets were always better than the most modern american jets, thats why the americans never dared to attack the soviet union" Wow, drinking the koolaid I see. P-39 > Yak3 P-51 > La5 F-5 > Mig25 F-104 > Mig21 F-86 > Mig15 F-4 > Mig21 F-8 > Mig21 F-16 > everything russian F-15 > everything russian F-14 > everything russian F-18 > everything russian F-22 > EVERYTHING F-35 > EVERYTHING but the F-22 US only never attacked due to lack of public support, and due to threat of nuclear war, nothing else. Russia was always decades behind the US. Russia had to Copy the nuke, B-29, british jet engines, AIM-9, U-2, Custer Channelwing, Space Shuttle, and more just to struggle to keep up. "One has to know that the USSR never exported its most modern equipment and soviet pilots were by far superior to any pilots of the world" you mean those jets crashing and getting shot down in Ukraine? You man that Su57 with a radar cross section the same size as that of an F-18 Super Hornet? How is the Armata tank doing? Hypersonic war-winning missiles? Why haven't you taken out the Patriot battery yet? Why can't you find HIMARs launchers? Even got your Black Sea Fleet flagship sunk by a nation without a navy.
    1
  7923. 1
  7924. 1
  7925. 1
  7926. 1
  7927. 1
  7928. 1
  7929. 1
  7930. 1
  7931. 1
  7932. 1
  7933. 1
  7934. 1
  7935. 1
  7936. 1
  7937. 1
  7938. 1
  7939. 1
  7940. 1
  7941. 1
  7942. 1
  7943. 1
  7944. 1
  7945. 1
  7946. 1
  7947. 1
  7948. 1
  7949. 1
  7950. 1
  7951. 1
  7952. 1
  7953.  @billycaspersghost7528  I agree. It was better in the attack role than other British options. But the engine reliability never seems to have been addressed. The Allison engine, which was first built in 1930 (8yrs before the Napier Saber) lives on even now in an FW190D9, multiple IL2, new Yak 3 and 9, and was boosted to 3,200hp in racing planes, used in racing boats, pulling tractors, etc. A much more reliable engine platform with more power potential. And after WW2 ended, Typhoons were ditched. But WW2 planes like the P-51, P-47, F4U, DeHavilland Hornet, Sea Fury, A-1 Skyraider, A-26, etc. lived on and fought in multiple other wars as late as the 1980s. To be totally fair, the Sea Fury is a direct descendent of the Typhoon. So without the Typhoon, the Sea Fury wouldn't have existed. Hawker Hart bomber became the Hawker Demon/Fury. The Fury became the Hurricane. The Hurricane became the Tornado The Tornado became the Typhoon The Typhoon became the Tempest The Tempest became the Tempest II The Tempest II became the Sea Fury I see the Typhoon as the Sopwith Camel of WW2. The Camel was highly regarded in history, but following the end of WW1, the Camels were very quickly ditched and the SE5a lived on. The Camels killed more of its own pilots than the Germans did. It filled a role, but it was a disaster of an airplane overall. Similarly the Typhoon killed its own pilots and was a load of trouble, but it was available and fit some roles enough to justify the casualties and high maintenance costs/time/resources it demanded.
    1
  7954. 1
  7955. 1
  7956. 1
  7957. 1
  7958. 1
  7959. 1
  7960. 1
  7961. 1
  7962. 1
  7963. 1
  7964. 1
  7965. 1
  7966. 1
  7967. 1
  7968. 1
  7969. 1
  7970. 1
  7971. 1
  7972. 1
  7973. 1
  7974. 1
  7975. 1
  7976. 1
  7977. 1
  7978. 1
  7979. 1
  7980. 1
  7981. 1
  7982. 1
  7983. 1
  7984. 1
  7985. 1
  7986. 1
  7987. 1
  7988. 1
  7989. 1
  7990. 1
  7991. 1
  7992. 1
  7993. 1
  7994. 1
  7995. 1
  7996. 1
  7997. 1
  7998. 1
  7999. 1
  8000. 1
  8001. 1
  8002. 1
  8003. 1
  8004. 1
  8005. 1
  8006. 1
  8007. 1
  8008. 1
  8009. 1
  8010. 1
  8011. 1
  8012. 1
  8013. 1
  8014. 1
  8015. 1
  8016. 1
  8017. 1
  8018. 1
  8019. 1
  8020. 1
  8021. 1
  8022. 1
  8023. 1
  8024. 1
  8025. 1
  8026. 1
  8027. 1
  8028. 1
  8029.  @SonsOfLorgar  which proves my point and validates my analysis that the Russians, even back in February, were largely inadequately trained. If they had been properly trained, they'd have fought better like the Scandinavians. I had a total of 8months training over a 2yr period prior to my first year-long combat deployment to Iraq, and my unit fought in the fiercest period of that conflict in the hottest locations and we came away with multiple unit awards and achieved unmatched success on the battlefield. We did it again on my second deployment as well. Generals and Admirals alike were amazed by how good we did because no other unit was matching our success. We were highly motivated, very skilled and intelligent, and adapted and developed new tactics daily. We were always 1-3 steps ahead of our enemies and other units. Duration of training alone isn't what matters. It also matters the intelligence and discipline of your recruits before they enter service, the skills and knowledge they already possess when they enter service, and the quality of the training they receive (that's a whole debate that can last for days as to what is and is not good/useful training). But Whatever training the "professional" Russians had, it was less and worse than I got in 7 months prior to my first combat deployment. There are other factors that affect it too such as experienced NCOs, long term retention of professional soldiers (we had guys with combat experience from Panama, Bosnia, Grenada, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan in my unit alone on my first deployment).
    1
  8030. 1
  8031. 1
  8032. 1
  8033. 1
  8034. 1
  8035. 1
  8036. 1
  8037. 1
  8038. 1
  8039. 1
  8040. 1
  8041. 1
  8042. 1
  8043. 1
  8044. 1
  8045. 1
  8046. 1
  8047. 1
  8048.  @rags417  Hypersonic munitions - the US has been developing hypersonic technologies since well before 9/11, and continuing to now. To understand the US perspective on hypersonic weapons, you must understand the tradeoffs and limitations of hypersonic, supersonic, and subsonic weapon systems. US hasn't fielded hypersonics for specific reasons. But they are developing hypersonics anyways. Also, the US has a range of new conventional artillery technologies and weapon systems it has been fielding and testing recently, even setting world records. The US has restarted heavy investing into a multitude of air defense weapons, but the US sees air power as its primary means of air defense. Not hard to understand why. US has been developing new tanks for a while now too. Has re-shifted the focus of the Marines back to amphibious warfare and beach landings, island assaults, etc. The Navy is undergoing massive changes in anticipation of a conventional war. Long list of things going on there. The USAF has also re-shifted its focus years ago from recent lessons learned. F-35 vs A-10 debate is part of that refocus on conventional war, and the 6th gen fighter development that has been underway for many years now already is also focused on a conventional war. MRAP development peaked years ago, when it was needed. But not much new has happened since. I was neck deep in testing the MRAPs for the military many years ago. I've driven/tested just about all the major types and variants of MRAP in the US military. I could go on and on, and would even forget things from years ago. Most people don't pay close enough attention, and even fewer understand warfare and all that it entails. So it's understandable that people can't see what's going on, especially not be able to see the big picture.
    1
  8049.  @rags417  "China, Russia and the like never had to orient their military towards winning an endless series of guerilla wars like the US, which means that they have spent much more time focusing on building up to defeat their likely peer opponents, they also have a lot less to "unlearn" in terms of doctrine and training." This I agree with, except for the last bit about unlearning. Some aspects of warfare are universal, no matter what. I think the notion of stable supply lines and static warfare might be a mentality weakness. But keep in mind, Most guys who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, are no longer in the US military either. I see almost no one these days with combat patches and such. The turnover is such that it's easy to shift gears fast. Also, the US soldiers are very good at adapting on-the-fly, regardless of the higher-up's decisions. "Let's agree to disagree", that' the American way, and perfectly ok. However, I do not disagree with you entirely. Just that I have seen a lot of decisions in the past 10yrs alone that shows me they are shifting gears. I agree the US military is still on the backfoot on some shifts, but they are making them. Also, when I got out of the military years ago, lots of us were already talking about the issue of historically always fighting the last war. Lots of people back then knew of this issue. And so as people have risen in the ranks, this has been on their minds. The fighting men I served with overseas were hands down the single most educated military fighting force the world has ever seen in recorded history. a huge number of our enlisted had college degrees, qualified for Warrant, OCS, etc. We had NCOs with multiple Masters degrees, etc. People of all different backgrounds and skills, and we cross trained each other on the skills we brought to the table. We developed tactics daily. Literally every day we were changing and evolving, deliberately. If the threat and type of warfare changed overnight, we'd change overnight too. Myself and others have spent more time studying conventional warfare than guerilla warfare. I develop tactics for conventional fights, and adjust them to guerilla style. But guerilla wars typically only happen where total war is not enacted. Political wars, with no intention of winning. Had the political forces in office desired a proper victory in Afghanistan or Iraq, we could have delivered it. But they need to stop restricting the military. And no, what I am suggesting is not let the military shoot more people. The fact is, politicians don't know how to win wars, and the military can't win their either with their hands tied behind their back and not doing what should have been done that would have been better for everyone overall. Shorter wars, fewer casualties overall on both sides, better outcomes for us and the locals of those nations.
    1
  8050.  @rags417  Well, there is a huge gap between video games and eh real deal. I play video games too, but I've fought in multiple wars, and learned from guys who fought in even more wars/conflicts (Vietnam, Bosnia, Panama, Grenada...). I have also personally developed and tested my ideas in actual combat, and tested prototype equipment in combat, and modified and designed our own equipment in combat. I've trained people in many aspects of warfare and combat leadership for almost 2 decades now. I too read a lot, but I don't focus on individual unit and military tactics. I started with the Art of War and defensive fortifications when I was a kid. Then studied general military history. From there moving into all aspects of overall theory (tanks, scouting, artillery, submarine warfare in different eras, air combat in different eras, combined arms, infantry, anti-tank, trench warfare, urban warfare, guerilla warfare, underground warfare, naval surface warfare in many eras, etc). Then I advanced to strategic level warfare, and finally logistical warfare. I also study the true origins of conflicts such as Vietnam, Korea, Mexican American, Spanish American, 1812, WW0, etc. " I am always fascinated at how easy it is for militaries to either forget the lessons from the last war or to misapply them to the new environment," That is because gov are not fighting themselves. And high ranking officers (above about O-4) are politicians more than they are military leaders and strategic thinkers. They think very short sighted these days. If you study WW2 enough, you'll find much of the war was anticipated by the Generals and Admirals, and the US started taking action in anticipation of the war years before it actually started. They even predicted the battle of Midway and its outcome years prior. The war in the Pacific played out largely the way they anticipated many years prior. "Korea (just bomb their infrastructure and they will collapse in 6 months like last time right ?), Vietnam (body counts ftw !)" These are massive over simplifications of what happened. You have a lot to learn. You can learn it, but you have a lot more to understand to fully appreciate what happened and why. Wars are rarely so simple. The US military had a plan to win Vietnam inside 6 months. Great strategic level thinking. But it was a political war only, which US politicians had no intention of winning, so the plan was denied and shelved. US involvement in the Vietnam war wasn't supposed to happen, and the reason it did happen had nothing to do with helping South Vietnam. The real reason is infuriating. And then after that it took on a life of its own. Vietnam was not about body counts. That is a politician's view of warfare.
    1
  8051. 1
  8052. 1
  8053. 1
  8054. 1
  8055. 1
  8056. 1
  8057. 1
  8058.  @johnswoboda9809  "using the examples you've given, none of those firearms meet the criteria for an "assault rifle" as Ian defined it though." Proving my whole point. "The 10/22 yes can be made to operate as a select fire weapon although that is not a stock option from Ruger. " nor does armalite sell select fire AR15, yet tons of select fire AR15 exist today none the less. Who manufactured it is not part of the definition. Do try to keep up. " Also, the 10/22 was designed to be used as a sporting arm for small game and as an affordable, reliable, all-around farm/truck/camp etc gun. It was not designed for military use. " use intent is ALSO Not part of the definition. INTENT doesn't apply, and you damned well know that. stop making up lame excuses. you're like a wok feminist, trying to justify her actions. "Some states DO include the 10/22 under State level bans." further proving me right, that the "definition" is arbitrary and not valid. "It should also be noted that even though that even the original AR-10 design, in 7.62x51 NATO, is also not an assault rifle because of that full power cartridge. " .308 is an intermediate cartridge. If you don't beleive me compare its size and effective range to teh .30-06, .338, .50, .416, .300, 7mm, and more. The fact you can't even identify an intermediate cartridge further proves the definition is ARBITRAY and invalid. The rest of your comment just further validates that I am right. The defintion is invalid, subjective, arbitrary, and nobody can agree what is what, and we can also point to weapons that are not assault rifles yet have all teh definition features, and rifles that are LITERALLY assault rifles, yet aren't considered assault rifles. And if lethality is what they are seeking to control, then an assault rifle limitaion that doesn't apply to large caliber rifles is BS nonsense and proves the defintion is invalid and has nothing to do with safety or anything else.
    1
  8059. 1
  8060. 1
  8061. 1
  8062.  @johnswoboda9809  No, I just felt like insulting you for your attitude, regardless of my argument. " I was saying to try (and fail) to generate some sort of support for your position when you're comparing apples to oranges." yes, you did fail, and no I wasn't comparing apples to oranges. "You went on this bizarre tangent that compared .22LR to .338 Federal" no I didn't, I never said anything of the sort liar. 1st, quote me where you claim I did. 2nd, I never said anything about .338 Federal even once, until just now. .308, .338, .30-06, and more ARE considered intermediate cartridges. Do some research. Here is a quote, "An intermediate cartridge is a rifle/carbine cartridge that has significantly greater power than a pistol cartridge but still has a reduced muzzle energy compared to fully powered cartridges (such as the .303 British, 7.62×54mmR, 7.65×53mm Mauser, 7.92×57mm Mauser, 7.7×58mm Arisaka, .30-06 Springfield, or 7.62×51mm NATO), and therefore is regarded as being "intermediate" between traditional rifle and handgun cartridges." So stop making up your own irrelevant opinions on things. your opinion carries zero weight in court of law. "and the fact that it's the parent cartridge to the .338 Federal that you yourself argued shouldn't be an "assault rifle" chambering in a hypothetical select-fire AR-10" no, I'm proving that YOUR BS claims means no AR10 can be an assault rifle, even though that will never hold up in court. Again, I never once mentioned .338 Federal in any of my previoous comments. stop lying. "You're just not making sense and above all you're missing my primary point in my initial response, which was that I was congratulating Ian on addressing a very touchy subject both within and without the shooting community without getting into the political more." Just becasue you're too dumb to understand the logic, doesn't mean I'm not making sense, you're just not smart enough to follow the logic. Ian was WRONG, his claimed definition of assault rifle is invalid, no matter if I agree with it or disagree with it. If I agree with it, it doesn't include many very real assault rifle type weapons many which are in active military service. If I disagree with it, then we can't agree on an actual objective definition that properly describes all "assault rifles". You have to add too many qualifiers that then applies to non-assault rifles. do try to keep up.
    1
  8063.  @johnswoboda9809  "Congress can pass a federal law that expands or limits the governments authority. In the case of the ATF, Congress conferred on the executive branch the ability to enforce federal firearms regulations. " that's not true, at least one was made, just not as common. the point was that larger caliber AR10s of many calibers exist. But go ahead, keep cherry picking and see how that works out for you. "It IS available in .338 Federal, but as far as I've found, only in semi auto." and all you have to do is swap out the selector lever and ad a part or two and it's converted. Or you could just run full auto with even less effort. Fact is, the M110 exists, and the SCAR, and others like it. And now we have the new Reaper from Ohio Ordnance. "Insofar as your "I decided to argue with you because of your attitude" comment lol well buddy, congratulations, you've lowered yourself to the level of my ex-wife and her "I'm the victim! " you're an idiot. the only one acting like a victim here is you. you whine and complain, cherry pick like a woke Democrat. You love making invalid comparisons. "Everybody else is the jerk! You're wrong because I want everybody to see me as the victim!"" Oh no, I'm definitely being a jerk to you. If you want to be an a$$hole, I have no problem treating you like one. but this childish false accusation of me being a victim is you projecting your insecurities onto me. you're the one playing victim, and so you accuse me fo it. "Everybody else is the jerk! You're wrong because I want everybody to see me as the victim!"" I know, but I like doing it for entertainment anyways. I love watching you idiots thrash around unable to engage in factual and logical debates. And it helps me to understand idiots like you.
    1
  8064. 1
  8065. 1
  8066. 1
  8067. 1
  8068. 1
  8069. 1
  8070. 1
  8071. 1
  8072. 1
  8073. 1
  8074. 1
  8075. 1
  8076. 1
  8077. 1
  8078. 1
  8079. 1
  8080. 1
  8081. 1
  8082. 1
  8083. 1
  8084. 1
  8085. 1
  8086. 1
  8087. 1
  8088. 1
  8089. 1
  8090. 1
  8091. 1
  8092. 1
  8093. 1
  8094. 1
  8095. 1
  8096. 1
  8097. 1
  8098. 1
  8099. 1
  8100. 1
  8101. 1
  8102. 1
  8103. 1
  8104. 1
  8105. 1
  8106. 1
  8107. 1
  8108. 1
  8109. 1
  8110. 1
  8111. 1
  8112. 1
  8113. 1
  8114. 1
  8115. 1
  8116. 1
  8117. 1
  8118. 1
  8119. 1
  8120. 1
  8121. 1
  8122. 1
  8123. 1
  8124. 1
  8125. 1
  8126. 1
  8127. 1
  8128. 1
  8129. 1
  8130. 1
  8131. 1
  8132. 1
  8133. 1
  8134. 1
  8135. 1
  8136. 1
  8137. 1
  8138. 1
  8139. 1
  8140. 1
  8141. 1
  8142. 1
  8143. 1
  8144. 1
  8145.  @joaosoares7446  because I have experienced it at every turn. Not only that, but it has been documented many times in human history for thousands of years by poets, philosophers, scientists, and more. There are entire memes and posters highlighting this problem. The nail that sticks out gets hammered. People push an idea, such as in Physics, or Egyptology, theory of human evolution, etc., and if anyone upsets the apple cart that many famous people have built their careers and reputations upon and prove them all wrong, they will fight tooth and nail to stop you. People claim to want thinkers, but when thinkers show up and share their good ideas, or warn of impending disaster, no one listens until it's too late. This is a frustratingly common thing in Engineering, and my coworkers and I discuss it frequently. Corporations claim to care, claim to want fresh new ideas, but are dogmatic in reality. People don't like change, don't like risk, etc. I've been a top performer in the military in combat, as a professional pilot in aviation, as an instructor including at the college level, and an engineer. Every time I came up with a good idea, people rejected it. They liked that I was personally getting results, but there was no way in hell they were going to implement my ideas themselves. They continually refuse new and better ideas, even when I demonstrated those ideas to be superior repeatedly, even when people above me were getting promoted for the success I was creating for them. If you're not aware of these issues, then you're not creative enough for them to apply to you. This is a well known and documented problem throughout human history. People hated on Nickola Tesla, Michael Faraday, Einstein, and many more for years. Many great minds were not even appreciated until after they died. Cases like Isaac Newton, where people treated every idea he had as gold, are extremely rare and uncommon. Many great minds in history were even Killed for their ideas.
    1
  8146. 1
  8147. 1
  8148. 1
  8149. 1
  8150. 1
  8151. 1
  8152. 1
  8153. 1
  8154. 1
  8155. 1
  8156. 1
  8157. 1
  8158. 1
  8159. 1
  8160. 1
  8161. 1
  8162. 1
  8163. 1
  8164. 1
  8165. 1
  8166. 1
  8167. 1
  8168. 1
  8169. 1
  8170. 1
  8171. 1
  8172. 1
  8173. 1
  8174. 1
  8175. 1
  8176. 1
  8177. 1
  8178. 1
  8179. 1
  8180. 1
  8181. 1
  8182. 1
  8183. 1
  8184. 1
  8185. 1
  8186. 1
  8187. 1
  8188. 1
  8189. 1
  8190. 1
  8191. 1
  8192. 1
  8193. 1
  8194. 1
  8195. 1
  8196. 1
  8197. 1
  8198. 1
  8199. 1
  8200. 1
  8201. 1
  8202. 1
  8203. 1
  8204. 1
  8205. 1
  8206. 1
  8207. 1
  8208. 1
  8209. 1
  8210. 1
  8211. 1
  8212. 1
  8213. 1
  8214. 1
  8215. 1
  8216. 1
  8217. 1
  8218. 1
  8219. 1
  8220. 1
  8221. 1
  8222. 1
  8223. 1
  8224. 1
  8225. 1
  8226. 1
  8227. 1
  8228. 1
  8229. 1
  8230. 1
  8231. 1
  8232. 1
  8233. 1
  8234. 1
  8235. 1
  8236. 1
  8237. 1
  8238. 1
  8239. 1
  8240. 1
  8241. 1
  8242. 1
  8243. 1
  8244. 1
  8245. 1
  8246. 1
  8247. 1
  8248. 1
  8249. 1
  8250. 1
  8251. 1
  8252. 1
  8253. 1
  8254. 1
  8255. 1
  8256. 1
  8257. 1
  8258. 1
  8259. 1
  8260. 1
  8261. 1
  8262. 1
  8263. 1
  8264. 1
  8265. 1
  8266. 1
  8267. 1
  8268. 1
  8269. 1
  8270. 1
  8271. 1
  8272. 1
  8273. 1
  8274. 1
  8275. 1
  8276. 1
  8277. 1
  8278. 1
  8279. 1
  8280. 1
  8281. 1
  8282. 1
  8283. 1
  8284. 1
  8285. 1
  8286. 1
  8287. 1
  8288. 1
  8289. 1
  8290. 1
  8291. 1
  8292. 1
  8293. 1
  8294. 1
  8295. 1
  8296. 1
  8297. 1
  8298. 1
  8299. 1
  8300. 1
  8301. 1
  8302. 1
  8303. 1
  8304. 1
  8305. 1
  8306. 1
  8307. 1
  8308. 1
  8309. 1
  8310. 1
  8311. 1
  8312. 1
  8313. 1
  8314. 1
  8315. 1
  8316. 1
  8317. 1
  8318. 1
  8319. 1
  8320. 1
  8321. 1
  8322. 1
  8323. 1
  8324. 1
  8325. 1
  8326. 1
  8327. 1
  8328. 1
  8329. 1
  8330. 1
  8331. 1
  8332. 1
  8333. 1
  8334. 1
  8335. 1
  8336. 1
  8337. 1
  8338. 1
  8339. 1
  8340. 1
  8341. 1
  8342. 1
  8343. 1
  8344. 1
  8345. 1
  8346. 1
  8347. 1
  8348. 1
  8349. 1
  8350. 1
  8351. 1
  8352. 1
  8353. 1
  8354. 1
  8355. 1
  8356. 1
  8357. 1
  8358. 1
  8359. 1
  8360. 1
  8361. 1
  8362. 1
  8363. 1
  8364. 1
  8365. 1
  8366. 1
  8367. 1
  8368. 1
  8369. 1
  8370. 1
  8371. 1
  8372. 1
  8373. 1
  8374. 1
  8375. 1
  8376. 1
  8377. 1
  8378. 1
  8379. 1
  8380. 1
  8381. 1
  8382. 1
  8383. 1
  8384. 1
  8385. 1
  8386. 1
  8387. 1
  8388. 1
  8389. 1
  8390. 1
  8391. 1
  8392. 1
  8393. 1
  8394. 1
  8395. 1
  8396. 1
  8397. 1
  8398. 1
  8399. 1
  8400. 1
  8401. 1
  8402. 1
  8403.  @katey1dog  not necessarily. Bigger doesn't mean longer range. P-51 was smaller than teh P-47 and had longer range, because it was more efficient. If you know anything about aircraft design, you'd know size and weight are performance killers. the bigger and heavier it is, the more power is required to do things, and the more fuel that power needs. B-29/B-50 entered service before the B-36, and also outlasted the the B-36 in service by 1-6yrs (1yr for B-29, 6rys for B-50). First Flight B-29: 1942 B-36: 1946 B-47: 1947 B-52: 1952 Entered Service B-29: 1944 B-36: 1948 B-47: 1951 B-52: 1955 Retired B-29: 1960 B-50: 1965 B-36: 1959 B-47: 1969-1977 B-52: in service Crew B-29: 11 B-36: 13 (all that extra manpower for little gain in performance) B-47: 3 (more engines, less crew) B-52: 5 (more engines, less crew) B-1: 4 B-2: 2 B-21: optionally manned Empty Weight B-29: 74.5k lb B-36: 166k lb B-47: 80k lb B-52: 185k lb (not much heavier than the B-36) Max Weight B-29: 135k lb B-36: 410k lb B-47: 221k lb B-52: 488k lb (not much heavier than the B-36) Max Range B-29: 3,250mi B-36: 3,985mi (barely better at all) B-47: 2,013mi B-52: 8,800mi (more than 2X the B-36, despite being only slightly heavier) # of Engines B-29: 4 B-36: 6 B-47: 6 (# of engines doesn't correlate to weight nor size) B-52: 8 (# of engines doesn't correlate to weight nor size) If you compare the physical dimensions, the B-36 is far bigger than the B-52 in length, wingspan, and wing area. This means bigger runways, bigger hangars, etc. Wingspan in ft (wing area in sq ft) B-29: 141 (1736) B-36: 230 (4772) B-52: 185 (4000) The B-1 is equivalent in weight to the B-52, but only has less range than a B-29, due to speed. And has 4 engines. B-2 is a bit lighter than a B-36, but has a 6,900mi range. So while being slightly smaller, with 4 engines, it actually goes 2x as far. The B-21 is smaller still, but said to be able to bomb any target in on the planet without mid-air refueling. A nearly 20,000mi range! Notice how smaller equals greater range? Also notice how crew sizes keeps getting smaller? More crew equals more training, more cost, more weight, more total manpower that had to be ready. For the manpower of 5x B-36s, you could man 13x B-52s. Also, the massive size of the B-36 made maintenance and readiness levels more difficult and costly.
    1
  8404. 1
  8405. 1
  8406. 1
  8407. 1
  8408. 1
  8409. 1
  8410. 1
  8411. 1
  8412. 1
  8413. 1
  8414. 1
  8415. 1
  8416. 1
  8417. 1
  8418. 1
  8419. 1
  8420. 1
  8421. 1
  8422. 1
  8423. 1
  8424. 1
  8425. 1
  8426. 1
  8427. 1
  8428. 1
  8429. 1
  8430. 1
  8431. 1
  8432. 1
  8433. 1
  8434. 1
  8435. 1
  8436. 1
  8437. 1
  8438. 1
  8439. 1
  8440. 1
  8441. 1
  8442. 1
  8443. 1
  8444. 1
  8445. 1
  8446. 1
  8447. 1
  8448. 1
  8449. 1
  8450. 1
  8451. 1
  8452. 1
  8453. 1
  8454. 1
  8455. 1
  8456. 1
  8457. 1
  8458. 1
  8459. 1
  8460. 1
  8461. 1
  8462. 1
  8463. 1
  8464. 1
  8465. 1
  8466. 1
  8467. 1
  8468. 1
  8469. 1
  8470. 1
  8471. 1
  8472. 1
  8473. 1
  8474. 1
  8475. 1
  8476. 1
  8477. 1
  8478. 1
  8479. 1
  8480. 1
  8481. 1
  8482. 1
  8483. 1
  8484. 1
  8485. 1
  8486. 1
  8487. 1
  8488. 1
  8489. 1
  8490. 1
  8491. 1
  8492. 1
  8493. 1
  8494. 1
  8495. 1
  8496. 1
  8497. 1
  8498. 1
  8499. 1
  8500. 1
  8501. 1
  8502. 1
  8503. 1
  8504. 1
  8505. 1
  8506. 1
  8507. 1
  8508. 1
  8509. 1
  8510. 1
  8511. 1
  8512. 1
  8513. 1
  8514. 1
  8515. 1
  8516. 1
  8517. 1
  8518. 1
  8519. 1
  8520. 1
  8521. 1
  8522. 1
  8523. 1
  8524. 1
  8525. 1
  8526. 1
  8527. 1
  8528. 1
  8529. 1
  8530. 1
  8531. 1
  8532. 1
  8533. 1
  8534. 1
  8535. 1
  8536. 1
  8537. 1
  8538. 1
  8539. 1
  8540. 1
  8541. 1
  8542. 1
  8543. 1
  8544. 1
  8545. 1
  8546. 1
  8547. 1
  8548. 1
  8549. 1
  8550. 1
  8551. 1
  8552. 1
  8553. 1
  8554. 1
  8555. 1
  8556. 1
  8557. 1
  8558. 1
  8559. 1
  8560. 1
  8561. 1
  8562. 1
  8563. 1
  8564. 1
  8565. 1
  8566. 1
  8567. 1
  8568. 1
  8569. 1
  8570. 1
  8571.  @Catg1222  then why are all of the new colleges graduates worthless? very few who graduate (less than 10%) should even have degrees, the rest are not meeting the minimum requirements to do the job they're hired to do. People don't think for themselves. Most believe blatant lies, many of teh rest i can easily manipulate if I wanted to (I've done it before). few are actually critical thinkers capable of questioning things deeply and making good analysis in context. I've worked with college students for 20yrs and I've watched the steady decline in standards and intelligence. kids are graduating these days knowing less than i knew when I graduated high school. if it were up to me most of these kids would not earn degrees. they could try again but as it is they don't meet the standards to hold certain degrees. "Diversity and acceptance is finally being taught. " diversity and acceptance was always being taught. you're being taught to forget the truth/past and focus solely on the bad cases and ignore the good. "Academics is getting better. " objectively false, and it is discussed every single day at work. we're even discussing that it's getting so bad we might stop hiring college grads altogether and focus on training people internally instead. "They are finally realizing that not all kids learn the same way. So much is better than it was before." wrong, we alwasy knew, but the way we did it was that way for a reason. I am one fo those who learns differently and I excelled regardless, because teachers in teh past knew to let me be, and I figured out how to make my way of learning work on my own. And you clearly have no actual teaching experience or you'd know that in classroom environments you can't accommodate Everyone, and no matter what you do some kids simply dont care to learn at that point in their life. I'm actually working on a book about this and have a tried and tested method that works, that helps the greatest number of students. I've done it for years in teh real world with great success and had kids coming back to me because of it. But it's based upon the methods used in teh past, not upon the new methods. And I can/have even prove that certain modern methods are setting kids up for failure later (particularly teh kids that are most likely to be top performers). I experienced what happened when "no child left behind" was implemented and it was Not for the better. the best of intentions tend to get the worst outcomes because it is emotionally-based reactions, rather than facts-based, that fly in the face of how reality actually works.
    1
  8572. 1
  8573. 1
  8574. 1
  8575. 1
  8576. 1
  8577. 1
  8578. 1
  8579. 1
  8580. 1
  8581. 1
  8582. 1
  8583. 1
  8584. 1
  8585. 1
  8586. 1
  8587. 1
  8588. 1
  8589. 1
  8590. 1
  8591. 1
  8592. 1
  8593. 1
  8594. 1
  8595. 1
  8596. 1
  8597. 1
  8598. 1
  8599. 1
  8600. 1
  8601. 1
  8602. 1
  8603. 1
  8604. 1
  8605. 1
  8606. 1
  8607. 1
  8608. 1
  8609. 1
  8610. 1
  8611. 1
  8612. 1
  8613.  @pin65371  yes, you're exactly right. even if I can point out all the issues and how to fix them, look at how much money the industries I mentioned make every year, and the legal and financial burden it could take to defeat them. And history shows us big pharma and others are willing to play dirty and even criminal acts to protect their empire. Th first step is just making more people aware of the truth. Explain to them why healthcare has gotten so expensive, Such as, when so many people are unhealthy and constantly visiting the hospitals, everyone's insurance rates goes up to subsidize their bad behavior that's making them unhealthy. Or showing them how cheap an X-ray or MRI service could be and be profitable. My step brother and I made a business plan. His wife and another sister in law of mine are nurses. We came up with an idea of offering just MRI and X-ray services in a small building with 3 rooms. There is the reception and waiting area, office and records, and 1 room each for the X-ray and MRI machines. If you think you have a problem, fell off a ladder at work or something, you can stop in and get a scan. The prices would be posted up-front menu style in the waiting area, no hidden fees. You get your scan, we show them to you and give you a complete set of copies to take with you. We are not doctors, merely providing a service, and tell you to consult a doctor with the scans. we found we could buy new machines, charge $20/X-ray, and $40/MRI and be profitable within the first yr. If services were that cheap, there would be little need for health insurance. When I was growing up, nobody had health insurance except rich people. People were healthy, costs were more reasonable. Years ago I went to the dentist to get my last two wisdom teeth pulled, and paid out of pocket. I opted out of sleeping gas to save the fee (turns out you don't need it anyways as the numbing they give you works just fine. The whole thing took less than 30min and cost about $80 cash out of pocket. After that I started doing regular routine visits every 6months (cheaper than getting wisdom teeth pulled of course), paying cash, as it was so cheap if I paid cash (and I had no insurance at the time). If you tell them you are paying cash up front, and get better pricing, people would see it's not as expensive as they thought. That insurance companies are part of the problem. Gov mandated insurance is even worse. We need to show people how being unhealthy costs money, how out-of-pocket cash payments are far cheaper, how insurance is a big scam, teach people pills are not a cure nor remedy they are part of the problem. I haven't found a thing yet that can't be cured/prevented by diet and exercise, and other simple things (like diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, obesity, etc.). And along the way people learn how to eat more affordably and cook. Obviously things like broken bones and serious surgery still needs a doctor. But if we can change people's awareness and perception, we can change the system over time. I take no pills. When offered pills by doctors, I always refuse to take them, even if I just take them with me to avoid arguing with the doctor/nurse. I throw them out when I get home though. I changed my diet, always grew up physically active and outdoors, so just getting back to that more. And as a result of all this, I never have any issues on annual physicals. I'm never sick anymore (even during COVID being around tons of sick people with no vaccine nor protection of any kind, never got COVID or never had symptoms and never once tested positive). I never got to the doctor anymore other than physicals as I have nothing I can't treat myself at home with changes in diet, exercise, stretching, or lifestyle change. If everyone did this, there would be fewer people buying big pharma's snake oil, less people using health insurance, more people paying cash, people going to the doctor less often, people would be saving TONS of money on food, they'd be happier, healthier, richer, have more energy and mental clarity/focus, etc. As a result of my actions, my health insurance through work is $24/month, $42/month when you include dental/vision/etc. I really need to write a book on how I do this, and everything I've learned along the way. How to be healthy with not that much effort. I don't even go to the gym, never have. Everything I learned to do can be worked into an average person's daily routine at little to no cost, and only minor lifestyle adjustments. I actually have the topics to cover in such a book already written down and ready to go for such a book. How to save money, how/why to cook meals. How to be healthy in tens of ways, etc. All backed by experience and scientific studies.
    1
  8614. 1
  8615. 1
  8616. 1
  8617. 1
  8618. 1
  8619. 1
  8620. 1
  8621. 1
  8622. 1
  8623. 1
  8624. 1
  8625. 1
  8626. 1
  8627. 1
  8628. 1
  8629. 1
  8630. 1
  8631. 1
  8632. 1
  8633. 1
  8634. 1
  8635. 1
  8636. 1
  8637. 1
  8638. 1
  8639. 1
  8640. 1
  8641. 1
  8642. 1
  8643. 1
  8644. 1
  8645. 1
  8646. 1
  8647. 1
  8648. 1
  8649. 1
  8650. 1
  8651. 1
  8652. 1
  8653. 1
  8654. 1
  8655. 1
  8656. 1
  8657. 1
  8658. 1
  8659. 1
  8660. 1
  8661. 1
  8662. 1
  8663. 1
  8664. 1
  8665. 1
  8666. 1
  8667. 1
  8668. 1
  8669. 1
  8670. 1
  8671. 1
  8672. 1
  8673. 1
  8674. 1
  8675. 1
  8676. 1
  8677. 1
  8678. 1
  8679. 1
  8680. 1
  8681. 1
  8682. 1
  8683. 1
  8684. 1
  8685. 1
  8686. 1
  8687. 1
  8688. 1
  8689. 1
  8690. 1
  8691. 1
  8692. 1
  8693. 1
  8694. 1
  8695. 1
  8696. 1
  8697. 1
  8698. 1
  8699. 1
  8700. 1
  8701. 1
  8702. 1
  8703. 1
  8704. 1
  8705. 1
  8706. 1
  8707. 1
  8708. 1
  8709. 1
  8710. 1
  8711. 1
  8712. 1
  8713. 1
  8714. 1
  8715. 1
  8716. 1
  8717. 1
  8718. 1
  8719. 1
  8720. 1
  8721. 1
  8722. 1
  8723. 1
  8724. 1
  8725. 1
  8726. 1
  8727. 1
  8728. 1
  8729. 1
  8730. 1
  8731. 1
  8732. 1
  8733. 1
  8734. 1
  8735. 1
  8736. 1
  8737. 1
  8738. 1
  8739. 1
  8740. 1
  8741. 1
  8742. 1
  8743. 1
  8744. 1
  8745. 1
  8746. 1
  8747. 1
  8748. 1
  8749. 1
  8750. 1
  8751. 1
  8752. 1
  8753. 1
  8754. 1
  8755. 1
  8756. 1
  8757. 1
  8758. 1
  8759. 1
  8760. 1
  8761. 1
  8762. 1
  8763. 1
  8764. 1
  8765. 1
  8766. 1
  8767. 1
  8768. 1
  8769. 1
  8770. 1
  8771. 1
  8772. 1
  8773. 1
  8774. 1
  8775. 1
  8776. 1
  8777. 1
  8778. 1
  8779. 1
  8780. 1
  8781. 1
  8782. 1
  8783. 1
  8784. 1
  8785. 1
  8786. 1
  8787. 1
  8788. 1
  8789. 1
  8790. 1
  8791. 1
  8792. 1
  8793. 1
  8794. 1
  8795. 1
  8796. 1
  8797. 1
  8798. 1
  8799. 1
  8800. 1
  8801. 1
  8802. 1
  8803. 1
  8804. 1
  8805. 1
  8806. 1
  8807. 1
  8808. 1
  8809. 1
  8810. 1
  8811. 1
  8812. 1
  8813. 1
  8814. 1
  8815. 1
  8816. 1
  8817. 1
  8818. 1
  8819. 1
  8820. 1
  8821. 1
  8822. 1
  8823. 1
  8824. 1
  8825. 1
  8826. 1
  8827. 1
  8828. 1
  8829. 1
  8830. 1
  8831. 1
  8832. 1
  8833. 1
  8834. 1
  8835. 1
  8836. 1
  8837. 1
  8838. 1
  8839. 1
  8840. 1
  8841. 1
  8842. 1
  8843. 1
  8844. 1
  8845. 1
  8846. 1
  8847. 1
  8848. 1
  8849. 1
  8850. 1
  8851. 1
  8852. 1
  8853. 1
  8854. 1
  8855. 1
  8856. 1
  8857. 1
  8858. 1
  8859. 1
  8860. 1
  8861. 1
  8862. 1
  8863. 1
  8864. 1
  8865. 1
  8866. 1
  8867. 1
  8868. 1
  8869. 1
  8870. 1
  8871. 1
  8872. 1
  8873. 1
  8874. 1
  8875. 1
  8876. 1
  8877. 1
  8878. 1
  8879. 1
  8880. 1
  8881. 1
  8882.  @Beyonder8335  I appreciate that you seem like a person interested in genuine discussion. not common anymore online. "That said if we’re talking 2023 you clearly just didn’t have it that bad there." no, we had a drought for sure, killed lawns, crops, etc. But only those who were negligent lost crops. Most people have irrigation, others planted early enough, etc. And the drought was minor compared to droughts of the past. People have short memories. CO2 absolutely plays a part though. Go research greenhouse farming. They did actual studies on plant growth and found plants liked 800-1200ppm, and so that is a common range greenhouses keep their CO2 levels at. we went from 200ppm to 400ppm in about 150yrs, and plants you farm die at CO2 levels of around 150-180ppm. We were on the verge of the mass extinction of most life on earth, including most human life, if the CO2 levels had continued to decline. The greatest explosion in plant and animal diversity in history on earth occurred when CO2 levels were around 4000ppm. Also, research "Stomata" in plants. As CO2 levels rise, the stomata levels in plants change, making them need less water, making them more water efficient and drought resistant. And this is helping to regreen the Sahara, as well as other water retention methods (which have also been demonstrated all over the US by permaculture farmers, including in deserts). "I don’t know why you’re trying to spin this into me only acknowledging 2012 through present, I just used it as an example because it was the most recent drought of similar severity. Never once said there hadn’t been worse droughts before." I do this because usually in debates online with uninformed people (which I will not group you into that category), such as many in this comment thread, they ignore historical data. The Climate Change politicians and activists have brainwashed the masses into thinking there is no climate data prior to the 1970s. when in reality there is tons going back a long time, it just disproves their narrative to talk about anything prior to the 1970s. And anytime they claim we're seeing a "record" temp or something like that, it's almost always false, and the real record was set some time between 1850 and 1970. So when people limit the dates of comparison, I automatically assume that is what they are doing, as it's the case 99.9% of the time I get into debates with people online. Those people literally ARE cherry picking the data to suit their narrative.
    1
  8883. 1
  8884. 1
  8885. 1
  8886. 1
  8887. 1
  8888. 1
  8889. 1
  8890. 1
  8891. 1
  8892.  @GreatLakesGirl311  It was many degrees warmer, globally, in the 1930s and 1940s, than it is today. Your orchards didn't die off back then, and they wont die off now. they produced crops then, and they will now. They need CO2 to grow and produce crops. At 150-180ppm CO2 all plant life on earth dies, except grasses. we were down to 200ppm at teh start of the industrial revolution. On teh verge of mass extinction! We are at ~400ppm today, and at most we've seen 0.7C global average temp rise. Most people can't even tell the difference. Arctic ice extent keeps reaching or exceeding it's 30yr average nearly every year. Sea Levels are not rising any faster than they ever have. Globally, sea levels aren't rising at all. Some places are rising, some decreasing. This is mostly due to tectonic plate movements. and when you average ALL sea level changes everywhere on earth at the same time, it averages to zero net sea level rise globally. and all the WEF climate tyrants own coastal properties and mansion son the coasts. Insurance companies are not raising rates for coastal properties due to risk of sea level rise either. Banks are still heavily investing in coastal developments and properties. L Literally every single climate doom prediction in the past 150yrs has failed to come true. "A 5th grade science class would easily understand all the information I have shared here." no, they wouldn't. you've stated nothing factually true. nothing substantiated by scientific fact. They need to know a bunch of physics, math, thermodynamics, and chemistry principles to have the full picture. and by teh time I get around to explaining it all to them in a way they'd understand (and I can), they'll be in 6th grade at least. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, that is a law of physics and chemistry. you cannot just wish it away and deny it. it remains true. you can literally do a science experiment at home to prove it, and people have done it hundreds of times since the 1950s.
    1
  8893. 1
  8894.  @k.h.6991  one warm summer =/= climate change. temps have actually been cooling off since 2012. the only places heating up are urban cities with no trees. the temp sensors are in heat island effect or being averaged with good stations, dragging the averages up artificially. rural regions like forests are no hotter than 100yrs ago. CO2 does not drive temp change. And it is know and proven scientific fact that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temps. the more you add, the less impact i has. It took 200ppm of CO2 to raise temps at most 1C. now it will take another 400ppm to get it o increase another 1C. And then it will take another 800ppm to raise 1C more. and then it will take 1600ppm increase to raise another 1C. 400ppm +400PPM = 800ppm (giving 2C rise total) 800ppm + 800 ppm = 1600ppm (giving 3C rise total, this is still within yearly variations of temps throughout the seasons people wont even notice this much warming) 1600ppm + 1600ppm = 3200pp (for 4C total rise) CO2 changes stomata levels in plants making them more water efficient and drought resistant, and regreening deserts. Plants prefer CO2 levels at 1200ppm or greater for optimal growth. We started at 200ppm. If we had dropped below 150-180ppm all plant life other than grasses would cease to exist, and all the animals that depend upon those plants would have gone extinct. We were on the verge of extinction at 200ppm of CO2. during the Cambrian explosion (greatest diversity of plant and animal life) CO2 was at 4000ppm. Life thrived at those levels. Global average sea levels are not rising at all. in some places it is rising, and other places it is falling, this is due to plate tectonics, something you should have learned about as a child. But when you add up all rise/fall along every coast in the world, overall they average out to zero net rise. hurricanes, forest fires, and tornados are at a record low in history for frequency and intensity. Crop yields are increasing year over year with rising CO2.
    1
  8895. 1
  8896. 1
  8897. 1
  8898. 1
  8899. 1
  8900. 1
  8901. 1
  8902. 1
  8903. 1
  8904. 1
  8905. 1
  8906. 1
  8907. 1
  8908. 1
  8909. 1
  8910. 1
  8911. 1
  8912. 1
  8913. 1
  8914. 1
  8915. 1
  8916. 1
  8917. 1
  8918. 1
  8919. 1
  8920. 1
  8921. 1
  8922. 1
  8923. 1
  8924. 1
  8925. 1
  8926. 1
  8927. 1
  8928. 1
  8929. 1
  8930. 1
  8931. 1
  8932. 1
  8933. 1
  8934. 1
  8935. 1
  8936. 1
  8937. 1
  8938. 1
  8939. 1
  8940. 1
  8941. 1
  8942. 1
  8943. 1
  8944. 1
  8945. 1
  8946. 1
  8947. 1
  8948. 1
  8949. 1
  8950. 1
  8951. 1
  8952. 1
  8953. 1
  8954. 1
  8955. 1
  8956. 1
  8957. 1
  8958. 1
  8959. 1
  8960. 1
  8961. 1
  8962. 1
  8963. 1
  8964. 1
  8965. 1
  8966. 1
  8967. 1
  8968. 1
  8969. 1
  8970. 1
  8971. 1
  8972. 1
  8973. 1
  8974. 1
  8975. 1
  8976. 1
  8977. 1
  8978. 1
  8979. 1
  8980. 1
  8981. 1
  8982. 1
  8983. 1
  8984. 1
  8985. 1
  8986. 1
  8987. 1
  8988. 1
  8989. 1
  8990. 1
  8991. 1
  8992. 1
  8993. 1
  8994. 1
  8995. 1
  8996. 1
  8997. 1
  8998. 1
  8999. 1
  9000. 1
  9001. 1
  9002. 1
  9003. 1
  9004. 1
  9005. 1
  9006. 1
  9007. 1
  9008. 1
  9009. 1
  9010. 1
  9011. 1
  9012. 1
  9013. 1
  9014. 1
  9015. 1
  9016. 1
  9017. 1
  9018. 1
  9019. 1
  9020. 1
  9021. 1
  9022. 1
  9023. 1
  9024. 1
  9025. 1
  9026. 1
  9027. 1
  9028. 1
  9029. 1
  9030. 1
  9031. 1
  9032. 1
  9033. 1
  9034. 1
  9035. 1
  9036. 1
  9037. 1
  9038. 1
  9039. 1
  9040. 1
  9041. 1
  9042. 1
  9043. 1
  9044. 1
  9045. 1
  9046. 1
  9047. 1
  9048. 1
  9049. 1
  9050. 1
  9051. 1
  9052. 1
  9053. 1
  9054. 1
  9055. 1
  9056. 1
  9057. 1
  9058. 1
  9059. 1
  9060. 1
  9061. 1
  9062. 1
  9063. 1
  9064. 1
  9065. 1
  9066. 1
  9067. 1
  9068.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  "They don't deteriorate in the desert. They deteriorate by being flown" clearly you don't know what a "hangar queen" is. People in aviation do. The A-10s are not at end of life. they've been rebuilt and upgraded and are basically new again, many decades of service left in them. "If you're going to rebuild the entire thing, you're buying a new aircraft." and that's what they did, replaced all the old worn out items, brand new wings, new engines, new avionics. All the fatigued parts were replaced. clock has been reset. " A total waste of money because everyone knew this would happen." but the money has already been spent, so why scrap them? "Aircraft are built to be lightweight so they flex and strain with flight hours, depressurization and landing/take off cycles. Your Cessna's never exceed speed is what, 170 knots? Make it pull 7-8 Gs at 280 knots like an A-10 and see what happens." I'm a mechanical engineer. You're wrong. an airplane designed to withstand higher Gs has that factored into the design, to withstand that fatigue and stress accordingly. If the A-10 was designed to handle 7Gs, pulling 7Gs wont degrade its useful life. Pulling less will extend its life though. The Cessna was designed to withstand ~+3G/-1.5G, and so long as you stay within that, you're fine. But that's why they replaced the wings, not just on the a-10, but the f-15s as well. Exceeding limits can result in damage or premature failure later on. But when expecting to take higher loads, you design accordingly. You can even make high stress components with near infinite fatigue life if you us the right materials in critical places and size them correctly.
    1
  9069. 1
  9070. 1
  9071. 1
  9072. 1
  9073. 1
  9074. 1
  9075. 1
  9076. 1
  9077. 1
  9078. 1
  9079. 1
  9080. 1
  9081. 1
  9082. 1
  9083. 1
  9084. 1
  9085. 1
  9086. 1
  9087. 1
  9088. 1
  9089. 1
  9090. 1
  9091. 1
  9092. 1
  9093. 1
  9094. 1
  9095. 1
  9096. 1
  9097. 1
  9098. 1
  9099. 1
  9100. 1
  9101. 1
  9102. 1
  9103. 1
  9104. 1
  9105. 1
  9106. 1
  9107. 1
  9108. 1
  9109. 1
  9110. 1
  9111. 1
  9112. 1
  9113. 1
  9114. 1
  9115. 1
  9116. 1
  9117. 1
  9118. 1
  9119. 1
  9120. 1
  9121. 1
  9122. 1
  9123. 1
  9124. 1
  9125. 1
  9126. 1
  9127. 1
  9128. 1
  9129. 1
  9130. 1
  9131. 1
  9132. 1
  9133. 1
  9134. 1
  9135. 1
  9136. 1
  9137. 1
  9138. 1
  9139. 1
  9140. 1
  9141. 1
  9142. 1
  9143. 1
  9144. 1
  9145. 1
  9146. 1
  9147. 1
  9148. 1
  9149. 1
  9150. 1
  9151. 1
  9152. 1
  9153. 1
  9154.  @Ry-pn2hy  I buy raw ingredients from teh grocery store and can live on less than $30/month for 1 adult. $6 a meal is fast food prices. I can easily get under $2/meal homecooked. I can make an 11in pizza for about $2.50 in only 20min (including mixing and kneading the dough, adding toppings, and baking in the oven). You can buy local meat from local butcher shops and farms. Many people save a ton by buying a 1/4 to a whole cow of meat up front, and cutting up a portion of it themselves. Lots of new beef farms springing up in my area to satisfy rising demand for local beef. You can also go fishing. And there is aquaponics. You can garden and can foods. I have been steadily accumulating basic recipes for many things, from bread, to ketchup, mayonnaise, pasta, pizza, biscuits, casseroles, soups, and much much more. Learning how to make Everything from scratch. If you skip teh fancy recipes and find that most basic ones to start with you'll find how simple, quick, easy, and CHEAP food is. And by starting simple it's hard to screw up, and then you can learn to add to it and weak the recipes as you learn. Everyone is raising chickens and selling eggs these days. City ordinances are constantly being updated to allow raising chickens in town. You can even get local milk and cheese. And from milk you can easily make your own butter, whipped cream, ice cream, sour cream, cheese, and more. It's amazing how easy this stuff is. In my area they re-legalized selling cows milk straight from the farm (used to be commonplace when I was younger). even before I learned all of this, I was living off $120/person each 1 month for many years, which is a mere $4 per day (this was about 2020 prices). Back then I bought a lot of unhealthy easy foods/meals from the grocery store, and even ate out a few times per month. If you can't eat as cheaply as myself and others like me, just know you are missing out on a LOT of ways to save WAY more money on food. I don't even struggle to spend less than $2/meal. Just that other day i was eating something I made at $1.20/meal. And eventually I will be nearly 100% food independent, and likely make a net profit off my food.
    1
  9155. 1
  9156. 1
  9157. 1
  9158. 1
  9159. 1
  9160. 1
  9161. 1
  9162. 1
  9163. 1
  9164. 1
  9165. 1
  9166. 1
  9167. 1
  9168. 1
  9169. 1
  9170. 1
  9171. 1
  9172. 1
  9173. 1
  9174. 1
  9175. 1
  9176. 1
  9177. 1
  9178. 1
  9179. 1
  9180. 1
  9181. 1
  9182. 1
  9183. 1
  9184. 1
  9185. 1
  9186. 1
  9187. 1
  9188. 1
  9189. 1
  9190. 1
  9191. 1
  9192. 1
  9193. 1
  9194. 1
  9195. 1
  9196. 1
  9197. 1
  9198. 1
  9199. 1
  9200. 1
  9201. 1
  9202. 1
  9203. 1
  9204. 1
  9205. 1
  9206. 1
  9207. 1
  9208. 1
  9209. 1
  9210. 1
  9211. 1
  9212. 1
  9213. 1
  9214. 1
  9215. 1
  9216. 1
  9217. 1
  9218. 1
  9219. 1
  9220. ​ @johnshepherd9676  "Well mate, if you acknowledge that Kurita's force was the main force then you just blew a lit lot of electrons on a faulty argument." your faulty argument? "Halsey's focus should have been on Kurita, at least to extent of leaving Lee behind. That is all I got for today, go away now." Typical, state unsubstantiated opinions, then runaway. and demand silence from your opposition and try to silence them from responding. Typical loser response. Kurita feigned retreat, and it worked. Why would they chase down a task force that was out of range, and believed to be heading back to Brunei? There was a northern force of carriers to go after still, and the US successfully dealt with all three forces, even though Halsey went north. And after Halsey sunk part of the northern force, the IJN never fought a naval engagement ever again in WW2 (Yamato's suicide run doesn't count as they were never able to go offensive and engage or threaten a single US Navy warship). Halsey wanted the knockout blow, and so did Nimitz and others. And they succeeded. Nimitz's message to Halsely was sent in error, the part, "The world wonders" was never part of the message Nimitz sent. And should have never resulted in the battleships being turned around to fight in a battle Halsey already knew was over, but felt he had to turn them around to save his job (but nimitz had never meant to imply halsey's job was at risk). But Halsey should have continued, and used the battleships to sink the northern force in its entirety as planned.
    1
  9221. 1
  9222.  @mkaustralia7136  "I was worried that if all the CVs went north leaving Lee’s BBs behind, they might be attacked by IJA air power when they had no air cover " Such a strawman argument. go reread ALL of WW2 in the Pacific history. 1) the Taffy's had Plenty of fighters to provide air cover. 2) the air cover promised Center Force never really materialized. Japan air power at this point was basically nonexistant. 3) US battleships have DEVESTATING AAA firepower. Go look at Santa Cruz. The Japanese themselves in their books admit that the AAA was so devastating that when the battle of Santa Cruz ended, only 7 operational IJN aircraft remained in the fleet. US battleships proved they could both defend themselves and another ship simultaneously against air attack. 4) Never in WW2 did a Japanese air strike sink or seriously threaten a US battleship after Dec 8, 1941. Look what it took for US aircraft to sink the Contemporary Japanese battleships to the North Carolinas, South Dakotas, and Iowas......it took the US HUNDREDS of airplanes over many hours to sink the newest japanese battleships. Japan had no hope in hell of sustaining anything remotely like that against TF34. 5) US airpower from the Taffy carriers against center force during the battle of Samar contributed no real damage to the IJN warships. Only Japan's own fears gave them any effect, and that effect was merely slowing down the ships by convincing them to dodge fake attacks. "course changes to avoid dive bombers and kamikazes rather messes with your firing solutions. " This does not apply to US Battleships with radar controlled AAA. it affected IJN firing solutions against other SHIPS. but US battleships used radar control in TF34, as was used to decimate IJN southern force. Japanese aircraft would not have thrown off TF34 AAA nor main guns as they are radar and computer controlled and can compensate for the movement of the ship. Name one case of Japanese kamikazes throwing off the aim of a US battleship in WW2? "The IJA still had considerable air assets on Luzon. " Even the IJN commanders had no faith in those assets even before teh battle of Leyte kicked off. Kurita already had doubts they would show up, while enroute to the battle. "TG 81.3 was raiding airfields to try to suppress them and played little role in Sibuyan Sea as a result. " And achieved literally nothing, as IJN fleets were decimated just the same. "The forces to the south of the landing beaches seem to have had less interference from IJA aircraft." same as the center and northern forces. no real impact from japanese aircraft. Go look what happened to ALL of the IJN Northern Force aircraft. nearly all were shot down with no effect, and the few survivors had to limp to luzon. I have a small list of naval channels. I recommend books more so. research the actual documents, actual orders given by Nimitz, etc. find more in depth detailed resources. go read Japanese accounts and records too.
    1
  9223. 1
  9224. 1
  9225. 1
  9226. 1
  9227. 1
  9228. 1
  9229. 1
  9230. 1
  9231. 1
  9232. 1
  9233. 1
  9234. 1
  9235. 1
  9236. 1
  9237. 1
  9238. 1
  9239. 1
  9240. 1
  9241. 1
  9242. 1
  9243. 1
  9244. 1
  9245. 1
  9246. 1
  9247. 1
  9248. 1
  9249. 1
  9250. 1
  9251. 1
  9252. 1
  9253. 1
  9254. 1
  9255. 1
  9256. 1
  9257. 1
  9258. 1
  9259. 1
  9260. 1
  9261. 1
  9262. 1
  9263. 1
  9264. 1
  9265. 1
  9266. 1
  9267. 1
  9268. 1
  9269. 1
  9270. 1
  9271. 1
  9272. 1
  9273. 1
  9274. 1
  9275. 1
  9276. 1
  9277. 1
  9278.  @Withnail1969  that proves nothing. Yes, the world needs oil, coal, natural gas, mining for raw material for other sources of energy, etc. That doesn't prove your right. Cities also grew up around logging mills downstream of large forests. That doesn't mean wood is the most important cost of goods. some cities grew up around car factories, that doesn't make cars the largest cost of goods. energy is needed, but we have lived in an era of cheap energy. Energy is a prime consideration in my industry, but in no way related to making what we sell. We know our customers will spend more money operating our equipment over the life of the product than they bought it for. So we show them that if we spend MORE money making our product More efficient, they will save on their operating expenses long term, and will save more money in teh long run by buying a more expensive energy efficient device. But we do that to justify selling a better more expensive product, and make more profit on our end. Doesn't hurt that our argument is also true. But when we design and manufacture our product, the cost of energy to manufacture it doesn't even factor into the design nor development of our product. Labor costs, and then material costs, are the two largest factors we deal with on a daily basis in engineering. I also have a side business designing and selling various products, and we don't even consider the cost of electricity to run our machines to make our products. We factor in the material costs, parts costs, and time spent assembling it. But we don't include cost of electricity of the laser, printers, power tools, CNC, etc. as when you divide the energy cost by the number of parts made, it's just not worth the time to calculate it and add it to the price. it's pennies. Costs more in labor to take the time to calculate it.
    1
  9279. 1
  9280. 1
  9281. 1
  9282. 1
  9283. 1
  9284. 1
  9285. 1
  9286. 1
  9287. 1
  9288. 1
  9289. 1
  9290. 1
  9291. 1
  9292. 1
  9293. 1
  9294. 1
  9295. 1
  9296. 1
  9297. 1
  9298. 1
  9299. 1
  9300. 1
  9301. 1
  9302. 1
  9303. 1
  9304. 1
  9305. 1
  9306. 1
  9307. 1
  9308. 1
  9309. 1
  9310. 1
  9311. 1
  9312. 1
  9313. 1
  9314. 1
  9315.  @GarandThumb  not objective enough. the bullet doesn't care if the gun has a stock or not. it doesn't even know what it's being fired out of. These classifications are arbitrary, and pointless. For me, only things like "smoothbore" or "rifled" matter, as they truly affect things. Putting a bullet for a rifled barrel down a smoothbore gun is not going to work so well. But pistols are typically "rifled" too, but not always, and not originally. And even the idea of a "rifle" as we think of it today would include things like a "musket", as the term "rifle" has come to generically describe a form factor more so than the barrel itself. Not everything with a rifled barrel is considered a "rifle". A 22LR, 9mm, .500 Nitro Express, 500 S&W, 50 Beowulf, 50 AE, etc. all look a lot alike. What makes some "rifle" rounds, and others "pistol" rounds? Do they not all fire from rifled barrels? Can they not all be fired from a short pistol length barrel, or a long "rifle" length barrel? If a caliber were originally designed for a handgun, but ended up being used almost exclusively in "rifles" (so much so most people had no idea there were any pistols that fired it), would it still be a pistol round? I deal with this nonsense in my day job as an engineer constantly. Everyone needlessly trying to over classify things with arbitrary definitions, and all they do is serve to confuse everyone for no beneficial reason. Gov LOVES overclassifying things, as it enables them to skirt the laws and ban things and get away with stuff they shouldn't have been able to.
    1
  9316. 1
  9317. 1
  9318. 1
  9319. 1
  9320. 1
  9321. 1
  9322. 1
  9323. 1
  9324. 1
  9325. 1
  9326. 1
  9327. 1
  9328. 1
  9329. 1
  9330. 1
  9331. Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
    1
  9332. 1
  9333. 1
  9334. 1
  9335. 1
  9336. 1
  9337. 1
  9338. 1
  9339. 1
  9340. 1
  9341. 1
  9342. 1
  9343. 1
  9344.  @5353Jumper  "a Capitalist is a person who owns the capital that produces the goods/services, and does not need to actually perform any work of their own." not true at all. this type of person can exist, but is maybe 10% of all capitalists. A capitalist is any person who engages in the capitalist economy for self-gain. a They can capitalize on their assets to get others to complete things too big for them to do on their own. But others can capitalize on their labor for personal gain as well. Trading time and effort for assets to grow their own wealth. "So someone with enough capital which makes them enough financial return that they can afford their household without needing to work themselves." wrong. "So not a small business owner. Not a director or board member. Not a building owner who manages their own properties. Not a person who "owns" some property and pays a mortgage. Owning a few shares does not make you a capitalist unless you 100% live off the dividends. And definitely not anyone who is an "employee" anywhere. So realistically a lot less than 1% of people who comment on YouTube. " this is nothing more than your own uninformed opinion, not factual reality. "For example: I own a business, own my house, own a bunch of shares in other businesses, and I am a fan of regulated capitalism as part of a mixed economy model - yet still I am not a Capitalist because all of that is not enough to afford my lifestye without me performing some of the labor. Though many people mistakenly think I am a Capitalist." you literally have no clue what "Capitalism" is.
    1
  9345. 1
  9346. 1
  9347. 1
  9348. 1
  9349. 1
  9350. 1
  9351. 1
  9352. 1
  9353. 1
  9354. 1
  9355. 1
  9356. 1
  9357. 1
  9358. 1
  9359. 1
  9360. 1
  9361. 1
  9362. 1
  9363. 1
  9364. 1
  9365. 1
  9366. 1
  9367. 1
  9368. 1
  9369. 1
  9370. 1
  9371. 1
  9372. 1
  9373. 1
  9374. 1
  9375. 1
  9376. 1
  9377. 1
  9378. 1
  9379. 1
  9380. 1
  9381. 1
  9382. 1
  9383. 1
  9384. 1
  9385. 1
  9386. 1
  9387. 1
  9388. 1
  9389. 1
  9390. 1
  9391. 1
  9392. 1
  9393. 1
  9394. 1
  9395. 1
  9396. 1
  9397. 1
  9398. 1
  9399. 1
  9400. 1
  9401. 1
  9402. 1
  9403. 1
  9404. 1
  9405. 1
  9406. 1
  9407. 1
  9408. 1
  9409. 1
  9410. 1
  9411. 1
  9412. 1
  9413. 1
  9414. 1
  9415. 1
  9416. 1
  9417. 1
  9418. 1
  9419. 1
  9420. 1
  9421. 1
  9422. 1
  9423. 1
  9424. 1
  9425. 1
  9426. 1
  9427. 1
  9428. 1
  9429. 1
  9430. 1
  9431. 1
  9432. 1
  9433. 1
  9434. 1
  9435. 1
  9436. 1
  9437. 1
  9438. 1
  9439. 1
  9440. 1
  9441. 1
  9442. 1
  9443. 1
  9444. 1
  9445. 1
  9446. 1
  9447. 1
  9448. 1
  9449. 1
  9450. 1
  9451. 1
  9452. 1
  9453. 1
  9454. 1
  9455. 1
  9456. 1
  9457. 1
  9458. 1
  9459. 1
  9460. 1
  9461. 1
  9462. 1
  9463. 1
  9464. 1
  9465. 1
  9466. 1
  9467. 1
  9468. 1
  9469. 1
  9470. 1
  9471. 1
  9472. 1
  9473. 1
  9474. 1
  9475. 1
  9476. 1
  9477. 1
  9478. 1
  9479. 1
  9480. 1
  9481. 1
  9482. 1
  9483. 1
  9484. 1
  9485. 1
  9486. 1
  9487. 1
  9488. 1
  9489. 1
  9490. 1
  9491. 1
  9492. 1
  9493. 1
  9494. 1
  9495. 1
  9496. 1
  9497. 1
  9498. 1
  9499. 1
  9500. 1
  9501. 1
  9502. 1
  9503. 1
  9504. 1
  9505. 1
  9506. 1
  9507. 1
  9508. 1
  9509. 1
  9510. 1
  9511. 1
  9512. 1
  9513. 1
  9514. 1
  9515. 1
  9516. 1
  9517. 1
  9518. 1
  9519. 1
  9520. 1
  9521. 1
  9522. 1
  9523. 1
  9524. 1
  9525. 1
  9526. 1
  9527. 1
  9528. 1
  9529. 1
  9530. 1
  9531. 1
  9532. 1
  9533. 1
  9534. 1
  9535. 1
  9536. 1
  9537. 1
  9538. 1
  9539. 1
  9540. 1
  9541. 1
  9542. 1
  9543. 1
  9544. 1
  9545. 1
  9546. 1
  9547. 1
  9548. 1
  9549. 1
  9550. 1
  9551. 1
  9552. 1
  9553. 1
  9554. 1
  9555. 1
  9556. 1
  9557. 1
  9558. 1
  9559. 1
  9560. 1
  9561. 1
  9562. 1
  9563. 1
  9564. 1
  9565. 1
  9566. 1
  9567. 1
  9568. 1
  9569. 1
  9570. 1
  9571. 1
  9572. 1
  9573. 1
  9574. 1
  9575. 1
  9576. 1
  9577. 1
  9578. 1
  9579. 1
  9580. 1
  9581. 1
  9582. 1
  9583. 1
  9584. 1
  9585. 1
  9586. 1
  9587. 1
  9588. 1
  9589. 1
  9590. 1
  9591. 1
  9592. 1
  9593. 1
  9594. 1
  9595. 1
  9596. 1
  9597. 1
  9598. 1
  9599. 1
  9600. 1
  9601. 1
  9602. 1
  9603. 1
  9604. 1
  9605. 1
  9606. 1
  9607. 1
  9608. 1
  9609. 1
  9610. 1
  9611. 1
  9612. 1
  9613. 1
  9614. 1
  9615. 1
  9616. 1
  9617. 1
  9618. 1
  9619. 1
  9620. 1
  9621. 1
  9622. 1
  9623. 1
  9624. 1
  9625. 1
  9626. 1
  9627. 1
  9628. 1
  9629. 1
  9630. 1
  9631. 1
  9632. 1
  9633. 1
  9634. 1
  9635. 1
  9636. 1
  9637. 1
  9638. 1
  9639. 1
  9640. 1
  9641. 1
  9642. 1
  9643. 1
  9644. 1
  9645. 1
  9646. 1
  9647. 1
  9648. 1
  9649. 1
  9650. 1
  9651. 1
  9652. 1
  9653. 1
  9654. 1
  9655. 1
  9656.  Johannes Terzis  That's what you've been taught to believe. I am living proof that you are not born to be something. You Become something. Yes, some individuals seem predisposed to do certain things better than average. No denying that. But that does not apply to most people. Nor is that a guarantee those other people will go on to do what they seem predisposed to do either. You mistake big words and overly complex language for intelligence, and superior IQ. When in reality one of the smartest people ever in my mind was Sun Tzu. He said so much, in so few words (approximately only 23 pages worth), yet people have been analyzing and interpreting his words for thousands of years since. If you can't explain things effectively to others, then you don't understand it sufficiently yourself. The ability to teach a subject effectively, is a greater display of understanding that using big words and trying to impress people and act like they can't understand what you are talking about. I have pretty much never found this to be true, even for quantum physics theories. If a person can't explain their ideas to you, then either they are wrong, or don't know enough or understand what they are talking about. I understand deep philosophical thought, if anything, my equivalent natural skill compared to Wolfram would be Philosophy. I've been tackling the big deep questions since before I was in school. My first semester of college I debated 3 PhDs in Philosophy simultaneously for 3hrs straight and won the debate. I've had lawyers try to recruit me on the spot twice, due to my ability to debate so effectively, my incredible attention to detail, and ability to build an argument from the bottom up rather than top down. Also while in that same first semester, I rediscovered General Relativity on my own, independently, using nothing but logic, same as Einstein did. Didn't use a single bit of math, yet ended up with the Exact same conclusions as Einstein. I've been interested in modern physics ever since. After that, a friend of mine worked with me to explore physics further using only logic, and we rediscovered yet more prevailing theories of physics independently without using math. We did this without even knowing some of those theories even existed when we started. I didn't learn what General Relativity was truly about until after my discovery, and a friend suggested it sounded to him a lot like Relativity, and that I should take a closer look at it. And I'm not the only person I know who was able to rediscover such ideas independently either. Logic is more powerful than math. And I have other ways of proving this as well. Math has limitations that few are even aware of. It doesn't model the universe as well as we want to believe, at least not yet (always a possibility someone will find a way to tweak it). I've demonstrated to engineers ways to solve complex problems without any math, to arrive at an exact answer in only 20min, where a mathematician may have taken hours or days to do the same problem, and they would have still only gotten an approximate answer. This is due to the limitations of math, and my understanding of its limitations is what enables me to work around it. I don't need to use big words and fancy language, and to try to convince you you are incapable of understanding what I know. In fact, I'm the person who believes you Can understand what I know, and what Wolfram knows. That you Can do the things I can do, if you Want to. I'm the person who can reduce what people, like Wolfram, say down to easily understood concepts that almost anyone can comprehend. But few people have the ability to teach so effectively, not because they can't, but because they don't know how. Thus, they lead people like you to believe it is far harder than it really is.
    1
  9657. 1
  9658.  @HomeSkillenSLICE  You're wrapped up in IQ, which is all relative. It's not what you think it is, and it is far from black and white as people seem to think. Unfortunately I cannot share with you my personal thought process. If I could, that would be the "Holy Grail" of education. I have tried and failed for years to try to teach people to see what I see. Others have tried and failed. I can only assist others on their path to higher learning and understanding. But I can't make you "smart", that is ultimately up to you. I can only try to help you get somewhere faster. Besides, even if I tried to explain, it would take hours at best, and this is not the right forum for that. Most people can't even be bothered to read 4 paragraphs on here before just giving up and dismissing the whole discussion out of hand. As for my discovery of Relativity and other physics theories, what's there to prove? What could I possibly say or show you? I'd need to Demonstrate, but can't do that on here. But for context, Einstein came up with his ideas long before he solved the math to publish it. He made the logical conclusions, but now he had to prove them. That took time. But since he was the first to come up with the idea and prove it, he gets the rightful credit. But that in no way prevents others from independently coming to the same conclusions. Newton and Leibniz both independently invented Calculus. At least 4 different engineers and mathematicians between 1920-1960 came to the same conclusions about lift distribution across a wing as Prandtl did. But since Prandtl was first and published his idea, he gets credit. But that doesn't diminish the fact that others, not knowing of Prandtl's paper, independently came to the same conclusions, and some even derived the same equations. Or take the example of Dr. Hans von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle. To think only one person can come to a given logical conclusion on their own is a display of ignorance of the highest order in science. But know that I too have fallen prey to making bad assumptions, conclusions, and psychological barriers in my life, same as everyone else. That is part of what makes me effective as a teacher. Difference is that I seek the truth, and when proven wrong have no trouble admitting/accepting that fact and moving forward. Most people have been taught to idolize others, and to follow the lead of others, rather than blaze their own path. And to have belief in their own capacity to come up with unique ideas all by themselves if they tried.
    1
  9659. 1
  9660. 1
  9661. 1
  9662. 1
  9663. 1
  9664. 1
  9665. 1
  9666. 1
  9667. 1
  9668. 1
  9669. 1
  9670. 1
  9671. 1
  9672. 1
  9673. 1
  9674. 1
  9675. 1
  9676. 1
  9677. 1
  9678. 1
  9679. 1
  9680. 1
  9681. 1
  9682. 1
  9683. 1
  9684. 1
  9685. 1
  9686. 1
  9687. 1
  9688. 1
  9689. 1
  9690. 1
  9691. 1
  9692. 1
  9693. 1
  9694. 1
  9695. 1
  9696. 1
  9697. 1
  9698. 1
  9699. 1
  9700. 1
  9701. 1
  9702. 1
  9703. 1
  9704. 1
  9705. 1
  9706. 1
  9707. 1
  9708. 1
  9709. 1
  9710. 1
  9711. 1
  9712. 1
  9713. 1
  9714. 1
  9715. 1
  9716. 1
  9717. 1
  9718. 1
  9719. 1
  9720. 1
  9721. 1
  9722. 1
  9723. 1
  9724. 1
  9725. 1
  9726. 1
  9727. 1
  9728. 1
  9729. 1
  9730. 1
  9731. 1
  9732. 1
  9733. 1
  9734. 1
  9735. 1
  9736. 1
  9737. 1
  9738. 1
  9739. 1
  9740. 1
  9741. 1
  9742. 1
  9743. 1
  9744. 1
  9745. 1
  9746. 1
  9747. 1
  9748. 1
  9749. 1
  9750. 1
  9751. 1
  9752. 1
  9753. 1
  9754. 1
  9755. 1
  9756. 1
  9757. 1
  9758. 1
  9759. 1
  9760. 1
  9761. 1
  9762. 1
  9763. 1
  9764. 1
  9765. 1
  9766. 1
  9767. 1
  9768. 1
  9769. 1
  9770. 1
  9771. 1
  9772. 1
  9773. 1
  9774. 1
  9775. 1
  9776. 1
  9777. 1
  9778. 1
  9779. 1
  9780. 1
  9781. 1
  9782.  @InvictaHistory  it's an excellent overall analysis, and you did mention many factors most people never even consider. but there is still far more that could be done here. I think too often you make too many assumptions and just roll with that one assumption, without giving other ideas a second thought, that could result in a different conclusion. I love that you considered the river moving, most people never would have thought of that. I did, and was super happy when you considered it and loved the effort you put into that. I specialized in unconventional warfare, and 90% of my tactics were psychological in nature. I'd learn what my opponent does find ways to use that to my advantage. you touched on that a bit, to your credit, but there is so much more that could have been used. How the feint was setup, how it could have been used to manipulate the wings, how the wings could have changed shape, how the wings could have been used to envelope the Romans, more use of terrain, etc. Many depictions are of the Romans even more so bunched up due to terrain, and what if that had been the case? you move their forces into a large open field, when as you pointed out the romans would have preferred hilly terrain to limit the cavalry, and they might have bunched up more to try to do that. You mentioned the Romans have tried punching through lines to get a breakout, and perhaps that very idea is what was exploited to get the envelopment to develop. You discussed this, but I feel you didn't discuss it enough, or in enough different ways. Also, in battle, there also tends to be a great deal of Planning, plans not going as planned, then having to adapt on teh fly, then happy accidents and coincidences and surprise outcomes working to your advantage. Some amount of luck might have played a part, and then was passed off as tactical genius afterwards. You have set the bar much higher though, for such analysis, and that's a good thing.
    1
  9783. 1
  9784. 1
  9785. 1
  9786. 1
  9787. 1
  9788. 1
  9789. 1
  9790. 1
  9791. 1
  9792. 1
  9793. 1
  9794. 1
  9795. 1
  9796. 1
  9797. 1
  9798. 1
  9799. 1
  9800. 1
  9801. 1
  9802. 1
  9803.  @gppsoftware  Traxxas RC was not high end racing like I grew up around. It's fun for sure. But I grew up racing with my Dad on weekends in the 1980s and 1990s in a 3-state racing league. Racing pan cars, off-road trucks and buggies, starting back when the RC10 gold pan was the knew hot item. The high performance racing machines and tuned motors, and guys were running so hot they knew almost to within a few seconds of how long their battery would last for the gear ratios they were running. I've de-soldered the wires from the motors mid-race from running so hot. I've pushed RC on-road race cars so hard in the corners that we'd shatter the wheel rims and suspension parts from the forces (cornering, and down force). We'd be going so fast with pan cars or touring cars that a change to the plastic body/wing aerodynamics would massively upset the handling of your car and cause you to crash from loss of grip (unable to turn or too loose and spin out). And people were far more serious about it than we were. When pushing cars that hard you get fires. I still have many of my cars. I have multiple carbon fiber racing chassis that alone (no motor, electronics, wheels, body, radio, etc.) cost more than you would spend on an entire Traxxas truck with everything included to run it. I don't race much now. But my point is that I'm talking about high end racing, to professional level RC racing. And how we used to run NiCd, then Nimh, then Lithium batteries over the years as technology changed. The RC aircraft guys switched to lithium first of course, due to weight, and I fly RC too. My dad and I always ran electric RC, neither of us ever got into nitro, and in the early days nitro was the thing due to power and run time. But eventually electric took over and now dominates. We were early advocates of electric and I'd debate other RC guys constantly and would show them electric was dominating. Used to be a struggle to convince the nitro guys, but a few decades ago the nitro guys could no longer deny they'd been whipped as all the records were being held by electric cars and by a wide margin. But the RC community are unsung pioneers of battery technologies. They were always early adopters of the latest battery technologies. Largely due to their scale making such technologies more accessible earlier on, and their low risk if things went wrong.
    1
  9804. 1
  9805. 1
  9806. 1
  9807. 1
  9808. 1
  9809. 1
  9810. 1
  9811. 1
  9812. 1
  9813. 1
  9814. 1
  9815. 1
  9816. 1
  9817. 1
  9818. 1
  9819. 1
  9820. 1
  9821. 1
  9822. 1
  9823. 1
  9824. 1
  9825. 1
  9826. 1
  9827. 1
  9828. 1
  9829. 1
  9830. 1
  9831. 1
  9832. 1
  9833. 1
  9834. 1
  9835. 1
  9836. 1
  9837. 1
  9838. 1
  9839. 1
  9840. 1
  9841. 1
  9842. 1
  9843. 1
  9844. 1
  9845. 1
  9846. 1
  9847. 1
  9848. 1
  9849.  @easter_sunday  no you are not, or you would suggest what you did, "They were able to successfully lock down the entire world through the internet" Untrue. people like me keep destroying their climate narrative over teh internet. notice they keep changing their claims, like no longer saying Global Warming, and not arguing against nuclear energy , and more. we slowly wear them down with facts. Hillary Clinton in a recent interview, John Kerry at WEF, and others have all publicly stated that free speech via the internet is destroying their control of the "message", and they want free speech banned online. MSM TV is watched by fewer people than Joe Rogan. Online media gets orders of magnitude more views every single day than legacy MSM. and Legacy MSM viewers are OLD, and aging out and dying off. We have to keep fighting back in every way possible and just keep Persisting. keep wearing them down. use their own tactics against them. "Are you watching the long game?" yes, you are not. Not only do i watch, I've been PLAYING the game for decades now. I'm an active participant. and I have been able to affect measurable change over teh past decade due to that persistance. I keep developing new and better tactics to fight back with. My methods ar VERY subtle but effective. Partly why they work so well is they are so subtle the left has no clue it's happening. they can't detect it, partly becasue to understand what I am doing, tehy have to use logical reasoning and know and understand the truth of history. But they lie about history, distort the truth, believe lies, etc. But I am just reverse propagandizing them with the truth slowly over time. Also, as people age, they tend to wise up and many who were Leftists change to become centrists or right-leaning. so we have to wait out the old guard and let teh young idiots grow up and suffer reality, all teh while continuing to set the examples and push truth on them until it finally sinks in. we have to take jobs they have dominated away from them and change course. how do YOU play the long game? how do YOU keep tabs on teh long game? watching is nothing. if you're not participating in the long game you're not helping us, you're hurting us.
    1
  9850. 1
  9851. 1
  9852. 1
  9853. 1
  9854. 1
  9855. 1
  9856. 1
  9857. 1
  9858. 1
  9859. 1
  9860. 1
  9861. 1
  9862. 1
  9863. 1
  9864. 1
  9865. 1
  9866. 1
  9867. 1
  9868. 1
  9869. 1
  9870. 1
  9871. 1
  9872. 1
  9873. 1
  9874. 1
  9875. 1
  9876. 1
  9877. 1
  9878. 1
  9879. 1
  9880. 1
  9881. 1
  9882. 1
  9883. 1
  9884. 1
  9885. 1
  9886. 1
  9887. 1
  9888. 1
  9889. 1
  9890. 1
  9891. 1
  9892. 1
  9893. 1
  9894. 1
  9895. 1
  9896. 1
  9897. 1
  9898. 1
  9899. 1
  9900. 1
  9901. 1
  9902. 1
  9903. 1
  9904. 1
  9905. 1
  9906. 1
  9907. 1
  9908. 1
  9909. 1
  9910. 1
  9911. 1
  9912. 1
  9913. 1
  9914. 1
  9915. 1
  9916. 1
  9917. 1
  9918. 1
  9919. 1
  9920. 1
  9921. 1
  9922. 1
  9923. 1
  9924. 1
  9925. 1
  9926. 1
  9927. 1
  9928. 1
  9929. 1
  9930. 1
  9931. 1
  9932. 1
  9933. 1
  9934. 1
  9935. 1
  9936. 1
  9937. 1
  9938. 1
  9939. 1
  9940. 1
  9941. 1
  9942. 1
  9943. 1
  9944. 1
  9945. 1
  9946. 1
  9947. 1
  9948. 1
  9949. 1
  9950. 1
  9951. 1
  9952. 1
  9953. 1
  9954. 1
  9955. 1
  9956. 1
  9957. 1
  9958. 1
  9959. 1
  9960. 1
  9961. 1
  9962. 1
  9963. 1
  9964. 1
  9965. 1
  9966. 1
  9967. 1
  9968. 1
  9969. 1
  9970. 1
  9971. 1
  9972.  @blazej0864  The rush assaults did not work in WW2. Russia engaged in rush assaults against Germany starting in Spring 1941, and gained little until the Western allies finally invaded France. Germany lost 6mil people in WW2, fighting a multifront war against many countries (France, Poland, UK, Canada, Australia, Norway, US, Brazil, etc.). Germany fought in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Italy, North Africa, Mediterranean, Atlantic, and dealt with strategic bombing day and night. Only lost 6mil people between the Fall of 1939 and Spring of 1945 (5.5yrs). Russia fought a Single front war against a single enemy (unless you also count Finland where they got slaughtered), and lost 24mil people. Their losses were so high it devastated the country for decades and even generations. They gained almost no ground for most of the war, and relied entirely upon the US for Lend Lease of things like Ammo, Food, Fuel, Medicine, Tanks, trucks, Airplanes, and more. Germany lost 6mil in 5.5yrs fighting numerous superior enemies on numerous fronts. Russia lost 24mil in only 4yrs fighting a single smaller foe that was distracted by fighting on numerous other fronts. Bear in mind many of Germany's 6mil losses weren't suffered fighting Russia. But nearly all of Russia's 24mil losses occurred by fighting Germans. Had the Western Allies not engaged in Strategic bombing, not hunted the Luftwaffe nearly to extinction, not provided Lend Lease, and not opened up Numerous additional fronts against Germany, Russia never would have stood a chance. Also consider that Russian aces only topped out at about 60kills, whereas numerous German aces racked up kill tallies well over 100, 200, and even 300 kills. Almost all of those kills were scored against Russia. Russia's top aces barely beat our other Western Aces like in the US, despite having fought for years longer than any US aces. This speaks to poor performance by the Russians. Most of the high scoring Eastern Front German aces who were transferred to the Western front were quickly killed or suffered mental breakdowns and couldn't fly anymore. Being shot down by lesser experienced US pilots. Russia only managed to succeed at teh very end, not because of rush assaults, but because the Western Allies did all the work, leaving nothing left for Germany to resist Russia with.
    1
  9973. 1
  9974. 1
  9975. 1
  9976. 1
  9977. 1
  9978. 1
  9979. 1
  9980. 1
  9981. 1
  9982. 1
  9983. 1
  9984. 1
  9985. 1
  9986. 1
  9987. 1
  9988. 1
  9989. 1
  9990. 1
  9991. 1
  9992. 1
  9993. 1
  9994. 1
  9995. 1
  9996. 1
  9997. 1
  9998. 1
  9999. 1
  10000. 1
  10001. 1
  10002. 1
  10003. 1
  10004. 1
  10005. 1
  10006. 1
  10007. 1
  10008. 1
  10009. 1
  10010. 1
  10011. 1
  10012. 1
  10013. 1
  10014. 1
  10015. 1
  10016. 1
  10017. 1
  10018. 1
  10019. 1
  10020. 1
  10021. 1
  10022. 1
  10023. 1
  10024. 1
  10025. 1
  10026. 1
  10027. 1
  10028. 1
  10029. 1
  10030. 1
  10031. 1
  10032. 1
  10033. 1
  10034. 1
  10035. 1
  10036. 1
  10037. 1
  10038. 1
  10039. 1
  10040. 1
  10041. 1
  10042. 1
  10043. 1
  10044. 1
  10045. 1
  10046. 1
  10047. 1
  10048. 1
  10049. 1
  10050. 1
  10051. 1
  10052. 1
  10053. 1
  10054. 1
  10055. 1
  10056. 1
  10057. 1
  10058. 1
  10059. 1
  10060. 1
  10061. 1
  10062. 1
  10063. 1
  10064. 1
  10065. 1
  10066. 1
  10067. 1
  10068. 1
  10069. 1
  10070. 1
  10071. 1
  10072. 1
  10073. 1
  10074. 1
  10075. 1
  10076. 1
  10077. 1
  10078. 1
  10079. 1
  10080. 1
  10081. 1
  10082. 1
  10083. 1
  10084. 1
  10085. 1
  10086. 1
  10087. 1
  10088. 1
  10089. 1
  10090.  @johntowers1213  "most of those things you mentioned are high value assets that lean heavily on the quality over quantity ethos" Not true at all. torpedoes, and missiles are in widespread use and have been for decades. the TDR-1 was extremely cost effective, but was an experiment and not a fully approved nor funded project. but those who tested them in combat begged and pleaded for more. But even before testing had commences, US procurement had already decided not to make them operational. You're missing the point though. Every single guided weapon in history is a "drone". Some are cheap, some are not, but all are equally DRONES. the US used tens of drones in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades, I know I was there and we used them. many ideas used in Ukraine, many drones used in Ukraine, were developed by the US in decades past. Including things like the switchblade drones. And the US military and civilians saw the potential of weaponized quadcopters for years prior to Ukraine and did studies on it and people even made videos about the dangers and potential. But they are nothing more than an extension of the drones used in decades past in wars like WW2, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and OIF/OEF, Armenia, and Syria. Small cheap Drones were already in widespread use for decades, but it wasn't until Ukraine that the public at large became aware of it is all. And partly due to teh fact that such drones don't work as effectively in wars the US is actively fighting in, as we fight differently, and the way we fight is not conducive to this type of drone warfare seen in Ukraine working.
    1
  10091. 1
  10092. 1
  10093. 1
  10094. 1
  10095. 1
  10096. 1
  10097. 1
  10098. 1
  10099. 1
  10100. 1
  10101. 1
  10102. 1
  10103. 1
  10104. 1
  10105. 1
  10106. 1
  10107. 1
  10108. 1
  10109. 1
  10110. 1
  10111. 1
  10112. 1
  10113. 1
  10114. 1
  10115. 1
  10116. 1
  10117. 1
  10118. 1
  10119. 1
  10120. 1
  10121. 1
  10122. 1
  10123.  @neoqwerty  I get your idealism. I too used to feel the same way. But I have come to accept the reality that is human psychology, and it actually has Nothing to do with people wanting to speed, nor with people being jerks. It's about managing basic human perceptions. it goes deeper than you claim, just oversimplifying things and blaming "speeders" doesn't solve anything. Accepting reality and working around reality solves the problem and results in fewer issues, fewer car accidents, more polite driving overall, etc. Often times, the issue doesn't even involve a single person who is speeding at all. Most traffic jams for example, are caused by people doing the "slinky", and nothing else. when you have 10 cars in a line, the car at the front might be going 57mph, and the car at the rear is only going 51mph and is getting annoyed because the speed limit is 55pmh.and if the person in front instead went 55mph, the guy in back is doing more like 50mph or less. and now he's really pissed people aren't keeping their speed up, not knowing why people are really going slow. Also, you lose FAR more time going slow, than you can make up by speeding. If the speed limit is 55mph and you're stuck doing 50mph for 10miles, you'd have to go something like 85mph over the next 10miles to make up for lost time. People don't typically do that, but it should highlight that getting stuck in slow traffic is far more detrimental to a person keeping a schedule than speeding can reasonably make up for. Slow drivers have a far more detrimental impact on safety and lost time than speeders do. I don't mind speeders, so long as they respect people doing the speed limit. they are free to risk a ticket all they like, but they have no right to get mad at me for doing the speed limit. but I fully understand if they get mad at me for going 5-10mph under the speed limit and holding them up needlessly. if you or anyone else can't handle driving the speed limit, then you shouldn't have a drivers license. If you just want to drive slow, then pull over periodically and let the rest of us pass you and stop impeding everyone else.
    1
  10124. 1
  10125. 1
  10126. 1
  10127. 1
  10128. 1
  10129. 1
  10130. 1
  10131. 1
  10132. 1
  10133. 1
  10134. 1
  10135. 1
  10136. 1
  10137. 1
  10138. 1
  10139.  @Eye_of_Typhoon  North Vietnam lost every single major military engagement and offensive. And claiming who won has no impact on aircraft kill ratios, meaning you know you're losing and so are introducing red herrings and changing hte goal posts. It was only after two major US military offensives that North Vietnam agreed to an end, and the US left. the US won militarily the whole time, lost politically, largely becasue we never should have been there in the first place. Also, communist records are not trustworthy at all, never have been, never will be. US keeps immaculate records and tracks ridiculous amounts of detail from every mission. Speaking as a combat veteran myself. early in war the ratio is one-to-one, later in the war the ratio jumps to four-to-one, and later jumps to as high as eleven-to-one. But when you stupidly and moronically average them out like you keep doing, you get closer to two-to-one. In the first few years of the war, teh US pilots weren't even taught how to dogfight at all. and when they were, they trained against large less agile aircraft and thus didn't even know how to digfight the smaller more agile fighters. And on top of that, the pilots were never even told how the missiles worked nor how to use them. They were never taugh tthe AIM9 needed a solid tone before firing, nor that AIM7 needed four seconds to send target info to seeker before firing. they were never taught about the G-limits of the missiles and tail end firing cones they needed to be within before firing. They couldn't dogfight, nor use the missiles and kept firing them without any lock. This is not the fault of the missiles nor the Phantom, but of pilot training and knowledge. Once they were taught how to dogfight and fire the missiles properly, and they finally knew how to fly teh Phantoms properly to its potential. the Migs never stood a chance after that ever again. Your ignorance and propagandist mindset prevents you from having an intelligent and nuanced discussion of the facts from an objective standpoint. you prefer to be brainwashed and to attempt to brainwash others instead.
    1
  10140. 1
  10141. 1
  10142. 1
  10143. 1
  10144. 1
  10145. 1
  10146. 1
  10147. 1
  10148. 1
  10149.  @juliebella1221  such ignorance. It does take me 5min, wrinkle free. Clearly you don't know much about fabrics and physics. It takes intelligence to understand how to do laundry so quickly. Just because you're not smart enough to figure it out, doesn't mean we haven't. You remind me of one of my Aunts. She struggles to clean Stainless Steel dishes, and is jealous of how easy it is for me. But she lacks patience. I've told her many times how I do it, and she still sucks at it and struggles. Me on the other hand, I don't have to do anything but wait, and everything wipes right out in seconds with no effort at all. Men like me apply science and engineering to everything we do. We're efficient. Work smarter not harder. The reason men are janitors is because we work harder and are better at cleaning than women. The reason men are cooks and chefs is because we're also better cooks than women. But we also do other things like run businesses and do engineering, and so we can't do everything ourselves, and so it's only fair that women help out so he can focus on the things that make him more money. You do want your man to earn more money than you, right? He can't do that if he's wasting his time on menial low-value labor. Try using your brain for once. "Majority of men are cooks and janitors." actually, the majority of men are truck drivers, pilots, miners, fishermen, farmers, engineers, soldiers, masons, construction workers, welders, etc. Very few do cooking professionally as a career. And many do janitorial work, but few do that forever. But a single janitor can clean up after tens if not hundreds of other guys doing non janitorial work. So the majority of men cannot be janitors. The math simply doesn't work. If you're not smart enough to do the math, strong enough for other tasks, you'll be expected to do the tasks like cooking, laundry, cleaning... instead of fixing the car, repairing the house, doing the heavy lifting, etc. If you doing laundry is slavery, then it's also slavery for me to have to do laundry. Men invent ways to make your lives easier, and you call it slavery. the utter childish ignorance of women is staggering. No wonder you can't accomplish anything of value.
    1
  10150. 1
  10151. 1
  10152. 1
  10153. 1
  10154. 1
  10155.  @juliebella1221  "statistical outcomes show that for humans, the father is more important to the child. A mother is not required to feed a child, men feed their children, and babies in hospitals, all the time. How can a baby survive if the mother dies in childbirth, according to you, since the mother cannot feed the baby?" That's a bold face lie." No, these are all facts. Baby formula exists. Babies surviving and being raised by the father when the mother dies in childbirth is a fact as old as humans. Medical care is capable of keeping premature babies alive even if the mother were to die. Most medical doctors are men. Gov statistics show that over 70% of criminals, those who commit suicide, and those suffering depression were raised by single mothers. Gov statistics show that the best overall outcomes for children turning into successful adults comes from being raised in 2-parent families, and that single fathers have equally high success as 2-parent families. But children are at very high risk of having issues in life if raised by a single mother. "I agree about the cloning etc. However, only daughter and sister strands are used in DNA, the male is thrown away. " you obviously don't know how DNA works. And it's not cloning that will do it, it's cloning that shows we can replace women if needed. And then your words turn into incoherent ramblings of unintelligible "english". I think you must be drunk. Trying to drink away your sorrows? Your comment is choppy and random and chaotic. not sure if you were trying to make a point in all of that. I know children with far better English and grammar skills than you who can actually communicate in complete sentences. " My neighbors are tt babes. They have babes. It's been around for a while. We already have two in one, and they've already had babes. That's all been around for a while. Dad bods. Why do you think they like that. Two in one. Same with yoga bods wombmen. Two in one. Again, this has been around for a while." wtf was that? " However, to say that Fathers are the ones who are currently more important...bold face lie and the world sees this with their own eyes." wrong, this is based upon scientific facts and data. " Fathers literally left and the Moms stayed and then the sons blamed the Moms for staying." wrong again. Women leave, and take the kids. Women initiate 80% of ALL divorce, citing "no fault" most of the time, meaning the husband did Nothing wrong. Then, she takes him to divorce court and steals all his assets and takes the kids despite him spending a fortune to fight for them in court and still losing. Men WANT their children. Divorce courts and WOMEN strip the children away from their fathers. That again is backed by gov and scientific data. Gov tracks every marriage, divorce, child born, etc. We know exactly who married who, who filed for divorce when and why, who got the kids, who fought for the kids, etc. Try again, but this time try not using Marxist Propaganda and lies in your argument.
    1
  10156. 1
  10157. 1
  10158. 1
  10159. 1
  10160. 1
  10161. 1
  10162. 1
  10163. 1
  10164. 1
  10165. 1
  10166. 1
  10167. 1
  10168. 1
  10169. 1
  10170. 1
  10171. 1
  10172. 1
  10173. 1
  10174. "Progressives" hate Capitalism and blame the "system" because of their own lack of personal responsibility. No society is perfect, so some problems will always exist to a certain degree. At first these progressives get in office and make changes they think will improve things, slowly at first as the ideas are initially reasonable and worth at least trying sometimes. But over time they gain more power and push bigger ideas. Until, one day, it's become a single-party system in their region and they hold practically all of the local power and can do whatever they want. So, what do they do? They implement their Utopian ideas. Then, as their ideas fail to produce the results they should have (in a theoretically perfect society where everyone acts perfectly at all times), rather than accept the growing evidence their ideas don't work in the real world the way they think they will/should, and try something different, they instead choose to blame "the system". They claim their must be some other deep-seated and underlying evil that is preventing their utopia from succeeding. They assume a patriarchy must be to blame. Or they claim white European conquerors are to blame for enacting the greatest conspiracy in human history, somehow. Or, they blame capitalism, since they ironically become opposed to individual freedom and free expression, and incorrectly conflate corporatism and monopolistic/cartel behavior for capitalism. They simply cannot take responsibility for the policies they enacted, and even more so they refuse to accept that the problems they are seeing are the direct result of their own policies. They simply cannot accept that their ideas didn't work, will never work, and so something else must be preventing their ideas from succeeding. And so they throw fits and lash out in anger, violence, tyranny, and go mad as they start seeing everyone around them (even friends and allies) as a conspirator that is trying to cause their ideas harm.
    1
  10175. 1
  10176. 1
  10177. 1
  10178. 1
  10179. 1
  10180. 1
  10181. 1
  10182. 1
  10183. 1
  10184. 1
  10185. 1
  10186. 1
  10187. 1
  10188. 1
  10189. 1
  10190. 1
  10191. 1
  10192. 1
  10193. 1
  10194. 1
  10195. 1
  10196. 1
  10197. 1
  10198. 1
  10199. 1
  10200. 1
  10201. 1
  10202. 1
  10203. 1
  10204. 1
  10205. 1
  10206. 1
  10207. 1
  10208. 1
  10209. 1
  10210. 1
  10211. 1
  10212. 1
  10213. 1
  10214. 1
  10215. 1
  10216. 1
  10217. 1
  10218. 1
  10219. 1
  10220. 1
  10221. 1
  10222. 1
  10223. 1
  10224. 1
  10225. 1
  10226. 1
  10227. 1
  10228. 1
  10229. 1
  10230. 1
  10231. 1
  10232. 1
  10233. 1
  10234. 1
  10235. 1
  10236. 1
  10237. 1
  10238. 1
  10239. 1
  10240. 1
  10241. 1
  10242. 1
  10243. 1
  10244. 1
  10245. 1
  10246. 1
  10247. 1
  10248. 1
  10249. 1
  10250. 1
  10251. 1
  10252. 1
  10253. 1
  10254. 1
  10255. 1
  10256. 1
  10257. 1
  10258. 1
  10259. 1
  10260. 1
  10261. 1
  10262. 1
  10263. 1
  10264. 1
  10265. 1
  10266. 1
  10267. 1
  10268. 1
  10269. 1
  10270. 1
  10271. 1
  10272. 1
  10273. 1
  10274. 1
  10275. 1
  10276. 1
  10277. 1
  10278. 1
  10279. 1
  10280. 1
  10281. 1
  10282. 1
  10283. 1
  10284. 1
  10285. 1
  10286. 1
  10287. 1
  10288. 1
  10289. 1
  10290. 1
  10291. 1
  10292. 1
  10293. 1
  10294. 1
  10295. 1
  10296. 1
  10297. 1
  10298. 1
  10299. 1
  10300. 1
  10301. 1
  10302. 1
  10303. 1
  10304. 1
  10305. 1
  10306. 1
  10307. 1
  10308. 1
  10309. 1
  10310. 1
  10311. 1
  10312. 1
  10313. 1
  10314. 1
  10315. 1
  10316. 1
  10317. 1
  10318. 1
  10319. 1
  10320. 1
  10321. 1
  10322. 1
  10323. 1
  10324. 1
  10325. 1
  10326. 1
  10327. 1
  10328. 1
  10329. 1
  10330. 1
  10331. 1
  10332. 1
  10333. 1
  10334. 1
  10335. 1
  10336. 1
  10337. 1
  10338. 1
  10339. 1
  10340. 1
  10341. 1
  10342. 1
  10343. 1
  10344. 1
  10345. 1
  10346. 1
  10347. 1
  10348. 1
  10349. 1
  10350. 1
  10351. 1
  10352. 1
  10353. 1
  10354. 1
  10355. 1
  10356. 1
  10357. 1
  10358. 1
  10359. 1
  10360. 1
  10361. 1
  10362. 1
  10363. 1
  10364. 1
  10365. 1
  10366. 1
  10367. 1
  10368. 1
  10369. 1
  10370. 1
  10371. 1
  10372. 1
  10373. 1
  10374. 1
  10375. 1
  10376. 1
  10377. 1
  10378. 1
  10379. 1
  10380. 1
  10381. 1
  10382. 1
  10383. 1
  10384. 1
  10385. 1
  10386. 1
  10387. 1
  10388. 1
  10389. 1
  10390. 1
  10391. 1
  10392. 1
  10393. 1
  10394. 1
  10395. 1
  10396. 1
  10397. 1
  10398. 1
  10399. 1
  10400. 1
  10401. 1
  10402. 1
  10403. 1
  10404. 1
  10405. 1
  10406. 1
  10407. 1
  10408. 1
  10409. 1
  10410. 1
  10411. 1
  10412. 1
  10413. 1
  10414. 1
  10415. 1
  10416. 1
  10417. 1
  10418. 1
  10419. 1
  10420. 1
  10421. 1
  10422. 1
  10423. 1
  10424. 1
  10425. 1
  10426. 1
  10427. 1
  10428. 1
  10429. 1
  10430. 1
  10431. 1
  10432. 1
  10433. 1
  10434. 1
  10435. 1
  10436. 1
  10437. 1
  10438. 1
  10439. 1
  10440. 1
  10441. 1
  10442. 1
  10443. 1
  10444. 1
  10445. 1
  10446. 1
  10447. 1
  10448. 1
  10449. 1
  10450. 1
  10451. 1
  10452. 1
  10453. 1
  10454. 1
  10455. 1
  10456. 1
  10457. 1
  10458. 1
  10459. 1
  10460. 1
  10461. 1
  10462. 1
  10463. 1
  10464. 1
  10465. 1
  10466. 1
  10467. 1
  10468. 1
  10469. 1
  10470. 1
  10471. 1
  10472. 1
  10473. 1
  10474. 1
  10475. 1
  10476. 1
  10477. 1
  10478. 1
  10479. 1
  10480. 1
  10481. 1
  10482. 1
  10483. 1
  10484. 1
  10485. 1
  10486. 1
  10487. 1
  10488. 1
  10489. 1
  10490. 1
  10491. 1
  10492. 1
  10493. 1
  10494. 1
  10495. 1
  10496. 1
  10497. 1
  10498. 1
  10499. 1
  10500. 1
  10501. 1
  10502. 1
  10503. 1
  10504. 1
  10505. 1
  10506. 1
  10507. 1
  10508. 1
  10509. 1
  10510. 1
  10511. 1
  10512. 1
  10513. 1
  10514. 1
  10515. 1
  10516. 1
  10517. 1
  10518. 1
  10519. 1
  10520. 1
  10521. 1
  10522. 1
  10523. 1
  10524. 1
  10525. 1
  10526. 1
  10527. 1
  10528. 1
  10529. 1
  10530. 1
  10531. 1
  10532. 1
  10533. 1
  10534. 1
  10535. 1
  10536. 1
  10537. 1
  10538. 1
  10539. 1
  10540. 1
  10541. 1
  10542. 1
  10543. 1
  10544. 1
  10545. 1
  10546. 1
  10547. 1
  10548. 1
  10549. 1
  10550. 1
  10551. 1
  10552. 1
  10553. 1
  10554. 1
  10555. 1
  10556. 1
  10557. 1
  10558. 1
  10559. quantum mechanics is nothing more than probability and statistics being used to GUESS what is going on when we are unable to physically measure things. To measure a subatomic particle (position, velocity, etc.), we use other subatomic particles, typically photons. Imagine trying to measure the position or velocity of one marble, by shooting another marble at it. the thing you are trying to measure has now changed. The marble you are trying to measure does not remain stationary, nor continue on it's previous trajectory, after having been impacted by the marble you are using to measure its position or velocity in that Moment in time. By measuring the particle in that moment, you have also changed its position and trajectory. This doesn't occur at larger scales simply because the thing being used to measure another is so much smaller that the forces imparted on what you are measuring becomes inconsequential. Things like "two states at once" is quantum mechanics using math and statistics to LIE to you. such states don't exist in reality, only a result of the math used to solve it. It is in a Single state, we just don't know which one yet is all, until we actually measure it. But it was always in a single state, we just are using probability to say we don't know right Now which state it is in because we haven't measured it yet. The wave function is a statistical equation, NOTHING MORE. Statistics is Not reality, it is merely a tool for analyzing what we both can and cannot see/know. when you measure the state, now you know for sure what state it is in, we no longer need statistical probability wave functions to Guess, we know now.
    1
  10560. 1
  10561. 1
  10562. 1
  10563. 1
  10564. 1
  10565. 1
  10566. 1
  10567. 1
  10568. 1
  10569. 1
  10570. 1
  10571. 1
  10572. 1
  10573. 1
  10574. 1
  10575. 1
  10576. 1
  10577. 1
  10578. 1
  10579. 1
  10580. 1
  10581. 1
  10582. 1
  10583. 1
  10584. 1
  10585. 1
  10586. 1
  10587. 1
  10588. 1
  10589. 1
  10590. 1
  10591. 1
  10592. 1
  10593. 1
  10594. 1
  10595. 1
  10596. 1
  10597. 1
  10598. 1
  10599. 1
  10600. 1
  10601. 1
  10602. 1
  10603. 1
  10604. 1
  10605. 1
  10606. 1
  10607. 1
  10608. 1
  10609. 1
  10610. 1
  10611. 1
  10612. 1
  10613. 1
  10614. 1
  10615. 1
  10616.  @badchefi  Are you sure about that? I bought a car that lasts minimum 300k miles for $8k, it only had 25k miles on it and everything works. It was 10yrs old when I bought it. It's now 20yrs old, everything still works, have only spent a few thousand in maintenance (new shocks, new tires, oil changes, other basic service, etc.). It still gets up to 44mpg. One youtuber did a 2100mile road trip in his Tesla, and it would have cost me less money in gas than he spent on electricity to do the same trip, and I would have spent a grand total of 15min refueling along the way (and I have done 3+ such long road trips in this car alone), whereas he spent 8hrs recharging his EV. So when you consider the total costs including recharge/refuel, I've spent far less on my ICE car than I would have for an EV, and I regularly drive well beyond the range of the EV in a day, and drive to places with no charging. Also live in a cold climate. Hydrogen fuel cells make far more sense here if you're going to get an EV. My last car cost me $4k, and I had it for 7yrs, bought it at 125k miles and drove it to 300k miles until it died. Did very minimal maintenance on it over the years. Did multiple cross country road trips in it. car got up 36mpg. I had a truck before that that got up to 27mpg. had that for 3yrs. Got it for free, but it had been totaled 2x before I got it and it still ran great. Spent almost nothing in maintenance other than a new alternator, new battery, and 2 tires. Drove it till it about died and then sold it to a friend for $300 and he drove it for a few more years. That truck simply refused to die. It had been in multiple car accidents, hit multiple deer, was missing the grill, had high mileage, etc. and still got 27mpg and required almost no maintenance to keep it running.
    1
  10617. 1
  10618. 1
  10619. 1
  10620. 1
  10621. 1
  10622. 1
  10623. 1
  10624. 1
  10625. 1
  10626. 1
  10627. 1
  10628. 1
  10629. 1
  10630. 1
  10631. 1
  10632. 1
  10633. 1
  10634. 1
  10635. 1
  10636. 1
  10637. 1
  10638.  @donnievance1942  "I think that one thing you're not taking into account is that Ukraine held off on the sort of early push you're talking about because they were promised deliveries that were worth waiting for. Then they didn't get them, or they didn't get them in the quantities and in the time frame they were told." wrong. they needed no such items to keep the pressure on throughout the winter. And once they got deliveries, they failed to make a decisive push. In combat you make do with what you have. you NEVER make plans on promises or what you Think you might have someday. You fight with what you have today, knowing that certain misstep in the moment, like allowing russia to dig in and mine everything for example, is a fatal flaw. You can't stop. They had russia on the cusp of breaking and they did nothing. "Even assuming ultimate success, the sort of strategy you're talking about is risky and would entail big time losses in engagement with an enemy like Russia. You have to admit that." you need to learn how to read and comprehend. I never denied it, and I already acknowledged it. But long run, the total casualties would be lower. this is why you and others will never be good at war. you can't make teh tough decisions, you can't handle the costs of war. You don't have what it takes to win. And there is always the chance of having surprisingly low casualties by fighting my way. In fact, history shows my way is low cost of life. My unit and my own combat experiences proved this, and history shows it too. Casualtuies can be minimized, but not without taking the risk in teh first place. " I don't know where you were fighting, but it wasn't against the unbelievably massive Russian army. And you undoubtedly had on-demand, call-up air support." again, speaking on things you know nothing about. My unit was self-supporting. We never got artillery support, never got air support, etc. we were always operating alone prepared to operate 100% alone, outnumbered, surrounded. But the way we did it made teh enemy afraid to engage us, and over time they stopped fighting us altogether as they knew they stood no chance against us. "So, given the risks and the inevitable heavy losses entailed by an aggressive early push, can you blame Ukraine for holding off until they could get the promised resources?" yes I can, becasue it may well have cost them the war, and they've suffered more casualties in 2023 already than my tactics would have cost them. " It sounds like you were part of an exceptional outfit that consisted of top notch superbly trained personnel. " wrong again. small understaffed group of individual motivated people. We were 20% short of the number of people we were supposed to have the whole time too. We all signed up to fight like the Ukrainians, fought for what we believed in like the Ukrainians, and we had minimal to no real training. We made it all up as we went. We learned form EVERY mission and adapted constantly, until eventually we had a highly scientific methodology and set of proven tactics. We fell into a job no one knew how to do, on equipment no one had ever seen before, and came out brilliantly successful. The exact kind fo fighting suited for the war in Ukraine. "You can't extrapolate that to the scale of the Ukrainian army, most of whom were newly trained people from civilian life." I absolutely can, and the circumstances in Ukraine are exactly the same as that of my unit I fought in combat with.
    1
  10639.  @eugeniocorvelo8279  "that works very well for small special operations. In a war of this scale its not possible to just scale up what works on small operations. " wrong. what my unit did literally any unit can do, no need to be any sort of special forces. I could teach it to 18yr olds in only a few days. And the battlefield and territory we applied it to was multiple times larger than the entire front line in Ukraine. Uktraine is a small war compared to what I am used to. Myself and others predicted the return of trench warfare nearly 20yrs ago, and we were using drones in combat same as Ukraine for many decades, we just never talked about it and shared our tricks with the world. But there is nothing Ukraine is doing now with drones nor trenches that hasn't already been done before you were alive. I have about 5 books on my library of military history dedicated to Nothing but trench warfare, spanning multiple wars. It's a topic I have studied for many decades and informed the tactics we developed in combat. "We will continue learning new warfare from this war years to come." as we always do/will from literally every conflict ever fought. but that doesn't invalidate a thing I said, it only reinforces it. I know how to fight in Ukraine as there is literally nothing new thus far in this war. Everything that has happened thus far I predicted months in advance. I predicted that if Ukraine stopped their assault in winter of 2022 russia would be able to dig in. Within 12hrs of russia invading Ukraine on Feb24, 2022, without looking at any news reports, only combing through actually combat footage and data, I was able to predict Russia was going to fail and would be forced to retreat. I was able to do that because I've studied combat history for so long i know the details off the top of my head for numerous wars, what works, what does, why. Anything from logistics, to equipment, to leadership, to training, to tactics, etc. I don't know everything, but I know the key elements at a First Principles level. Anyone can learn it if they spend enough time studying it and practicing it in various ways. " This is a multy domain modern big war." actually, it's NOT. its a VERY basic war lacking in many "multidomain" areas as you call them. There is almost no air war. Almost no air support. No SEAD. No strategic bombing. Ukraine is demonstrating interdiction capability. But by and large this is a basic infantry, tanks, artillery fight. With some modern tech sprinkled in. Without drones, satellites, GPS, etc. this would literally just be a repeat of WW1.
    1
  10640. 1
  10641. 1
  10642. 1
  10643. 1
  10644. ​ @shooster5884  "Or is this some fantasy you have about what they should or could have done?" it's called studying history. Not only have i studied it, i've fought. and in fighting we had ideas, and we tested those ideas for real. if it worked, we kept doing it, if it didn't we abandoned it. along teh way you learn what works and why. then you study more history and repeat over and over again until understanding war is as easy to you as breathing oxygen. Just like learning first principles of math, physics, etc, and applying it to more complex things. "And their military were better than anyone at thinking outside the box..." not really. US military thrives in chaos and outside teh box thinking. lots of good examples of this in recent US military history in actual combat. including some high level high profile examples. again, gotta study history. " I'm not military but had they had the cluster bombs and himars and everything else to disrupt the Russian supply chains, stores, rail lines, concentrations of troops, command centres that were planning and laying the defences , yes they could possibly have kept moving forward carefully and steadily in tandem with fresh trained troops arrival..."" Exactly, you;re not military, you don't understand combat, you haven't studied enough military history in nearly enough detail. Ukraine didn't need HIMARs, didn't need cluster munitions, etc. They needed to be bolder. They still fight like Soviets, even though they've learned and adapted a lot, they still fight like Soviets. They don't know how to fight the way I know how to fight. But I could teach them. I could show them how. They had the capability to take some critical lessons from history, namely from US military history in numerous wars since WW1. And then adapt those lessons to their situation. They had the ability to do it. They proved that. But they failed to understand the principles, failed to see the opportunity. Psychology is a major factor in how my plan would have worked. Psychology is a powerful weapon. Psychology always gets ignored, but not by me. They failed to consider how a few bold moves would have caused russia to react. they were thinking like you think. they didn't think bigger picture.
    1
  10645. 1
  10646. 1
  10647. 1
  10648. 1
  10649. 1
  10650. 1
  10651. 1
  10652. 1
  10653. 1
  10654. 1
  10655. 1
  10656. 1
  10657. 1
  10658. 1
  10659. 1
  10660. 1
  10661. 1
  10662. 1
  10663. 1
  10664. 1
  10665. 1
  10666. 1
  10667. 1
  10668. 1
  10669. 1
  10670. 1
  10671. 1
  10672. 1
  10673. 1
  10674. 1
  10675. 1
  10676. 1
  10677. 1
  10678. 1
  10679. 1
  10680. 1
  10681. 1
  10682. 1
  10683. 1
  10684. 1
  10685. 1
  10686. 1
  10687. 1
  10688. 1
  10689. 1
  10690. 1
  10691. 1
  10692. 1
  10693. 1
  10694. 1
  10695. 1
  10696. 1
  10697. 1
  10698. 1
  10699. 1
  10700. 1
  10701. 1
  10702. 1
  10703. 1
  10704. 1
  10705. 1
  10706. 1
  10707. 1
  10708. 1
  10709. 1
  10710. 1
  10711. 1
  10712. 1
  10713. 1
  10714. 1
  10715. 1
  10716. 1
  10717.  @skipperg4436  "If anything, it shows how little existing Ukrainian fleet of ~800 Soviet and 100 Western tank can do since Russia is able to gather enough forces for doing a big attack like this one." it proves nothing of the sort. Ukraine has limited tanks, thus concentrates them where they wish to attack, leaving other areas of the front line to fend off russian attacks without tanks. And even without tanks teh Ukrainians keep the russians at bay. Ukraine loses people, but not like teh russians do. "Russia have air superiority over the front line. They fire gliding bombs anywhere along ~3 000 km of front line they want and Ukrainians can do nothing about it." you clearly don't know what air superiority is. if russia had that, they freely roam over all of Ukraine dropping bombs at will, instead they drop glide bombs while their aircraft remain in russian airspace, firing from beyond russian occupied regions of ukraine. "Russians also use their attack helicopters to destroy Ukrainian armour with ATGMs with which Ukrainian armour again can do nothing with other than use armoured vehicles in hit-and-run tactic and accept losses when armour fail to retreat in time it takes helicopter to arrive." you mean the helicopters they just lost 9 of? You do realize Russia started the war with 100 Ka-52 and now only has something like 25 remaining in total? How many aircraft did the US lose if you combined Desert Storm, OIF, OEF, Bosnia, Syria, and other wars since 1991? that's what air superiority looks like. "500 and 1500 kg of explosives is nothing to laugh about." oh really? and how do you know this? I personally have experienced 38x 500lb bombs dropped within 200-500yd of my position in Afghanistan, and we weren't in our vehicles either. No one died.
    1
  10718. 1
  10719. 1
  10720. 1
  10721. 1
  10722. 1
  10723. 1
  10724. 1
  10725. 1
  10726. 1
  10727. 1
  10728. 1
  10729. 1
  10730. 1
  10731. 1
  10732. 1
  10733. 1
  10734. 1
  10735.  @akritasdigenis4548  "if your goal is saving pilot's life at all cost, P47 is the only option." this is war, not a lifesaving operation. the best way for a pilot to survive is to not get shot. a P-51 improves the Chances o fnot getting a bogey on your tail. I want to win the war, logistics wins wars. Using the P-51 allows me to put 2x as many fighters in the skies over europe for the same cost and manpower, that is SIGNIFICANT. "They preferred saving money, that may sound from a strategic perspective." wrong is Logistics. and yes, saving money when funds are limited is critical to win a war without going broke yourself. "If you only need 1 type of fighter for every missions, then again, P47 is the only way to go. " wrong again. F4U wins this argument hands down, but the A-36 was also preferred by its pilots over the P-47, and was a superior ground attack aircraft to the P-47. And again, the P-51 could do so much more than the one-trick-pony that is the P-47. Th P-51 could still dogfight below 20k ft, unlike the P-47, and could defeat a P-47 in a dogfight at any altitude, and fly faster at any altitude, and fly farther at any altitude, and used less fuel, aluminum, maintenance downtime, and took less to time to manufacture, as well as being easier to ship/transport. P-47 did only one thing well, and that was high altitude escort above 20k ft, and it was such a massive pig that it couldn't help getting constantly shot, but managed to survive sometimes. Lots of P-47 pilots died and lots of P-47 aircraft were lost. "Both P51 and P47 saw they had room for development. The last P47 had about the same range, even higher and were on par with speed but with twice the firepower, bombing capacity and still keeping the top safety. " P-47 never had the same range. it closed the gap with the P-47N, but at the cost of burning twice the fuel per sortie than a P-51. that means for the same money and resources the US could send 2x as many mustangs on a sortie (build 2x as man mustangs for the price of a P-47, and send 2x as many mustangs for the fuel burned by a P-47, and the p-47 couldn't do ANYTHING more than the P-51 could do. Even the Germans and Japanese thought the P-47 was terrible and the P-51 formidable and amazing. The US gov did studies and found 6x 50cal was equivalent to 4x 20mm cannon, and that nothing in terms of effective firepower was achieved with more than 6x .50cal, and that 4x .50cal proved sufficient even. Once again, the P-47 was carrying around more weight than necessary and consumed more resources than necessary. The P-47 did have more bomb load capacity, but that is to be expected for such a massive airplane. Yet teh F4U carried even more bombload than a P-47, and could also use 20mm cannons, radar, dive bomb, napalm, rockets, etc. "Dogfighting seems for me less relevant. After all, the F4 destroyed A6M in PTO (less speed, less climb, lower maneuverability), even before F6." The F4F was an even match for the A6M, and even the Japanese pilots knew that. Dogfighting is about playing to your strengths and weaknesses. But most PTO dogfights occurred at low altitude, and at low altitude the P-47 sucked. Even the P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft. In the US, stateside, pilots would dogfight each other for beers and bragging rights. The P-47 ALWAYS lost. F4F, F6F, F4U, P-40, P-39, P-51, P-38, etc. could all defeat the P-47 in dogfights, so the P-47 pilots simply stopped trying. The other pilots knew that a P-47 stood no chance of winning below 15k ft, so they would stay low and force the P-47 to come down to them and lose. The P-51 was a boom and Zoom master, and was a superior dogfighter at any altitude. P-47 never set a speed record, never ran in air races. it was slow to accelerate, climbed like a pig, took significantly longer runways to get airborne, consumed significant fuel, required far more maintenance downtime between sorties, consumed large amounts of oil, etc. You're clearly a biased and uneducated individual when it comes to the realities of war and aircraft design.
    1
  10736.  @clarkenoble  "Loss rates in the G/A role don't tell a story in and of themselves....like the entire production of A-36s (the attack variant of thr P-51A) that were almost entirely wiped out in the G/A role? Sweet airplane, wrong mission. " proving your own point by misusing the data. the A-36 pilots so loved their aircraft, they refused to give them up for anything, including P-47. So they flew them until none remained. They literally flew teh A-36 until the last was was finally damaged beyond repair. Yes, nearly ALL of the A-36 were ultimately lost to accidents and combat action, because they were limited in number and the pilots were willing to keep using them until they literally fell apart or could no longer be repaired because they loved them so much in teh ground attack role. Their "high" loss rate must be put into context. Even the famous Robert Johnson got to fly the A-36 and praised it. "Everyone picks and chooses the parameters of evaluation. The question is who picks the ones that are really pertinent." and you've proved you are equally as guilty. "For the record, the Taiwanese has great success with the P-47Ns in the early '50s too. Against jets too. No one ever talks about that either." just as the A-1D did well in Vietnam against jets, or the P-51 did well against the Me262. Don't cherry pick. Motivated pilots will always win. Look at Ukraine vs Russia. Ukraine had inferior numbers and inferior aircraft, and yet Russia is hemorrhaging aircraft, and Ukraine still has some left. Or look at Royce Williams in Korea, outnumbered in an inferior aircraft he still shot down 4 russians and returned to base. Tons of such examples. Or what about the german assault on US airfields in France in WW2 in which a P-51D mustang took off, down 2 Germans, then got hit by 20mm and lost an aileron, part of the tail, and lost all the oil from the engine, and still then proceeded to shoot down 2 more german fighters before landing safely back at the airfield. "I'm beginning to notice the attacks on Greg's work is done with rather great zeal. Yet, it's not really a debate about facts." wrong. he isn't God. I have debated him personally many times, and I have ceded points to him on many occasions, but I have facts in my favor on other topics as well. He is too focused on performance numbers, and fails to account for the realities of combat, such as the skill and knowledge of the pilot, the maintenance factor, psychological factors that affect performance, and more. Even the personal testimonies of many actual WW2 P-47 pilots contradict many modern claims. Eric Brown doesn't know all either. He was a pilot, not an engineer. And we can look beyond what the pilots knew, think they knew, mistakenly recalled, etc. We have the data and can evaluate the aircraft using science. Few pilots had the big picture about their aircraft or the war as a whole back in WW2. A great many myths an misconceptions about WW2 still persist to this day despite hard evidence to the contrary.
    1
  10737.  @clarkenoble  The way you said it implied that it's high loss rates were due to being unsuited to ground attack and vulnerable, which is contrary to reality and the testimony o fthe pilots that flew teh A-36. "It's amazing how you read and hear what you want to, not what is actually said. Seems like you might have that problem in other aspects of life." you neither spoke clearly, nor clarified. what you said, leaving it open to interpretation. "It's drawback was it was a liquid cooled aircraft with a radiator on the belly...not the wisest choice for ground attack." yet the Typhoon and Tempest are not likewise criticized, nor is the Ju87, nor the Hurricane, nor the Mosquito, nor the IL-2, nor the P-40, nor the P-39, etc. All inline liquid cooled. Did you know P-47 pilots considered a ground attack mission against a German airfield suicide? They would do Anything to get out of flying such a mission. Did you know the P-47 has 2 giant oil cooler radiators on the belly of the airplane, completely exposed to ground fire, and that a hit to either of them will result in total engine failure in no more than 5min? The A-36 was the BEST dive bomber of WW2, bar none. It was the ONLY allied dive bomber of WW2 to be allowed to do danger close drops in support of friendly troops in contact due to it's incredible precision. A-36 did 90 deg vertical dive bombs. Even the SBD, Helldiver, and F4U weren't as accurate. The A-36 could also outrun everything on the deck, and pilots were pushing the engines as high as 72-75in manifold pressure (I have the data, from multiple WW2 sources). "I can line up more pilots that swear by the ruggedness of the P-47 over any other American fighter in the ground attack mission than you can any other American fighter aircraft in WWII. That's not even debatable." then do it. It absolutely is debatable. And you're proving that I was completely right about you statement about A-36 losses. " It's one of those cliches that actually has validity to it. " wrong, people look at teh data incorrectly, and do blanket calculations that in no way accounts for the realities. They'll compare survival rates but discuss P-51 losses in Korea rather than WW2. you can't do that. They'll divide total losses of a given airframe by total production, while failing to separate out training losses, maintenance losses, combat losses, and other accidents, and also failing to separate out WW2 production from post-WW2 production. And then they fail to consider that the P-51 entered frontline combat service in Europe a full 12 months before teh P-47 ever flew its first combat sortie, and thus racked up missions and losses much longer than teh P-47, and also enjoyed great success in that first year of combat over europe, suffering only 8 losses in RAF hands. A-36 pilots had more confidence in teh A-36 to bring them home than the P-47 and explicitly stated that. They despised the P-47. The Allison engine was simple, durable, reliable, tough, and easy to maintain, and fast down low as well as being hundreds of lbs lighter than the Merlin and capable of up to 2,200HP at the 70+ manifold pressures, and tests (I have the test reports) proved it could run for 20min at over 70in MAP with no adverse effect (on the deck). When did I cite a P-47 test report? quote me where I said it.
    1
  10738.  @rebelscumspeedshop  "The P47 was in a class of its own as a " Multi Roll" aircraft. " not even close. F4U had it beat by a mile, as did other aircraft like the Mosquito, P-38, etc. P-47 did a few things well. Dogfight at altitudes above 20k ft. strafe with 8x .50cal. Drop bombs. fire rockets. Consume disproportionate amounts of resources (aluminum, money, maintenance time, fuel, oil, etc). Below 15k ft it sucked as a fighter. The F4U was the best Navy dive bomber, could operate from land or carriers. Could carry far more bombs than a P-47, used MGs, 20mm cannons, was a radar and night fighter, escort fighter, napalm, ground attacker, fired rockets, etc. The P-51 saw combat service in Europe a full 12 months before the first P-47 combat sortie. It carried 4-6x .50cal, or 4x 20mm, and used large caliber cannon gun pods, dropped bombs, fired rockets, was the only dive bomber approved for danger close drops. lead the charge in both the ETO and PTO, fought in Korea, Israel, and into the 1980s. The P-51 wasn't retired from USAF service until 1957. It could dogfight the best at any altitude, it was fast at any altitude, it holds significant world records including the current holder of the ultimate propeller driven speed record. It won many air races. one of the only fighters more affordable in WW2 was the F6F Hellcat. P-51 were even used to drop supplies to troops in Italy. It had greater range and fuel efficiency, accelerated faster, climbed faster, could outrun anything on the deck (the RAF famously did this in their use of the P-51 as a recon aircraft). The P-51 was the first fighter to operate over germany (by the RAF), striking ground targets in 1942 and doing recon. The P-38 used all manner of weapons, radar, recon, was a bomber, 30mm cannon, etc. The Mosquito was a multirole master, like the P-38. How come the P-47 didn't do recon work, but the Spitfire, P-38, P-51, and others did? Because it was too SLOW and too vulnerable. The P-40 was faster and more maneuverable at lower altitudes. "It could carry 1,500 more pounds in ordinance and over 1,000 rounds more ammunition." yes, because it's MUCH heavier. as a proportion of it's weight, the P-51 actually carried MORE bombs than the P-47, and the F4U even more so. The F4U used the same engine as the P-47 but was much lighter, while also carrying significantly more bombload while launching from a carried deck. "These are attributes that can't be tossed aside." Yes they can. P-51 was faster at all altitudes. P-51 flew further. P-51 carried more bombs as a percentage of weight. P-51 was more maneuverable at all altitudes. P-51 required less maintenance man hours between sorties. P-51 cost half as much. P-51 used less fuel. P-51 used less oil. P-51 consumed less aluminum. P-51 could be produced far faster. P-51 was the best dive bomber of WW2. P-51 fought in more theaters and more wars than the P-47. P-51 began combat operation 1year before the P-47 ever did. P-51 stayed in USAF service until 1957. P-51 has won many famous air races, P-47 has never won a single race, and only ever entered into 2 races. P-51 holds numerous world records, including fastest propeller driven airplane ever. P-51 was easier for pilots to learn/transition. P-51 was used as a recon airplane. For the same cost in money, fuel, and oil, maintenance man hours, and manufacturing man hours, you could put 2x as many P-51 in the skies than you could P-47, in a war of logistics. P-51 used 25% shorter runways, needing less steel mat. P-51 accelerated faster. P-51 climbed faster. The F-82 could carry 14x .50cal, 10x rockets, and 2x 500lb bombs all at the Same Time. Or, 6x .5cal, 10x rockets, and 4 500lb bombs all at the same time. And could also be equipped with radar for night fighting. What did the P-47 do better again?
    1
  10739. 1
  10740. 1
  10741. 1
  10742. 1
  10743.  @paulbantick8266  "And it was a specification requirement from the British. Whether you (or Greg) likes it or not. " see, this is the core flaw in your whole premise/argument that you can't seem to get. you're making baseless accusations against Greg, and now me, over your Feelings, your Perceptions. One, they are false, as I have tried to show, and two, you are hung up on this fact that simply doesn't matter. You're imagining crimes that don't exist, to create villains that don't exist, to give you life meaning and purpose where there apparently is none. "Rolls Royce weren't going to start faffing about making a new production line and tooling (as the US were able to do) for mediocre returns when she was producing capable Merlins anyway!." Wrong, RR couldn't meet the demand for Merlins, and even Packard couldn't keep up with the demand either. Packard made a better engine than RR as the US had better engineering and machining skills and equipment. Both the UK and Germany relied upon US machining technology in WW2 to produce their engines, but neither could match the US capabilities (precision, reliability, quality control...) during the war. Packard also used better engine bearings in their Merlin to increase service life, reduce wear and tear, and increase horsepower. They also made tweaks to make it more manufacturable. What you call mediocre returns is why the US won the war and the UK relied upon US aircraft, tanks, ships, engines, fuel, and more during WW2. Those minor tweaks made the engine more manufacturable, more reliable, more serviceable, for powerful, and more affordable. Added together over thousands of engines and that makes a huge difference. You're clearly not an engineer and lack engineering and manufacturing knowledge to appreciate this. UK tried mounting a merlin in a Mustang, it looked like crap, was very crude. it did work, but it was a hack job. In the same time period the US mounted a Merlin on their XP-51B prototype and it was glorious. Upon approaching the US for help retrofitting their P-51A with Merlins and thus learning of the US XP-51B, the UK abandoned their efforts to retrofit their P-51As with Merlins, and the US promised to deliver 1000 P-51Bs to the UK instead. The UK was desperate for aircraft, desperate for engineering help, etc. This is why they shared things like radar, sonar, enigma work, etc. with the US, as they needed help developing it and manufacturing it. They couldn't do it alone and they were humble enough to admit it.
    1
  10744. 1
  10745. 1
  10746. 1
  10747. 1
  10748. 1
  10749. 1
  10750. 1
  10751. 1
  10752. 1
  10753. 1
  10754. 1
  10755. 1
  10756. 1
  10757.  @paulbantick8266  "This bollocks for one!" Stating it doesn't make it so. Stop being a child. "Not only have you ignored my request for a 'trustworthy source' that you go by. It makes me want to ask where you got your information for that quote of yours above?" Define: trustworthy source? My sources are different depending upon what particular fact is in question. I have different sources for different things, such as the Allison, Merlin, P-51, P-38, etc. It depends. But the P-38 high altitude data comes from WW2 test reports done by the USAAC, NACA, Lockheed, etc. The P-51 with 2-stage supercharger plans come from NAA and Allison themselves. they had plans and preliminary drawings for this setup and installation. NACA, USAAC, NAA, Allison, and more are primary sources. I also use Aerospace engineering knowledge and equations as required. tons of books that have this info/equations and explains it. Many of the equations are just basic algebra in fact, so most people should be able to do the math. "Have you had a stroke? Putting 'e' after the 't' before the 'h' (tehn) and (teh)." So....all you have is questioning my sources, and ad hominem fallacis? got it. so basically I am right, you are wrong, and you're just mad about it and have no actual facts. All you can do is kick and scream, whine and complain, but you have no facts to counter my claims with. I'm not the first person to share this data on youtube. there are videos that detail out this stuff as well. and they used the same primary sources as I am using. Go educate yourself.
    1
  10758. 1
  10759. 1
  10760. 1
  10761. 1
  10762. 1
  10763. 1
  10764. 1
  10765. 1
  10766. 1
  10767. 1
  10768. 1
  10769. 1
  10770. 1
  10771. 1
  10772. 1
  10773. 1
  10774. 1
  10775. 1
  10776. 1
  10777. 1
  10778. 1
  10779. 1
  10780. 1
  10781. 1
  10782. 1
  10783. 1
  10784. 1
  10785. 1
  10786. 1
  10787. 1
  10788. 1
  10789. 1
  10790. 1
  10791. 1
  10792. 1
  10793. 1
  10794. 1
  10795. 1
  10796. 1
  10797. 1
  10798. 1
  10799. 1
  10800. 1
  10801. 1
  10802. 1
  10803. 1
  10804. 1
  10805. 1
  10806. 1
  10807. 1
  10808. 1
  10809. 1
  10810. 1
  10811. 1
  10812. 1
  10813. 1
  10814. 1
  10815. 1
  10816. 1
  10817. 1
  10818. 1
  10819. 1
  10820. 1
  10821. 1
  10822. 1
  10823. 1
  10824. 1
  10825. 1
  10826. 1
  10827. 1
  10828. 1
  10829. 1
  10830. 1
  10831. 1
  10832. 1
  10833. 1
  10834. 1
  10835. 1
  10836. 1
  10837. 1
  10838. 1
  10839. 1
  10840. 1
  10841. 1
  10842. 1
  10843. 1
  10844. 1
  10845. 1
  10846. 1
  10847. 1
  10848. 1
  10849. 1
  10850. 1
  10851. 1
  10852. 1
  10853. 1
  10854. 1
  10855. 1
  10856. 1
  10857. 1
  10858. 1
  10859. 1
  10860. 1
  10861. 1
  10862. 1
  10863. 1
  10864. 1
  10865. 1
  10866. 1
  10867. 1
  10868. 1
  10869. 1
  10870. 1
  10871. 1
  10872. 1
  10873. 1
  10874. 1
  10875. 1
  10876. 1
  10877. 1
  10878. 1
  10879. 1
  10880. 1
  10881. 1
  10882. 1
  10883. 1
  10884. 1
  10885. 1
  10886. 1
  10887. 1
  10888. 1
  10889. 1
  10890. 1
  10891. 1
  10892. 1
  10893. 1
  10894. 1
  10895. 1
  10896. 1
  10897. 1
  10898. 1
  10899. 1
  10900. 1
  10901. 1
  10902. 1
  10903. 1
  10904. 1
  10905. 1
  10906. 1
  10907. 1
  10908. 1
  10909. 1
  10910. 1
  10911. 1
  10912. 1
  10913. 1
  10914. 1
  10915. 1
  10916. 1
  10917. 1
  10918. 1
  10919. 1
  10920. 1
  10921. 1
  10922. 1
  10923. 1
  10924. 1
  10925. 1
  10926. 1
  10927. 1
  10928. 1
  10929. 1
  10930. 1
  10931. 1
  10932. 1
  10933. 1
  10934. 1
  10935. 1
  10936. 1
  10937. 1
  10938. 1
  10939. 1
  10940. 1
  10941. 1
  10942. 1
  10943. 1
  10944. 1
  10945. 1
  10946. 1
  10947. 1
  10948. 1
  10949. 1
  10950. 1
  10951. 1
  10952. 1
  10953. 1
  10954. 1
  10955. 1
  10956. 1
  10957. 1
  10958. 1
  10959. 1
  10960. 1
  10961. 1
  10962. 1
  10963. 1
  10964. 1
  10965. 1
  10966. 1
  10967. 1
  10968. 1
  10969. 1
  10970. 1
  10971. 1
  10972. 1
  10973.  @zix_zix_zix  nope, I'm accounting for the weather. Ukraine made th mistake of giving Russia the winter when they had the momentum in the first year. now they are paying for it. Winters where I live are far more brutal and equally muddy as Ukraine. I know full well what their climate and weather is like. "and Russia has a very strong air defense; they possess the largest number of SAMs in the world.. " Iraq had the most heavily defended airspace on planet earth in 1991. US took it all down in a matter of days with technology and capabilities generations older than what we have today. Meanwhile, Russia is still using technology from the 1960s and 1980s. They've produced nothing new of consequence since the fall of the Soviet Union in terms of military technology or hardware. "I don't see any proof of that. I believe that Ukrainians have performed exceptionally well, against a superior enemy, so far. " they have done extremely well against Russia. Even I initially thought they stood no chance, until teh invasion actually began. Before the first day was up, I already knew Russia was going to fail badly, based on what I was seeing. But, that doesn't change the fact that since the winter of the first year, Ukraine has failed to gain meaningful ground. They had the initiative, and they gave it back to Russia. They are afraid, they don't take the right risks. They lack confidence, and they try to do too much at once rather than focus their efforts on the killing blow. Crimea should have been retaken by now. But it requires a level of leadership they are lacking still. Russia has no concept of grand strategy. They suck at logistics and have never struck strategically critical targets in Ukraine since day one. Ukraine has surprised Russia because they are more westernized and motivated to fight and innovate and adapt. But Ukraine still suffers from decades of being part of the Soviet Union none the less. It will take many years to fully overcome that.
    1
  10974. 1
  10975. 1
  10976. 1
  10977. 1
  10978. 1
  10979. 1
  10980. 1
  10981. 1
  10982. 1
  10983. 1
  10984. 1
  10985. 1
  10986. 1
  10987.  @kurtisb100  "Yes, that’s the formula for KE, but velocity is a function of force and area. The energy contained in a given case is essentially a constant (as it’s volume is not changing), and it is imparted to a projectile as velocity. Heavier projectile for a given diameter means less velocity; but not less energy. However, a larger diameter results in more applied force to the projectile for a given pressure. " You have no clue what you're talking about. the equation of velocity is change in distance over change in time. Has nothing to do with area or volume. v = dx/dt A heavier bullet has more mass, but in the same cartridge it will go slower due to the same max chamber pressure of the given size cartridge. The same powder charge pushing a heavier object will not accelerate it as much and therefore you lose velocity, which has a bigger impact on energy. Energy is what was claimed increases by increasing bullet size. if larger bullets went faster, you see far fewer cartridges with necked down shell casings. F=PA=ma Yes, there is more area acted upon, increasing the force for a given pressure (F=PA). But now you increased the mass for that increased Force too, reducing acceleration (F=ma). Also, a larger bullet has a larger frontal area, and therefore has greater drag acting upon it in flight to slow it down more. Also, that larger diameter means that the impact energy on target is spread out over a larger area, reducing PSI and thus reducing the penetration for a given total energy compared to a smaller bullet with the same energy on impact with the target.
    1
  10988. 1
  10989. 1
  10990. 1
  10991. 1
  10992. 1
  10993. 1
  10994. 1
  10995. 1
  10996. 1
  10997. 1
  10998. 1
  10999. 1
  11000. 1
  11001. 1
  11002. 1
  11003. 1
  11004. 1
  11005. 1
  11006. 1
  11007. 1
  11008. 1
  11009. 1
  11010. 1
  11011. 1
  11012. 1
  11013. 1
  11014. 1
  11015. 1
  11016. 1
  11017.  @christopherhazell420  yes, women were on the frontlines for years before the ban was lifted. I served in combat well before that restriction was lifted. Within 2wks of arriving in country to start their year long deployment, one army Division saw over 80% of their women go home pregnant form the combat zone (a place where we were suffering 15 casualties per week at the height of the war). We had missions that were delayed because of women taking showers and the officers couldn't go in and get them. A male doing that would have been dragged out naked and iven articel 15 or worse for disrupting and putting operations at risk. When going places we had to find separate sleeping quarters for the women, which is hard to facilitate in a combat zone. Most women are far too soft and weak for the harsh rigors of front line service. Where you can go weeks without a shower, sleeping in the dirt under the stars in extreme heat or extreme cold. No privacy. It's well known that when women soldiers are wounded, men rush to her aid, and then when they are wounded, men are afraid to touch them for fear of accusations, and so women tend to die of their wounds due to lack of care. When man is wounded, we strip him naked to look for secondary wounds (this policy saved lots of lives due to lessons learned from vietnam and such). well, women getting stripped naked and put on a stretcher..... Some female soldiers HAVE filed sexual assault charges after having their lives saved in exactly this manner. But this was all so well known and documented that we were Briefed on it specifically before deploying overseas. Women also cause issues among the men, and cause distractions and drama. I've seen females get restraining orders on men in combat for things she did, not him. Unacceptable. No time for that nonsense in combat. Women CANNOT carry their weight, they Abuse their ability to get men to do things and to get promotions they have not earned nor are qualified for. Women in the military sleep around so much.....I have one heck of a story from a training event in CA one year that led to hundreds of med checks due to one person having an STD. hundreds of people had to get checked due to how much sleeping around was happening. I made a rule to never date a woman who'd done military service. I have many more real world first hand examples of problems they caused during my years of service and multiple years in combat. After I got out and the restriction was lifted, women joined my unit. The guys I served with said they literally didn't las 2 months and transferred out. Combat arms is tough on MEN, most guys could not do more than 2-3 combat deployments before their knees, back, and more were utterly destroyed. And front line combat troops like infantry, tankers, combat engineers, are an unruly bunch, tell very crude and dark jokes, are rough on each other, etc. Women literally couldn't handle it. Men are this way in combat arms Because they have to cope with facing death and with toughening themselves and each other up to face the mental rigors of brutal combat. If you can't handle the hazing and dish it out as well as receive it, you lack the mental fortitude for real combat. Your enemies will not be merciful nor gentle. They will be vicious and brutal with no regard for your feelings nor sensibilities and ideals. Men will be reduced to hamburger, cut in half, killed in horrible ways, and you have to be ready for that and continue to fight and do your job in the face of it without hesitation. War is not some holiday retreat. it is ugly, unforgiving, and tough. And failures result in death of yourself and/or others. Losing the game of war is paid with your life. Sensitive and weak people (both mentally and physically, but skinny men can be made tough while women cannot) are not fit for combat.
    1
  11018. 1
  11019. 1
  11020. 1
  11021. 1
  11022. 1
  11023. 1
  11024. 1
  11025. 1
  11026. 1
  11027. 1
  11028. 1
  11029. 1
  11030. 1
  11031. 1
  11032. 1
  11033. 1
  11034. 1
  11035. 1
  11036. 1
  11037. 1
  11038. 1
  11039. 1
  11040. 1
  11041. 1
  11042. 1
  11043. 1
  11044. 1
  11045. 1
  11046. 1
  11047. climate change is the new false flag science story (like peak oil, ice age, etc.). look at the raw data. even the IPCC reports and studies admit the impact of humans is small, and that we can do little to change it. NASA and NOAA wont explain the means by which they alter the raw temp data (refusal to accept peer review, failure to produce repeatable results). But the NASA/NOAA raw temp data is still on their site. try to alter it yourself if you don't believe me (others have and they couldn't replicate NASA/NOAA's alterations). Climate Change = science by consensus. Climate change scientists refuse to debate "deniers", because their science is BS, and the "deniers" are the scientists who Actually know the science and facts behind what is going on. CO2 works logarithmically, and this is a known testable fact of science. we got no more than about 1.0C warming in the 150yrs following the Industrial revolution as CO2 doubled from 200ppm to 400ppm. to get another 1.0C rise would requite 800ppm. to get a total of 3.0C rise would require 1600ppm. That is scientific fact. Methane has little effect on earth due to lack of energy emissions from our sun on the spectrum Methane absorbs. Saturating the atmosphere with maximum methane would net a max 1C temp rise (and we're talking extreme methane saturation). Life on earth thrived in the past when atmospheric CO2 was 1500-4000ppm. Also, following WW2 we saw a Massive increase in fossil fuel use and yet we saw a massive drop in temperatures globally from the 1930s and 1940s into the 1970s year after year (which is where the ice age fears came from). But how can this be true if massive increases in fossil fuel usage and CO2 emissions were spiking? how could the temps DROP for 3 decades straight following the largest increase in CO2 emissions globally? Just proves CO2 alone is not the driver of climate, and even if it is, it has a logarithmic and diminishing effect on climate. The earth is more complex than Venus, we have oceans, plant and animal life, etc. that Venus lacks. so don't go making apples and oranges comparisons there either. These factors serve to dampen or offset things that happened on Venus. I used to believe in climate change. but one day I started 3month deep dive into the fundamental science and math behinds it. started with a single atom of CO2 and worked my way up using basic chemistry, heat transfer, etc. Then I started looking at the actual RAW temperature data, the hurricane data, the tornado data, and more. Then you start looking into historical records and events, and you realize it's all a big fat lie. I also read reports rather than just the bullet points. I check claims and make sure the data supports it. I've done computer modelling using python myself. I understand how a computer does interpolation, extrapolation, curve fitting, etc. and I can also tell people the limitations and flaws of this as well, and how it leads to bad results and predictions with these crap climate models. I can also show how these climate models are impacting our daily lives as well.
    1
  11048. 1
  11049. 1
  11050. 1
  11051. 1
  11052. 1
  11053. 1
  11054. 1
  11055. 1
  11056. 1
  11057. 1
  11058. 1
  11059. 1
  11060. 1
  11061. 1
  11062. 1
  11063. 1
  11064. 1
  11065. 1
  11066. 1
  11067. 1
  11068. 1
  11069. 1
  11070. 1
  11071. 1
  11072. 1
  11073. 1
  11074. 1
  11075. 1
  11076. 1
  11077. 1
  11078. 1
  11079. 1
  11080. 1
  11081. 1
  11082.  @dammy  "I'm talking about US program, not PLA's." then your argument is even WORSE. The US has no carriers to shoot hypersonics at. We can sink enemy ships with ease using a variety of other better weapons. The US is not investing heavily in hypersonic glide weapons as this video pointed out. the US is the world leader in all forms of hypersonic research, and they understood back in teh cold war the limitations and economics of hypersonics. everyone else is still playing catchup. So, since the US has no such weapons, as we have no need for them and they don't make sense strategically nor tactically, we are going to discuss the PLA's hypersonics as the use case you KEEP describing is that of China attacking a US carrier. and since china actually tested one of these for real, we have actual understanding of what it can and cannot do right now. The Chinese test missed a known stationary target by many miles. Two, as hypersonics descend into thicker air near the surface (where carriers are), they can no longer achieve hypersonic speeds due to air resistance. Look at the max speed of different aircraft at sea level vs at 40k ft. Many jet fighters can't even go supersonic at see level due to air density. Gliders have a fixed energy budget to use to reach their target. If you bleed off too much enroute, you wont have the same range as a missile that has nothing to dodge. Also, at mach 5 to mach 10, the exterior frictional heating will destroy sensors, antennae, etc. (look up the X-15 fastest flights if you don't beleive me). and so how do you plan to communicate with this thing in flight? The plasma build up during reentry of a space capsule can happen to these hypersonics too, blocking communications as well. How do they track moving targets after they've been fired? Keep in mind they are firing beyond line of sight, and so early the only way they can be guided is to be told by ground assets where the target is and where teh interceptor missiles are. These things can be detected and tracked from the point of launch, giving time for even a large ship to maneuver enough. And since the missile will be supersonic at best by the time it reaches the target, the majority of the damage will have to be done by it's rather small conventional warhead. Also, don't forget that the US has demonstrated multiple weapon systems capable of intercepting ICBMs, satellites, and objects moving at hypersonic velocities in live tests. These hypersonics may be fast, but they are still much slower than a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
    1
  11083. 1
  11084. 1
  11085. 1
  11086. 1
  11087. 1
  11088. 1
  11089. 1
  11090. 1
  11091. 1
  11092. 1
  11093. 1
  11094. 1
  11095. 1
  11096. 1
  11097. 1
  11098. 1
  11099. 1
  11100. 1
  11101. 1
  11102. 1
  11103. 1
  11104. 1
  11105. 1
  11106. 1
  11107. 1
  11108. 1
  11109. 1
  11110. 1
  11111. 1
  11112. 1
  11113. 1
  11114. 1
  11115. 1
  11116. 1
  11117. 1
  11118. 1
  11119. 1
  11120. 1
  11121. 1
  11122. 1
  11123. 1
  11124. 1
  11125. 1
  11126. 1
  11127. 1
  11128. 1
  11129. 1
  11130. 1
  11131. 1
  11132. 1
  11133. 1
  11134. 1
  11135. 1
  11136.  @AdventureswithaaronB  yes. depending upon fat stores in your body. one man who was obese (weighted hundreds of lbs) went 387 days without food with no ill effects. he lost a Lot of weight though. Another 21yr old girl went 40 days without food and died shortly after ending her fast. but she lacked the body mass to go more than about 20days without food before suffering ill effect. Her body started consuming muscle mass (autophagy), including her heart, and she died as a result of it (basically heart attack). The Average person can go 3wks. About 20-40days. Some can go more, some can't do that much (too skinny, unhealthily skinny). Many people these days can likely go much longer since they are overweight or obese to some degree. The first 72hrs of not eating are the hardest as chemical signals in your brain telling you you're hungry dissipate. After that you'll have no hunger, only thirst. But eventually your body will start giving you hunger signals again. Do not ignore those signals and eat something immediately. Learn to listen to your body, it will tell you what you need and when. My general rule of thumb is what is the normal healthy weight for your size and age? for every 1.5lb over that you can go ~1 day without food, as your body tends to use 1-2lbs of body weight per day as energy, depending upon exertion. You body consumes fat stores and damaged cells first, and will switch into a "famine" mode after the first ~3 days of not eating. strive to avoid dropping much below the range of normal body weight to avoid the issues that 21yr old woman suffered. Someone who is "fit" but has really low body fat, may not be able to go as long at a given body weight as someone with less muscle but higher body fat %, at the same initial body weight and size. At the very least they will lose some of their muscle mass. You still need to hydrate, and you can consume salts to replace lost minerals throughout a fast or period of not eating, which is where those liquid IVs and other drink mixes, gatorade and powerade can be crucial. But you need to figure out what works for you. Everyone is different and can tolerate different amounts, and at different levels of exertion. there is nothing exact about this, and I can't guarantee anything. I did my on research and experimenting over teh years, and you should do some research of your own rather than trusting my word. Personally, I regularly do 1-2 day fasts, and try to do a 3-7 day fast as often as once a month. I actually started studying the whole idea behind fasting based upon my experiences in combat, as well as studying local cultures such as fasting during Ramadan (many religions have such fasting rituals in fact).
    1
  11137. 1
  11138. 1
  11139. 1
  11140. To be clear, EVs are fine for some people and some places and applications. Technology will evolve, but there are limits too (laws of physics and thermodynamics). However, FORCING people to buy EVs against their will is 100% unacceptable Communist nonsense. CA is going to get a hard lesson in this, on top of their other myriad of failures they never learn from (mismanaging water resources, mismanaging their forests, mismanaging their economy, rampant corruption, one-party communist government...). Also, 100% of EVs are built on the backs of slave and child labor in Africa (enslaved black Africans and children). I love watching all these smug green thumbs act morally superior as they benefit from slavery and turn a blind eye to it. All the major companies are buying slave-mined lithium, cobalt, etc. as there is not enough material to go around from other sources. Tesla, Apple, all of them. They sweep it under the rug and you're all ok with it so long as it isn't happening it your backyard. Also consider the fact a used ICE car can last 30+yrs. The typical EV lasts 10yrs before needing a battery replacement, at which point the combined cost of a used car and a new battery means it's cheaper to buy a new EV instead. New EVs are too expensive for the average person to think about owning. And every time you throw away a used EV to make a new one, you are using more material and energy, offsetting any gains saved. The total lifetime carbon cost of an EV (mining, manufacturing, driving, maintenance...) is only offset after up to 10yrs of driving the EV... But the lifetime carbon footprint of an ICE that last 30yrs or more is far less than an EV that gets recycled every 10yrs, even if it's daily driving burns fuel. But the problem is EVs are too expensive, and there is little to no used car market for them as a result. I've never owned a car that was less than 8yrs old, and can buy multiple cars and/or airplanes for the price of a single EV. Also, the claim that CO2 is causing some sort of climate change is a bold faced lie that is in direct conflict with scientifically proven facts and evidence going back over 100yrs.
    1
  11141. 1
  11142. 1
  11143. 1
  11144. 1
  11145. 1
  11146. 1
  11147. 1
  11148. 1
  11149. 1
  11150. 1
  11151. 1
  11152. 1
  11153. 1
  11154. 1
  11155. 1
  11156.  @flarvin8945  I did not fail to account for that, i have Literally been stating this Whole time the US's goal was not to invade the North. It was a police action, not a declaration of war, hence why we never went north. You seriously need to pay attention. However, had war been declared, going north would have been the right move, no question, and would have made the guerilla war in Vietnam far harder to conduct for the North and China. China got us by surprise in Korea, and it was a UN action, not merely a US action. The will to fight in Korea wasn't there in the US. We got dragged into a fight the public didn't support or understand. But that was a winnable war. But the US was still dealing with the aftermath of WW2, was distracted, and fighting the last war. But we still bloodied China far more than they bloodied us, not even a close. What straw am I grasping at, Exactly? And china's actions show that many times since Korea they have not responded to actions in bordering nations with troops. Afghanistan was a US/NATO occupation with zero Chinese response. They have however invaded weak neighbors like Tibet. I too judge China on their actions, such as cultural and ethic genocide, mass murder, and mass starvation. What has China done militarily since Korea? Attacked helpless nations and people, that's all. Occupying the north makes an insurgency by the north easy to manage and control. Same as in Afghanistan. Not occupying the north game them a base, manufacturing, SAMs, airbases, tanks, etc. All of that would have been gone. You claim I am naïve, but you don't even understand the most basic aspects of warfare. Just read the Art of War if nothing else.
    1
  11157.  @flarvin8945  "I am not naïve enough to believe China would sit back let the USA invade north Vietnam without doing anything. ", but that is 100% predicated merely on your ASSUMPTION that you are correct, contrary to all evidence from those who held the decision making authority at the time. I think you are very naïve. It's not grasping at straws. You claim to base your opinions on china's actions, and I cited examples of there actions, or lack there of. You think China would have stopped the US, despite the modern PLA being unable to take on lesser nations who fight back. China acts, i watch, and I take notes. And you reject anything that doesn't support your argument, and dismiss anything that contradicts your argument. If the US invaded and controlled North Vietnam, there isn't much the north could accomplish by being "pushed closer to China", since they would have no country to control, and no power with which to snuggle up to China with. Once they are occupied, there is no more north vietnam. You seem to fail to grasp elementary concepts of warfare here. I could teach children these things and they'd understand them better than you. Go ahead and live in ignorance, I don't care. "Your claim does not even stand on face value. The Vietnam war already taxed USA military resources enough that a draft was required to maintain adequate troop levels." Not true at all. The draft was due to a lack of public support for the conflict. Our military was still strong and capable even at the worst periods. "So by your logic, added more territory to protect, with a significantly more hostile population and positioning a far more powerful opponent to the north to have to guard against." Again, you clearly lack an understanding of warfare, and how an occupation completely changes everything. The North would be gone, relegated to guerilla infantry and nothing more, losing all their agriculture, manufacturing, technological support, and access to China except by attacking from China across the vietnam border. No tanks, no SAMs, no jets, no AAA sites, no trucks, etc. McArthur was an idiot, but he still understood warfare better than you.
    1
  11158. 1
  11159. 1
  11160. 1
  11161. 1
  11162. 1
  11163. 1
  11164. 1
  11165. 1
  11166. 1
  11167. 1
  11168. 1
  11169. 1
  11170. 1
  11171. 1
  11172. 1
  11173. 1
  11174. 1
  11175. 1
  11176. 1
  11177. 1
  11178. 1
  11179. 1
  11180. 1
  11181. 1
  11182. 1
  11183. 1
  11184. 1
  11185. 1
  11186. 1
  11187. 1
  11188. 1
  11189. 1
  11190. 1
  11191. 1
  11192. 1
  11193. 1
  11194. 1
  11195. 1
  11196. 1
  11197. 1
  11198. 1
  11199. 1
  11200. 1
  11201. 1
  11202. 1
  11203. 1
  11204. 1
  11205. 1
  11206. 1
  11207. 1
  11208. 1
  11209. 1
  11210. 1
  11211. 1
  11212. 1
  11213. 1
  11214. 1
  11215. 1
  11216. 1
  11217. 1
  11218. 1
  11219. 1
  11220. 1
  11221. 1
  11222. 1
  11223.  @johnsullivan8673  " It's about efficiency at an expanded flight envelope. Having a turboJET that may or may not be able to operate as a ramjet ala J-58 means the flight optimization curve (really, fuel efficiency - which translates into speed<survivability>/combat radius/endurance) for this platform can be widened." false. you don't need three engines to do that. the Blackbird only needed two engines to do that. adding the fuel and weight of a third engines REDUCES the range and performance of teh aircraft. the fuel tanks and engine volume could have gone to fuel for the other two engines for extreme range. but clearly two engines couldn't provide sufficient thrust for that much weight alone. A low-bypass tubofan/turbojet is not going to act as a ramjet. the Blackbird had a turbojet engine with a HIGH bypass for the ramjet. you cannot use a ramjet with a turbofan as the fan blades block airflow to the ramjet. clearly you don't understand such things. this chinese prototype doesn't fly fast enough to be survivable by relying upon speed. adding a third engine KILLS efficiency due to reduced total fuel volume per engine and added weight. if they wanted high efficiency engines or ramjet engines, they could have done that using only two engines. but they lack the performance using only two. thus the third engine to make up for lack of thrust to achieve performance goals. China's engine as are crap, even Russia knows this to be true. China is still trying to copy Russia's jet engines, and Russia has no engine remotely comparable the F-35's engine. China has no engines REMOTELY comparable to what the F-35 has. they hope to get there someday, but they are decades from getting there. in the meantime, they have to use their garbage copies of crap russian engines instead. it's even well known that the J-20 has underpowered engines and suffers for it, and it's why the J-35 also has two engines instead of one.
    1
  11224. 1
  11225. 1
  11226. 1
  11227. 1
  11228. 1
  11229. 1
  11230. 1
  11231. 1
  11232. 1
  11233. 1
  11234. 1
  11235. 1
  11236. 1
  11237. 1
  11238. 1
  11239. 1
  11240. 1
  11241. 1
  11242. 1
  11243. 1
  11244. 1
  11245. 1
  11246. 1
  11247. 1
  11248. 1
  11249. 1
  11250. 1
  11251. 1
  11252. 1
  11253. 1
  11254. 1
  11255. 1
  11256. 1
  11257. 1
  11258. 1
  11259. 1
  11260. 1
  11261. 1
  11262. 1
  11263. 1
  11264. 1
  11265. 1
  11266. 1
  11267. 1
  11268. 1
  11269. 1
  11270. 1
  11271. Military ASVAB: I took it in high school so wasn't allowed to take the whole thing, but I scored so high that when I later joined the military, I could still pick any job and they didn't make me retake it either. College Entrance Exams: Don't actually know what I scored. But due to joining the military, I delayed entry into college and my tests expired. But I scored high enough that they waived me taking it again and accepted me (at a prestigious college that didn't just let anyone in, at least back then). I have never been turned down by any college, attended 6 colleges in total (2 in high school), and hold 4 degrees (all STEM). Standardized Tests in School: I scored in the top 1% or 2% nationwide in every category. IQ test: never took one, have no idea, never plan to take one, and I think IQ tests are bogus subjective crap. They don't prove what people wish they did. Intelligence tests are about as useful as horoscopes and astrology at predicting success and such. Have had success in 3 distinct careers, with opportunities presented to jump to another ~4 careers. I care about results, not arbitrary tests. If you ever meet me in life, look at what I've accomplished, not at my scores. I know people who score high and accomplish nothing their entire lives. And I know people who score low and are amazing and brilliant people. Some score high and achieve. Some score low and are failures. Results are all that matters, not test scores. Could I have a lower IQ, but do well in tests? Could I have a high IQ and be under performing? Could I be book smart and not practical smart (evidence to the contrary there, but something I worry about just the same)? Does it even matter?
    1
  11272. 1
  11273. 1
  11274. 1
  11275. 1
  11276. 1
  11277. 1
  11278. 1
  11279. 1
  11280. 1
  11281. 1
  11282. 1
  11283.  @jacktattis  Oh boy. we got another one who can't read and comprehend. No P-38 was ever equipped with actual Merlins. Just because they were testing P-38s into 1944, doesn't mean it had anything to do with Merlins. The P-38 went through preliminary evaluation for Merlins, but it was abandoned early due to the realization it would have FAR LESS performance with the Merlins, as the turbocharged Allisons massively outperformed the Merlin above 25k ft. the POTENTIAL of the Allison if given a proper high altitude forced induction system is Far superior to the Merlin at altitude and this is a known and documented fact. In fact, North American wanted to put the 2 stage supercharger on the Allison rather than use the Merlin, but time and development was not on their side. The Allison was higher performance, more fuel efficient (longer range), had a smaller frontal cross section and lower drag (faster and more fuel efficient), and weighed 300lb less than a Merlin (faster and longer range, higher altitude), and produced 300-600hp more than the Merlin at various stages of its life (faster and higher altitudes). Had the Allison gotten the 2 stage supercharger forced induction system applied as North American desired, the P-51 with Allison would have curb stomped the P-51B/C/D at all altitudes. It would have been faster, longer ranged, and capable of flying higher. The Merlins didn't "run out", they were in limited supply. The Allisons were not as limited in supply. Partially due to US manufacturing capacity, and due to the simpler design being more manufacturable and easier to work on.
    1
  11284. 1
  11285. 1
  11286. 1
  11287. 1
  11288.  @thethirdman225  "They suffered notoriously under conditions of high boost" Wrong, Allisons were putting out 1800-2200+HP at 70-75" MAP as early as 1942 and verified by Allison. The P-38 issue over Europe manifested when the throttle was pulled back abruptly, and was a turbo flaw, not an Allison flaw. Likely due to the cold air and oil system of the turbo. The P-38s were still able to fly, but without the turbo would lose significant power. "What Allison didn't have was a supercharger design maniac like Stanley Hooker." agreed. but had they gotten the proper supercharger, we know full well what the engine did at high altitude with sufficient boost. "This is rose-tinted optimism at best. 'Coulda, shoulda, woulda' and tough guy talk like 'kerb stomped' doesn't get it done. If you read Calum E. Douglas' book 'The Secret Horsepower Race', you will find that the supercharged Allison was a dead duck from early on. The designers tried to make it run on a hydraulically-powered supercharger, similar to the German implementation but axially, rather than at 90 degrees to the crankshaft. This made the engine unfeasibly long and never produced the results expected of it before development was terminated." This only reinforces what I've said. nothing wrong with the engine, simply a lack of creativity by the engineers to make a proper supercharger. Most Allison V12 in WW2 had superchargers, just not optimized for high altitude. Proving it could be done. They just never did it right, and never got enough time to figure it out. 300lb heavier that the Merlin installed in the P-51. Many sources other than myself point this out, not just me. Pull the stats and have a look. Obviously I'm comparing engines for the same airplane, but I guess you have to be an aerospace engineer to logically deduce that.
    1
  11289. 1
  11290.  @thethirdman225  UK and US generals reported to DC and Allison their pilots were flying airplanes at 72-75" MAP in 1942, and Allison tested and verified the engines produced 1800HP at 70" MAP and caused no damage to the engine if run continuously in that condition. And P-38 had no such issues using boost anywhere else. the issues was associated with abrupt throttle reductions at altitude. And as a Professional pilot who has flown turbochargerd engines at altitude, I can tell you that if you reduce power too much too fast, teh turbos shock cool and seize. you keep citing irrelevant sources. I'm getting info from Allison, primary sources, mechanics who actually work on these engines, and actual flying and engineering experience. You seem to be very proud of yourself for having read "masters of the Air" now that it's trendy. You cite a descent source, but none of your argument comes from there. I have these books, and far more, too. How about citing a credible source on the Allison engine regarding the P-38. "As for your claim that ‘the Allison was the better engine’, all I’ll bother with on that score is that better is as better does and what was suitable at low to medium altitude was not what was required for medium to high altitude." typical woke feminist woman won't debate things when you know you can't win, and just resort to dismissing things you disagree with outright. You parrot tired myths without evidence to back them up and then run away and refuse to debate further.
    1
  11291. 1
  11292. 1
  11293. 1
  11294. 1
  11295. 1
  11296.  @jacktattis  You're making crap up. "1. Rolls Royce would not have approved to give the Merlin to another US plane company They would not haver supported them in any way" Yet, RR signed a deal with Packard to not only produce teh engines in teh US independently, but Packard also changed the design and made their own superchargers. The Merlin was fitted into the P-51 without RR approval nor knowledge. NA started developing the XP-51B in September 1941 and the US never informed the UK of this until teh Uk came to the US asking for help converting their Mustangs to Merlins after they built their Mustang X prototype, at which point the US shared all the details of the superior XP-51B with the UK in Dec 1942, and promised to deliver 1000 P-51B under lend lease. Also, the Curtiss P-40F used the Merlin, as did other aircraft and prototypes. "2. Rolls Royce would have seen how ineffective the P38 was as a fighter and the Allison was good down low." Again, RR had no say in the matter, and had no part in the matter. Packard engines would have been used, not RR. The Merlin was simply inferior to the high-altitude optimized Allisons already in the P-38. Greg has a whole video on this, go look at the performance charts. Putting Merlins in would have made the P-38 More expensive, and neutered its performance at altitude, as well as the fact there were no opposing versions of the Merlin (left/right-hand engines). "3. And After the debacle of Lockheed trying to pull a swiftie way back when the Brits were going to purchase the plane. The Air Ministry would have vetoed the deal anyway." That is a lie, the British and French demanded the turbos be removed and the counter rotating engine be removed as well, much to Lockheed's disappointment.
    1
  11297. 1
  11298. 1
  11299. 1
  11300. 1
  11301. 1
  11302. 1
  11303. 1
  11304. 1
  11305. 1
  11306. 1
  11307. 1
  11308. 1
  11309. 1
  11310. 1
  11311. 1
  11312. 1
  11313. 1
  11314. 1
  11315. 1
  11316. 1
  11317. 1
  11318. 1
  11319. 1
  11320. 1
  11321. 1
  11322. 1
  11323. 1
  11324. 1
  11325. 1
  11326. 1
  11327. 1
  11328. 1
  11329. 1
  11330. 1
  11331. 1
  11332. 1
  11333. 1
  11334. 1
  11335. 1
  11336. 1
  11337. 1
  11338. 1
  11339. 1
  11340. 1
  11341. 1
  11342. 1
  11343. 1
  11344. 1
  11345. 1
  11346. 1
  11347. 1
  11348. 1
  11349. 1
  11350. 1
  11351. 1
  11352. 1
  11353. 1
  11354. 1
  11355. 1
  11356. 1
  11357. 1
  11358. 1
  11359. 1
  11360. 1
  11361. 1
  11362. 1
  11363. 1
  11364. 1
  11365. 1
  11366. 1
  11367. 1
  11368. 1
  11369. 1
  11370. 1
  11371. 1
  11372. 1
  11373. 1
  11374. 1
  11375. 1
  11376. 1
  11377. 1
  11378. 1
  11379. 1
  11380. 1
  11381. 1
  11382. 1
  11383. 1
  11384. 1
  11385. 1
  11386. 1
  11387. 1
  11388. 1
  11389. 1
  11390. 1
  11391. 1
  11392. 1
  11393. 1
  11394. 1
  11395. 1
  11396. 1
  11397. 1
  11398. 1
  11399. 1
  11400. 1
  11401. 1
  11402. 1
  11403. 1
  11404. 1
  11405. 1
  11406. 1
  11407. 1
  11408. 1
  11409. 1
  11410. 1
  11411. 1
  11412. 1
  11413. 1
  11414. 1
  11415. 1
  11416. 1
  11417. 1
  11418. 1
  11419. 1
  11420. 1
  11421. 1
  11422. 1
  11423. 1
  11424. 1
  11425. 1
  11426. 1
  11427. 1
  11428. 1
  11429. 1
  11430. 1
  11431. 1
  11432. 1
  11433. 1
  11434. 1
  11435. 1
  11436. 1
  11437. 1
  11438. 1
  11439. 1
  11440. 1
  11441. 1
  11442. 1
  11443. 1
  11444. 1
  11445. 1
  11446. 1
  11447. 1
  11448. 1
  11449. 1
  11450. 1
  11451. 1
  11452. 1
  11453. 1
  11454. 1
  11455. 1
  11456. 1
  11457. 1
  11458. 1
  11459. 1
  11460. 1
  11461. 1
  11462. 1
  11463. 1
  11464. 1
  11465. 1
  11466. 1
  11467. 1
  11468. 1
  11469. 1
  11470. 1
  11471. 1
  11472. 1
  11473. 1
  11474. 1
  11475. 1
  11476. 1
  11477. 1
  11478. 1
  11479. 1
  11480. 1
  11481. 1
  11482. 1
  11483. 1
  11484. 1
  11485. 1
  11486. 1
  11487. 1
  11488. 1
  11489. 1
  11490. 1
  11491. 1
  11492. 1
  11493. 1
  11494. 1
  11495. 1
  11496. 1
  11497. 1
  11498. 1
  11499. 1
  11500. 1
  11501. 1
  11502. 1
  11503. 1
  11504. 1
  11505. @veikkajoensuu yes, totally valid. We faced enemy mortars artillery, rockets, etc. (indirect fire). but they had little of it and we could often return fire on the launcher/gun before the incoming rounds even impacted around us. Ukraine lacks such overwhelming capabilities and so they get shelled a lot and often. But regardless, you adapt to your conditions. you develop strategies and tactics to mitigate getting shot at. you figure out counter tactics to avoid the need to face down artillery attack in the first place. This is how you win and survive. It's not something 95% of soldiers will ever figure out how to do though, in my experience. Even the guys I served alongside for years in the US military never figured out how to do what I am describing. They got hit, I did not. And I was putting myself out front on more missions than they went on, so I had far higher chances of getting hit than they did, yet never got hit. My tactics worked. Luck is a factor. but there Are things one can do to mitigate their chances of ever getting hit. I put ALL of my energy in combat into not getting hit. Any hit could prove fatal. Any hit means the enemy defeated you (you personally) and I was hell bent on winning and not getting hit. Even a small piece of shrapnel could pierce your skull or heart and end your life. ANY hit needs to be avoided. The issue is How does one achieve that? Each situation needs its own specific tactics to mitigate chances of getting hit. To develop tactics for Ukrainians, I'd need to be on the ground and develop the tactics on-the-spot, on-the-fly. Much can be anticipated before getting there, but to truly have the best tactics, you have to adapt them to the specifics of the situation they are dealing with.
    1
  11506. 1
  11507. 1
  11508. 1
  11509. 1
  11510. 1
  11511. 1
  11512. 1
  11513. 1
  11514. 1
  11515. 1
  11516. 1
  11517. 1
  11518. 1
  11519. 1
  11520. 1
  11521. 1
  11522. 1
  11523. 1
  11524. 1
  11525. 1
  11526. 1
  11527. 1
  11528. 1
  11529. 1
  11530. 1
  11531. 1
  11532. 1
  11533. 1
  11534. 1
  11535. 1
  11536. 1
  11537. 1
  11538. 1
  11539. 1
  11540. 1
  11541. 1
  11542. 1
  11543. 1
  11544. 1
  11545. 1
  11546. 1
  11547. 1
  11548. 1
  11549. 1
  11550. 1
  11551. 1
  11552. 1
  11553. 1
  11554. 1
  11555. 1
  11556. 1
  11557. 1
  11558. 1
  11559. 1
  11560. 1
  11561. 1
  11562. 1
  11563. 1
  11564. 1
  11565. 1
  11566. 1
  11567. 1
  11568. 1
  11569. 1
  11570. 1
  11571. 1
  11572. 1
  11573. 1
  11574. 1
  11575. 1
  11576. 1
  11577. 1
  11578. 1
  11579. 1
  11580. 1
  11581. 1
  11582. 1
  11583. 1
  11584. 1
  11585. 1
  11586. 1
  11587. 1
  11588. 1
  11589. 1
  11590. 1
  11591. 1
  11592. 1
  11593. 1
  11594. 1
  11595. 1
  11596. 1
  11597. 1
  11598. 1
  11599. 1
  11600. 1
  11601. 1
  11602. 1
  11603. 1
  11604. 1
  11605. 1
  11606. 1
  11607.  @HNTR308  And what military value did snake island represent? you still can't answer that. Seems to me that installation was as useless as a town full of veterans. In the US, a town full of veterans represents anywhere from a full company to a full battalion of fully armed, equipped, and trained infantry. So, yes, targeting such veterans in their homes is as valuable as going after snake island. I left the military at age 25 with years of combat experience. Most guys I fought with overseas are still in their 30s and 40s in age, and keep up on military skills and knowledge. They are fit and would fight again in a heartbeat. And we were better equipped as civilians than were were in combat. In fact many of us brought our own gear from home on combat deployments instead of what we were issued because it was better. Yes, I would love to face enemies like yourself on a battlefield. Not to come after you personally, but because someone such as yourself who clearly lacks sufficient knowledge in these things would be like fighting a war on easy mode for someone like me. Unlike you, I know combat logistics, strategy at the global and theater level, battlefield tactics, squad tactics, combined arms tactics, and even intelligence gathering, guerilla warfare, etc. I spent many years of my life striving to master all aspects of warfare, as do many people i served with. we study history of other conflicts, we develop novel tactics, we know camouflage and concealment, psychology of warfare, deception, communications, armored and anti-armor tactics, recon, etc. And then there are all the noncombat factors such as public support, international response, economics, manufacturing, medical, food, shelter, economic, political, transportation and shipping, working with allies, etc factors that play into all of it. Warfare is the single hardest profession in the world to master.
    1
  11608. 1
  11609. 1
  11610. 1
  11611. 1
  11612. 1
  11613. 1
  11614. 1
  11615. 1
  11616. 1
  11617. 1
  11618. 1
  11619. 1
  11620. 1
  11621. 1
  11622. 1
  11623. 1
  11624. 1
  11625. 1
  11626. 1
  11627. 1
  11628. 1
  11629. 1
  11630. 1
  11631. 1
  11632. 1
  11633. 1
  11634. 1
  11635. 1
  11636. 1
  11637. 1
  11638. 1
  11639. 1
  11640. 1
  11641. 1
  11642. 1
  11643. 1
  11644. 1
  11645. 1
  11646. 1
  11647. 1
  11648. 1
  11649. 1
  11650. 1
  11651. 1
  11652. 1
  11653. 1
  11654. 1
  11655. 1
  11656. 1
  11657. 1
  11658. 1
  11659. 1
  11660. 1
  11661. 1
  11662. 1
  11663. 1
  11664. 1
  11665. 1
  11666. 1
  11667. 1
  11668. 1
  11669. 1
  11670. 1
  11671. 1
  11672. 1
  11673. 1
  11674. 1
  11675. 1
  11676. 1
  11677. 1
  11678. 1
  11679. 1
  11680. 1
  11681. 1
  11682. 1
  11683. 1
  11684. 1
  11685. 1
  11686. 1
  11687. 1
  11688. 1
  11689. 1
  11690. 1
  11691. 1
  11692. 1
  11693. 1
  11694. 1
  11695. 1
  11696. 1
  11697. 1
  11698. 1
  11699. 1
  11700.  @lbroome  you have to believe a theory is true, even when it likely will be found false in the future. Almost every scientific theory ever proposed has been wrong. As new ideas come forward, old ones are replaced. As new discoveries prove old ideas were wrong or incomplete. But in the meantime, you proceed on the idea that the current theory is correct. We know for a fact, for example, that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong. We don't know how it's wrong, but we know it cannot predict certain things, such as the behavior of galaxies. Nothing wrong with that, but yet we proceed on the idea that it is true, or that the failures in the theory can be fixed eventually. Or, perhaps the whole theory will eventually be replaced by a better one? Ideas of Determinism vs Free Will, Chaos theory, plank length, and quantum mechanics cause all sorts of unresolved debates in science that continue to this day. Yet we have faith in the system of science working. We can't prove some things, because we can't observe them, so how can we ever definitively prove such ideas (String Theory for example). Even if the theory seems to work and people decided to take it as the prevailing theory, it would still be a matter of faith that it is true, due to our lack of ability to objectively prove it is correct. Couple that with the complete lack of understanding most people have around Schrodinger's cat and what it means, on the statistical analysis of physics we call quantum mechanics and what that means, or things like Heisenbugs uncertainty principle and its implications.
    1
  11701.  @lbroome  "A theory is an explanation that has supporting data. That does not mean it has been proven to be true, but we have good reason to believe that it is true. If further research reveals that it is false we abandon it, but that does not mean it was wrong to believe it at the time, or that we just believed it to be true by faith." All very true, and perfectly inline with what I said. Newtons theory of gravity was/is wrong. We know it's wrong. but it's still useful enough for the day-to-day things we deal with on earth. But it's still wrong, and we know it's wrong, and that's ok. "We believe in scientific theories because we have good reason to believe them. This is the opposite of believing in something because of faith. " Wrong, it's the exact same thing. People believe in a God or Gods, because they have good reason to believe them. "We have a mass of non-contradictory evidence of truth that outweighs our doubts. " so do many of the people who believe in God/s. " This is the opposite of believing something by Faith." wrong. just because you have good cause to believe something is true, doesn't make it so, and so you still have to believe it to be true anyways. "If most of the evidence was contradictory or was false yet “science” told us to believe it anyway, that would be believing in science by faith." No, that would be believing a lie and refusing to face facts, like the COVID lies about natural immunity not applying, or the hysteria over the Omicron variant with no evidence to support it. These things can be objectively tested and measured. Not all things can though. No facts prove god/s don't exist in some form. Some facts prove certain religious beliefs are objectively false, but not all. Not everything in science can be objectively proven true, same as with faith/religion.
    1
  11702.  @evanfontenot7000  "The Bible has Prophecy, correct?" yes, it does claim to prophesize things. But there are Many explanations for that. One is understanding how horoscopes work. Another is coincidence and blind luck given a certain amount of time. Another is knowing who wrote the Bible, and why they did it. These arguments, if you pursued them, would prove why you cannot claim what you are claiming as evidence the Bible is "beyond human capability". But if the Bible is as you claim, then it is also beyond YOUR capability, and so you professing to understand something beyond you capability and god-like proves you think you are God and better than everyone else, wouldn't you agree? "Thus God exists and written and backed by that author. " Based on what evidence? Just saying he exists doesn't make it so. I've written many things in life, were they all true because I wrote them? "Jesus claimed to be that Messiah. Isaiah 53 is the most evident. He did miracles which is a historical thing considering all the evidence." According to a book, with no physical historical evidence to support the claim that the Bible is anything more than a work of fiction. Lots of miracles happen in lots of books at the bookstore. Why is the Bible any different? just because the author was creative and said so? "Jesus claimed to be God incarnate and rose from the dead. Jesus claimed to be final authority. John 14:6. " Ah, so you agree, the Bible is NOT the final authority. "Jesus claimed.... Jesus claimed...." Did he? How do you know he ever existed at all and the author didn't make it all up? How do you know the author heard/understood Jesus correctly even if he did exist? But by the Bible's own assertions, the Bible is NOT the final authority, Jesus is. But isn't God the final authority, not Jesus? "You must prove these wrong if you are to make any claims or say your beliefs about the Bible..." No I don't. this is a free country and I can say whatever the hell I damned well please, and believe what ever the hell I damned well please. Try and stop me. I'll make whatever claims I like, and as of yet, you yourself have proven and refuted nothing I've said. "...otherwise I don't believe you actually know what the Bible claims." I can't control what you believe or do. But I also NEVER claimed to know what the Bible does/doesn't claim. That is Precisely why I asked You what it claims. If you can't read what I write correctly or accurately, then why should I trust your understanding of the Bible? you clearly can't pay attention to the details, and by your own admission, the Bible " is beyond human capability" to comprehend, meaning it is beyond your own comprehension as well. And therefore, by your own arguments, you "must prove these wrong if you are to make any claims or say your beliefs about the Bible otherwise I don't believe you actually know what the Bible claims." Careful, you're beginning to prove my arguments for me. And your attempts at logical reasoning is quickly falling apart.
    1
  11703. 1
  11704. 1
  11705. 1
  11706. 1
  11707. 1
  11708. 1
  11709. 1
  11710. 1
  11711. 1
  11712. 1
  11713. 1
  11714. 1
  11715. 1
  11716. 1
  11717. 1
  11718. 1
  11719. 1
  11720. 1
  11721. 1
  11722. 1
  11723. 1
  11724. 1
  11725. 1
  11726. 1
  11727. 1
  11728. 1
  11729. 1
  11730. 1
  11731. 1
  11732. 1
  11733. 1
  11734. 1
  11735. 1
  11736. 1
  11737. 1
  11738. 1
  11739. 1
  11740. 1
  11741. 1
  11742. 1
  11743. 1
  11744. 1
  11745. 1
  11746. 1
  11747. 1
  11748. 1
  11749. 1
  11750. 1
  11751. 1
  11752. 1
  11753. 1
  11754. 1
  11755. 1
  11756. 1
  11757. 1
  11758. 1
  11759. 1
  11760. 1
  11761. 1
  11762. 1
  11763. 1
  11764. 1
  11765. 1
  11766. 1
  11767. 1
  11768. 1
  11769. 1
  11770. 1
  11771. 1
  11772. 1
  11773. 1
  11774. 1
  11775. 1
  11776. 1
  11777. 1
  11778. 1
  11779. 1
  11780. 1
  11781. 1
  11782. 1
  11783. 1
  11784. 1
  11785.  @adamtruong1759  obsolete has nothing to do with it. they're testing the idea of attacking ships with airplanes. first steps are to see if they can even hit a ship, find a ship, sink a ship, etc. then they evolve tactics, improve aircraft design, develop specialized weapons, etc. this is a BS criticism of Mitchell to whine like a child about the state of the art of the warships. What even made them obsolete compared to newer ships anyway? "And for a visionary, the only thing he got vaguely right was the importance of air power. " shows how childishly little you know about Mitchell. That guy predicted a great many things often times to within a year of when it actually came to fruition, decades in advance! " Wanting to scrap the Navy's flying boats just because they weren't under his control" this is a blatant misrepresentation. even today the debate about the USAF and other air assets continues. "having extremely sensational claims while rarely expanding upon them" not true. if your only source is this video, then yes, you'd be led to falsely beleive that. " and arguing the US can do away with the army/navy and win with only air power." The US was largely an isolationist country, with a defense-only mindset before WW2. Even the Founders argued about having no Navy. And Mitchell was 100% correct taht the US could be defended against naval invasion purely by airpower if they wanted to. he was absolutely correct in that regard, and that claim holds ridiculously true today. Just look at Rapid Dragon and the B-21 for starters. "Doesn't sound like a visionary I want to follow, especially since the aviation wing of the Navy seemed to have a better grasp on reality and much more prepared than Mitchell's boys." Becasue you're a moron who doesn't know anything about american history, warfare, nor what Mitchell was really all about. this video barely scratches the surface of Mitchell's story. He has been completely vindicated by history. "As for getting the point across, all Mitchell did in that test was prove with enough explosives an unmanned and unmaneuvering capital ship in a known location and clear weather will sink, which everyone knew. " this lame attack again? did you know fully armed and manned ships sink EVEN BETTER!?!?! Yamato? USS Arizona? USS Maine? the list of ships that blew themselves apart from a single hit is VERY LONG. And you can't learn to hit moving ships until you TRY IT, and learn what does and doesn't work, adapt and develop new tactics. Childish ignorant nonsense. "It's like if someone bombarded the decommissioned super-carrier USS America with hypersonic missiles in a SINKEX until it outright sank (instead of testing it with various explosives and carefully examining how each "hit" affects the ship over the course of a few weeks which actually happened), and then claimed it proved the superiority of the hypersonic missile and the obsolescence of the carrier." Except that's not what happened. It wasn't sunk with hypersonics. And they tested to see how much it could Survive. Have you seen how easy it is to sink a modern warship with an airplane? A single hit can sink a modern Destroyer or Cruiser. Just look at teh Moskava. And they kept the America sinking classified so we don't know how vulnerable the carriers are. "It doesn't take in numerous factors in to account, and nobody would actually learn anything new or useful." Wrong! they were testing something that had never been tried before. you're judging mitchell completely out of context.
    1
  11786. 1
  11787. 1
  11788. 1
  11789. 1
  11790. 1
  11791.  @tjs200  it's not about knowing how much grid energy there will be, it's about knowing how much grid energy there NEEDS to be. It's simple. calculate how many vehicles are driving on teh roads and how much they drive on average. teh gov has the data via vehicle registration and fuel taxes (how many gallons are purchased) and the gov tracks how much fuel is produced and imported/exported so they know total consumption. From all that data we can convert fuel energy to equivalent electrical energy needed to convert all that transportation over to Electric, and we get a total power consumption needed per year, that is currently not being drawn from teh grid today. the electrical grid only has enough production to support a certain nominal continuous load each day, with limited excess ramp up capacity. When you add the needed electrical energy to the grid fro all those vehicles, you see the problem. We also know how much electricity a single coal, oil, or nuclear power plant can generate. To add that much nominal electric capacity to the grid we divide the electricity total needed to power all those EVs by the capacity of one of those power plant options (lets use nuclear, the safest and cleanest energy source in history). This tells you how many power plants you need to construct. that number comes out to be ~1,500 new power plants. Thus, if you built one new power plant every week, for 30yrs, you'd eventually have the needed 1500 new power plants. If you build them slower, it will take longer, which is what is happening as we speak. thus, a full transition to 100% EVs will not happen in less than 30yrs, assuming we set to work tomorrow at an industrial pace far faster than we're capable of today. so it will likely take more like 50+yrs to make the transition at best.
    1
  11792. 1
  11793. 1
  11794. 1
  11795. 1
  11796. 1
  11797. 1
  11798. 1
  11799. 1
  11800. 1
  11801. 1
  11802. 1
  11803. 1
  11804. 1
  11805. 1
  11806. 1
  11807. 1
  11808. 1
  11809. 1
  11810. 1
  11811. 1
  11812. 1
  11813. 1
  11814. 1
  11815. 1
  11816. 1
  11817. 1
  11818. 1
  11819. 1
  11820. 1
  11821. 1
  11822. 1
  11823. 1
  11824. 1
  11825. 1
  11826. 1
  11827. 1
  11828. 1
  11829. 1
  11830. 1
  11831. 1
  11832. 1
  11833. 1
  11834. 1
  11835. 1
  11836. 1
  11837. 1
  11838. 1
  11839. 1
  11840. 1
  11841. 1
  11842. 1
  11843. 1
  11844. 1
  11845. 1
  11846. 1
  11847. 1
  11848. 1
  11849. 1
  11850. 1
  11851. 1
  11852. 1
  11853. 1
  11854. 1
  11855. 1
  11856. 1
  11857. 1
  11858. 1
  11859. 1
  11860. 1
  11861. 1
  11862. 1
  11863. 1
  11864. 1
  11865. 1
  11866. 1
  11867. 1
  11868. 1
  11869. 1
  11870. 1
  11871. 1
  11872. 1
  11873. 1
  11874. 1
  11875. 1
  11876. 1
  11877. 1
  11878. 1
  11879. 1
  11880. 1
  11881. 1
  11882. 1
  11883. 1
  11884. 1
  11885. 1
  11886. 1
  11887. 1
  11888. 1
  11889. 1
  11890. 1
  11891. 1
  11892. 1
  11893. 1
  11894. 1
  11895. 1
  11896. 1
  11897. 1
  11898. 1
  11899. 1
  11900. 1
  11901. 1
  11902. 1
  11903. 1
  11904. 1
  11905. 1
  11906. 1
  11907. 1
  11908. 1
  11909. 1
  11910. 1
  11911. 1
  11912. 1
  11913. 1
  11914. 1
  11915. 1
  11916. 1
  11917. 1
  11918. 1
  11919. 1
  11920. 1
  11921. 1
  11922. Cheating should be avoided, as school is ultimately about finding out who can and cannot do certain things, who is the best, etc. If you cannot do the task, then you should not be given the cert that says you can. But also, many teachers are Not good at their job. They are making learning unnecessarily difficult for their students, either intentionally or unintentionally for a variety of reasons (I know because I spent 17yrs in the college system, multiple colleges, multiple degrees, am an instructor myself, and tutored hundreds of students, in many STEM courses and topics and dealt with constant recurring issues). In those cases I can appreciate a person having to game the system when the system is stacked against them, when the system is setting them up for failure. I have seen far too many professors try to ruin smart and capable students (usually not malicious or intentional, but results are what I care about and a professor that consistently causes issues is a problem), and their students have EVERY right to game it right back. School is supposed to be about learning, not about screwing over students. I use methods to help students learn faster, that others would call cheating. But I'm using psychology and science to improve learning, trying to get students over a certain hump without them even realizing it. Most professors don't know what I am doing either and dislike it, but I have gotten great results with people in very short time. There are a number of scientifically supported tricks a person can use to help themselves and others learn faster and more effectively. I have a system of grading, homework, testing, etc. that utilizes a number of science supported ideas to help students learn without them ever realizing how I am helping them, without ever realizing teh tricks I am using to help them learn more effectively. Many of my tricks do come up in ways on this channel all the time, but never in a larger cohesive and integrated way like I do. I focus on the theory of learning, theory of teaching, and study what does and doesn't work, Before focusing on the topic needing to be taught. My priority is teaching first, then the subject material and skills needing to be taught. If my delivery is wrong, the material wont matter as no one will understand it anyways. In some cases, cheating is ok, depending upon the skill being tested. In aviation, utilizing resources available to you in the cockpit (notes) is not cheating. In fact, pilots need to learn TO utilize ALL available resources to ensure a safe flight. Some things you just have to know, but many things can be found in some way in the cockpit and it's ok to do so. Some fields require creativity, and depending upon what it is, that creativity is often times mistaken for cheating (context matters). If I told my students they could use a single notecard of notes, and one time a student comes in with both sides filled with notes, I'd be happy. I didn't say they couldn't use both sides. But next time I might hand out notecards with one side blacked out. Until a smart individual used a silver sharpie to add notes, I wouldn't care. the first student to figure out how to keep with in the rules even if others think it's cheating, I reward. I reward creative thinking, and encourage it. If they can find some way to game the rules, why shouldn't they? Most rules in life are a bunch of nonsense anyways. Some exist for good reason. If a student figures out a "cheat" because i wasn't specific enough, then I allow it. In other places, cheating is not only encouraged, but REQUIRED. Particularly in warfare. To win and stay alive, there is no such thing as cheating, only winning or losing. You do whatever you can and must to stack the deck in your favor, win the battle, and stay alive. There is no such thing as cheating in warfare. There is no cheating in nature either. Nature wont let you violate the laws of the universe, all else is fair game. Society creates and imposes rules on us, not nature. Society does this to promote cooperation, because we're all better off working together than screwing each other over, so we collectively come up with rules, rewards, and punishments to incentivize and discourage certain behaviors that are that are helpful or harmful to society. But such rules are artificial, man made, and we need to remember that. Also, there are certain things for which there is no justification for needing to memorize certain things, no justification for why notes shouldn't be allowed to be used. Not everything is useful to be stored in our memory. Also, it has been my experience both as a student and as an instructor, that students tend to use or rely upon notes less when they are told ahead of time the test is open note, than if they were not allowed to use notes. It comes down to psychology. Now, keep in mind there Are right and wrong ways to conduct an open note test as well. An open note test needs to be structured in certain ways that the students will not have enough time to look up every idea or concept or answer. And if you help teach students how to prioritize problems in a test as well, they'll do better with or without notes. So many secondary ideas I use that would take me hours to explain and give specific examples of each. But done right, an open note test can result in far better results, little to no cheating, and students actually end up looking up far fewer answers as well. I see students walk away with far more confidence in themselves as well. It just has to be structured and handled correctly. I could go on for hours on this topic, on my many ideas, tricks, etc. Discussing theory as well as real world application and results, examples, etc. I love this topic, because it matters so much and so few people understand it adequately. If society was better at teaching and learning, society would be far better off as a whole. Context matters.
    1
  11923. 1
  11924. 1
  11925. 1
  11926. 1
  11927. 1
  11928. 1
  11929. 1
  11930. 1
  11931. 1
  11932. 1
  11933. 1
  11934. 1
  11935. 1
  11936. 1
  11937. 1
  11938. 1
  11939. 1
  11940. 1
  11941. 1
  11942. 1
  11943. 1
  11944. 1
  11945. 1
  11946. 1
  11947. 1
  11948. 1
  11949. 1
  11950. 1
  11951. 1
  11952. 1
  11953. 1
  11954. 1
  11955. 1
  11956. 1
  11957. 1
  11958. 1
  11959. 1
  11960. 1
  11961. 1
  11962. 1
  11963. 1
  11964. 1
  11965. 1
  11966. 1
  11967. 1
  11968. 1
  11969. 1
  11970. 1
  11971. 1
  11972. 1
  11973. 1
  11974. 1
  11975. 1
  11976. 1
  11977. 1
  11978. 1
  11979. 1
  11980. 1
  11981. 1
  11982. 1
  11983. 1
  11984. 1
  11985. 1
  11986. 1
  11987. 1
  11988. 1
  11989. 1
  11990. 1
  11991. 1
  11992. 1
  11993. 1
  11994. 1
  11995. 1
  11996. 1
  11997. 1
  11998. 1
  11999. 1
  12000. 1
  12001. 1
  12002. 1
  12003. 1
  12004. 1
  12005. 1
  12006. 1
  12007. 1
  12008. 1
  12009. 1
  12010. 1
  12011. 1
  12012. 1
  12013. 1
  12014. 1
  12015. 1
  12016. 1
  12017. 1
  12018. 1
  12019. 1
  12020. 1
  12021. 1
  12022. 1
  12023. 1
  12024. 1
  12025. 1
  12026. 1
  12027. 1
  12028. 1
  12029. 1
  12030. 1
  12031. 1
  12032. 1
  12033. 1
  12034. 1
  12035. 1
  12036. 1
  12037. 1
  12038. 1
  12039. 1
  12040. 1
  12041. 1
  12042. 1
  12043. 1
  12044. 1
  12045. 1
  12046. 1
  12047. 1
  12048. 1
  12049. 1
  12050. 1
  12051. 1
  12052. 1
  12053. 1
  12054. 1
  12055. 1
  12056. 1
  12057. 1
  12058. 1
  12059. 1
  12060. 1
  12061. 1
  12062. 1
  12063. 1
  12064. 1
  12065. 1
  12066. 1
  12067.  @TyrannoJoris_Rex  Aircraft structures, cooling systems, aerodynamic features, circuits, pumps/motors, landing gear, tools, car parts, farm equipment, couplings, appliances, firearms, military hardware, parts from NASA, etc. and I hold patents for many such devices. Some patents are for things I reverse engineered and then improved further. I just reverse engineered another tool at work 2 days ago (it didn't work as well as it should have, so I figured out what and what to do to fix it). When you understand the fundamental principles behind how things work, you can look at how it was made, and look at the internals and figure out what they do and why. And then you can ask yourself if there is anything you would have done differently or better. Look for things to improve. No need to measure things to understand what is going on. And if you understand what is going on and why, you can design your own device from scratch and do all the necessary math yourself without having to rely upon measuring their design. Sometimes you might measure a few features, such as trying to figure out the diameter of nozzles or orifices to figure out what their mixture ratio might have been, and stuff like that. Start somewhere close to them and dial it in from there yourself. Sometimes I look up patents for various things just for fun to understand how they work and to inspire new ideas. Variable pitch propeller, threshing machines, engine parts, shocks, etc. I also find research papers for other things that were never patented and figure out how they work. A big part of engineering is not reinventing the wheel for no reason. look at what others have done to save time, so you can spend your time innovating where it actually matters.
    1
  12068. 1
  12069. 1
  12070. 1
  12071. 1
  12072. 1
  12073. 1
  12074. 1
  12075. 1
  12076. 1
  12077. 1
  12078. 1
  12079. 1
  12080. 1
  12081. 1
  12082. 1
  12083. 1
  12084. 1
  12085. 1
  12086. 1
  12087. 1
  12088. 1
  12089. 1
  12090. 1
  12091. 1
  12092. 1
  12093. 1
  12094. 1
  12095. 1
  12096. 1
  12097. 1
  12098. 1
  12099. 1
  12100. 1
  12101. 1
  12102. 1
  12103. 1
  12104. 1
  12105. 1
  12106. 1
  12107. 1
  12108. 1
  12109. 1
  12110. 1
  12111. 1
  12112. 1
  12113. 1
  12114. 1
  12115. 1
  12116. 1
  12117. 1
  12118. 1
  12119. 1
  12120. 1
  12121. 1
  12122. 1
  12123. 1
  12124. 1
  12125. 1
  12126. 1
  12127. 1
  12128. 1
  12129. 1
  12130. 1
  12131. 1
  12132. 1
  12133. 1
  12134. 1
  12135. 1
  12136. 1
  12137. 1
  12138. 1
  12139. 1
  12140. 1
  12141. 1
  12142. 1
  12143. 1
  12144. 1
  12145. 1
  12146. 1
  12147. 1
  12148. 1
  12149. 1
  12150. 1
  12151. 1
  12152. 1
  12153. 1
  12154. 1
  12155. 1
  12156. 1
  12157. 1
  12158. 1
  12159. 1
  12160. 1
  12161. 1
  12162. 1
  12163. 1
  12164. 1
  12165. 1
  12166. 1
  12167. 1
  12168. 1
  12169. 1
  12170. 1
  12171. 1
  12172. 1
  12173. 1
  12174. 1
  12175. 1
  12176. 1
  12177. 1
  12178. 1
  12179.  @blackbeard1988  "I never said any are without fault. They have their own problems that they actively try to work out." No, you didn't but you implied that others were wrong becasue they were flawed. but that means flawed religions are as equally incapable as anyone else. I don't see Islam and other religions actively working to solve many of their systemic issues of immorality. But if you think raping children and murdering heretics is moral, ok. But you're disproving your own argument once again. "God is that supreme source - can you understand this, or does it all have to be spelled out for you? Humans do not come up with morals, they come up with again... Tribal based ethics that benefit the upwards trajectory of the (specific) tribe. " Yes, I need you to spell it out for me. "god is the supreme source" explains exactly NOTHING. You have no clue where moral come from, otherwise you'd have explained it to me already. Instead you're refusing to answer the question becasue you Know you Can't. And since no human has proven god exists, all morals had to come from men not god. "I'm not cherry picking Rome, but it's the most philosophfically recognizable example, followed by the Greeks. If you want me to cherry pick any civilization for you, I'd be absolutely happy to." Greek is the single most recognizeable philosophical society from history. But singling out any one civilization is hard to distinguish from cherry picking. And since citing Rome or Greece still proves Nothing at all, yes I'm going to call you pout on it. "See, you keep beating around the bush offering some answer that if you had, you would have already given to avoid this back and forth. Instead, what you offer are vague nothing's." I'm beating around the bush. I stated the fact, you challenged it by making a statement of your own. I questioned you on your statement, and you refuse to answer the question. When you're done answering my question, I'll gladly answer one of yours. that's how debate works. the first question must be answered before moving on to the second.
    1
  12180. 1
  12181. 1
  12182. 1
  12183. 1
  12184. 1
  12185. 1
  12186. 1
  12187. 1
  12188. 1
  12189. 1
  12190. 1
  12191. 1
  12192. 1
  12193. 1
  12194. 1
  12195. 1
  12196. 1
  12197. 1
  12198. 1
  12199. 1
  12200. 1
  12201. 1
  12202. 1
  12203. 1
  12204. 1
  12205. 1
  12206. 1
  12207. 1
  12208. 1
  12209. 1
  12210. 1
  12211. 1
  12212. 1
  12213. 1
  12214. 1
  12215. 1
  12216. 1
  12217. 1
  12218. 1
  12219. 1
  12220. 1
  12221. 1
  12222. 1
  12223. 1
  12224. 1
  12225. 1
  12226. 1
  12227. 1
  12228. 1
  12229. 1
  12230. 1
  12231. 1
  12232. 1
  12233. 1
  12234. 1
  12235. 1
  12236. 1
  12237. 1
  12238. 1
  12239. 1
  12240. 1
  12241. 1
  12242. 1
  12243. 1
  12244. 1
  12245. 1
  12246. 1
  12247. 1
  12248. 1
  12249. 1
  12250. 1
  12251. 1
  12252. 1
  12253. 1
  12254. 1
  12255. 1
  12256. 1
  12257. 1
  12258. 1
  12259. 1
  12260. 1
  12261. 1
  12262. ​ @mrwho995  if the theory doesn't explain what we observe, then the Higgs theory is objectively wrong. that's how the scientific method works. Propose hypothesis, test hypothesis, and if that hypothesis fails to match the data, then it's wrong. "And why are you pretending to know anything about particle physics?" I'd love to know why you think you know anything about them, given the state of your arguments. " If you did, you'd know that whether a particle is fundamental is extremely important in terms of where it gets the majority of its mass from." It has literally Nothing to do with what I said. learn to read, stay on topic, stop dragging this off into the weeds. "I know it must feel nice to pretend you're special and all those silly scientists who dedicate their professional lives to studying something is wrong, but try to live in reality rather than your delusion." AI just got over 15k PhD published papers de-published for fraud. most people are publishing nonsense. we haven't had a breakthrough in physics in my lifetime. we're chasing false interpretations of the math. This results in bad theories. Multiple people could observe the motion of one of Jupiter's moons and each come up with numerous math models to accurately predict its movement, yet most of them would be 100% wrong, even though early tests suggested they were right. That's where you are, blindly following the people who interpreted it wrong. And yet we run into flaw after flaw after flaw. we're still debating Dark matter/energy for crying out loud, an invalid fraudulent attempt to plug holes in the current failed theories. You can't prove a thing I claimed wrong. you just sling ad hominem insults and use red herrings. Unscientific, logical fallacies.
    1
  12263. 1
  12264. 1
  12265. 1
  12266. 1
  12267. 1
  12268. 1
  12269. 1
  12270. 1
  12271. 1
  12272. 1
  12273. 1
  12274. 1
  12275. 1
  12276. 1
  12277. 1
  12278. 1
  12279. 1
  12280. 1
  12281.  @oerthling  "Why would Norways population Matter? Think of other countries as n Norways. A country with 10 times the population also has 10 times the grid, power production etc..." Wow, education is in the gutter these days. becasue 25% of Nothing, is Nothing. There are only 5mil people in Norway. Compared to 8+Bil people, 25% of 5mil is a rounding error. It's basically zero. Things like wind energy don't scale well. Many places on earth can't rely upon wind, solar, nor hydro. Also, yes, if a country of 5mil has electricity for 5mil homes and businesses, and enough gas for 5mil cars, does NOT mean they have enough electricity for 5mil cars. In fact, adding a single EV to the grid is equivalent to adding an entire HOUSE. the grid has capacity for current demand. Doubling the number of "houses", means you need to DOUBLE the grid in terms of electrical production. Not to mention all the new infrastructure. now, a country like norway, where driving is FAR less than many other nations, and their population is a fraction of a city in many other nations, is not going to drive much to begin with, making EVs easy to convert to. You literally picked one of the Best case scenarios on the entire planet, and tried to use it as an example as if it at all in any way correlated to China, US, Australia, Canada, African nations, Brazil, and more. Most of the rest of the world will have to use Coal to charge their EVs to get enough grid energy to meet present demand, PLUS hundreds of millions of EVs being added to the grid. An electrical engineer converted the total global miles driven by ICE to EV, and figured out teh kWh per mile of electricity EVs are getting, and calculated using simple by correct math that it would require us to build a new nuclear powerplant ever week for 30yrs to get enough capacity for 100% EVs globally.. And this is all without accounting for the lack of available lithium, cobalt, and other rare earth minerals needed. Nor does it account for the slave labor presently being used to extract what we are already sourcing. Nor does it factor in the environmental damage caused by mining and processing those rare earth elements (it's toxic). Nor does it factor in fire hazards, and recycling costs in terms of energy and pollution. A recent study out of the UK found that cradle-to-grave, ICE are far better for the environment overall than an equivalent EV. ICE are cheaper, easier to manufacture from simple materials that are easy to recycle endlessly (steel, aluminum, copper), and the ICE cars easily last 20-30+yrs, whereas the average EV last 6yrs presently.
    1
  12282. 1
  12283. 1
  12284. 1
  12285. 1
  12286. 1
  12287. 1
  12288. 1
  12289. 1
  12290.  @nedkelly9688  "most USA tech is designed and built by foreigners" no, it's not. It's actually illegal in the US for military contractors to hire foreign engineers for these types of projects. They have to be US citizens. And foreign involvement has to be approved. I'm an engineer working on the cutting edge of some of what you're blabbering about. "but hey USA did it lol." yes, the bomb was designed and built in entirely in the US. People just had to come to America to have their genius potential unleashed. Tesla, Einstein, Fermi, Sikorsky, and more came to great success after moving to the US. "Australian Mark Oliphant started the Manhatten project and had to convince USA to do it. he then helped refine the Uranium lol." wow, the level of coping and revisionist history you're trying to spin. "hey, look at us, we know how to do resin infused composites, we designed everything, we're the best!". Maybe you should focus more on not assaulting your fellow citizens over masks and lockdowns, and maybe if you actually had freedoms like free speech and gun rights you wouldn't have so many issues down under. "A lot of Australian and other friendly countries tech is in USA military equipment lol." exactly, it's all US designed and made. "If America could do the resin tech they would as costs more doing it in Australia and sending overseas. haha you no idea kid." US outsources things due to cheap labor on those countries..... Kid? now I know what kind of person I'm dealing with. What is your job, and how many years have you been doing it? "Don't kid yourself America is the smartest in the world. all you got is the money for R&D." yes, we are the smartest in the world, due to our societal values (that some people are trying to destroy), and that helped us become rich enough to afford such high tech. So if Australia lacks money for R&D, then clearly they aren't the ones doing the innovation, because they can't afford it. What kinds of aircraft are in the Australian military again? What kinds of weapons? Name companies and models.
    1
  12291. 1
  12292. 1
  12293. 1
  12294. 1
  12295. 1
  12296. 1
  12297. 1
  12298. 1
  12299. 1
  12300. 1
  12301. 1
  12302. 1
  12303. 1
  12304. 1
  12305. 1
  12306. 1
  12307. 1
  12308. 1
  12309. 1
  12310. 1
  12311. 1
  12312. 1
  12313. 1
  12314. 1
  12315. 1
  12316. 1
  12317. 1
  12318. 1
  12319. 1
  12320. 1
  12321. 1
  12322. 1
  12323. 1
  12324. 1
  12325. 1
  12326. 1
  12327. 1
  12328. 1
  12329. 1
  12330. 1
  12331. 1
  12332. 1
  12333. 1
  12334. 1
  12335. 1
  12336. 1
  12337. 1
  12338. 1
  12339. 1
  12340. 1
  12341. 1
  12342. 1
  12343. 1
  12344. 1
  12345. 1
  12346. 1
  12347. 1
  12348. 1
  12349. 1
  12350. 1
  12351. 1
  12352. 1
  12353. 1
  12354. 1
  12355. 1
  12356. 1
  12357. 1
  12358. 1
  12359. 1
  12360. 1
  12361. 1
  12362. 1
  12363. 1
  12364. 1
  12365. 1
  12366. 1
  12367. 1
  12368. 1
  12369.  @emmgeevideo  "Regarding Guadalcanal, carriers were in pretty short supply in the second half of 1942 and Nimitz and Halsey were loath to risk the remaining carriers. " So were battleships. But you're ignoring WHY carriers failed to win guadalcanal. short answer, they never could. But it only took 2 battleships one night to win Guadalcanal. " To say that battleships were demoted to a secondary role is not to say that they weren't useful or powerful. " Except they WEREN'T demoted to a secondary role until after the Battle of Leyte in which the IJN was effectively destroyed and never threatened the USN ever again. By that time the war had already been won, and the carrier battles were over. And even then, batleships remained in service of the nations who still had them, into the 1960s and 1990s, and fought in multiple wars after WW2. "Starting in the late 30s, the carrier and naval aviation became the mainstay." not really. the Destroyers and cruisers, performing the battleship's role, continue to do the bulk of the work for the USN to this day. The Carriers just hang around in the rear waiting to do sneak attack strikes and then run away, while the surface warships stay and take the brunt of the attacks and maintain sea control. " It is simply a fact that for centuries the battleship and its predecessors were the mainstay of battle fleets. " and still were until the 1990s and would be again if any remained in active service. Everyone acted differently when a battleship sailed into the Persian gulf, compared to a destroyer or carrier. Ground forces even surrendered to battleships in 1991. When have ground forces ever surrendered to a carrier before?
    1
  12370.  @emmgeevideo  Yes, as his video shows, the Burke is not a battleship, it has firepower, but lacks the armor. But it performs the battleship role in the modern day none the less. " It was a battle of attrition and the Japanese got the best of the US Navy for months. " battles of attrition are what carriers are for. But you cannot control the seas with attrition carriers. You need battleships to control teh sea lanes. Carriers can only provide support and sneak attacks. "The battleships you are so fond of were not deployed until the last battle, " and Yamamoto surrendered Gaudalcanal teh very next day. the MOMENT the US battleships showed up and started controlling the seas, the IJN retreated. had they arrived sooner, Japan would have retreated sooner. "The narrow waters of "The Slot" made it difficult for the typical battleship to do it's preferred mode of action." correct, yet they still managed to do their job regardless. "I'm reading Stille's excellent account of the battle of Leyte Gulf now. Once again, the carriers formed the nucleus of the TF 3. Halsey's orders from Nimitz were to go after the IJN and destroy it. Air power was the key." wrong. you misunderstand deeply. in a naval battle, first you must knock out the enemy carriers, then proceed with teh surface engagement. Nimitz ordered Halsey to take out the IJN carriers, and that's exactly what Halsey did. and Halsey correctly used his battleships until they were incorrectly called away. Air power contributed little. Air power knocked out defenseless IJN carriers, sunk a few ships, but was unable to turn back the Center force on either of the two days. Air power played no part in destroying the southern force at night, and air power failed to sink teh bulk of the northern force. Surface warships did the vast majority of the work against all three IJN task forces. "I'm sticking to the fact that old-fashioned "decisive battle" fleet actions based on big guns became obsolete. Air power and submarines were far more effective in crushing the IJN than big 16" guns blazing away." yet Halsey, Nimitz, Lee, Spruance, and others spent ALL of WW2 seeking that decisive battle. They spent ALL of WW2 using battleships as battleships are meant to be used, independent of the carriers. only AFTER Leyte, after the IJN was effectively destroyed in decisive battle, did the battleships get tasked with escorting carriers to defend against kamikaze attacks. But the problem with decisive battle, is that ir requires a willing participant, and no competent Navy, including Japan, was going to willingly allow that to happen. But decisive battle is not the primary purpose of the battleship either. it is the goal, but not its mission. You need to read MUCH more on the specific orders given by US navy admirals in WW2, and how battleships were used, what their specific orders were. the theory of operations for a battleship, a nd much more. You need to look at things OBJECTIVELY and see the bigger picture. Submarines were rather ineffective overall. the US, Japan, UK and others all understood the limitations of submarines in winning wars. The Germans did not. Submarines are the tools of defensive warfare, and have never won a war. The IJN merchant fleet was still surprisingly large when japan surrendered. German U-boats in WW2 failed to sink more total tonnage of ships than the UK alone produced in WW2. US submarines sunk a lot of tonnage, but not nearly enough, and spent much of the late war doing scouting and pilot recovery and laying mines. The US submarine campaign failed to stop any of the IJN Center, Northern, or Southern forces at Leyte. Submarines cannot control the seas nor win battles, nor stop battle fleets.
    1
  12371. 1
  12372. 1
  12373. 1
  12374. 1
  12375. 1
  12376. 1
  12377. 1
  12378. 1
  12379. 1
  12380. 1
  12381. 1
  12382. 1
  12383. 1
  12384. 1
  12385. 1
  12386. 1
  12387. 1
  12388. 1
  12389. 1
  12390. 1
  12391. 1
  12392. 1
  12393. 1
  12394. 1
  12395. 1
  12396. 1
  12397. 1
  12398. 1
  12399. 1
  12400. 1
  12401. 1
  12402. 1
  12403. 1
  12404. 1
  12405. 1
  12406. 1
  12407. 1
  12408. 1
  12409. 1
  12410. 1
  12411. 1
  12412. 1
  12413. 1
  12414. 1
  12415. 1
  12416. 1
  12417. 1
  12418. 1
  12419. 1
  12420. 1
  12421. 1
  12422. 1
  12423. 1
  12424. 1
  12425. 1
  12426. 1
  12427. 1
  12428. 1
  12429. 1
  12430. 1
  12431. 1
  12432. 1
  12433. 1
  12434. 1
  12435. 1
  12436. 1
  12437. 1
  12438. 1
  12439. 1
  12440. 1
  12441. 1
  12442. 1
  12443. 1
  12444. 1
  12445. 1
  12446. 1
  12447. 1
  12448. 1
  12449. 1
  12450. 1
  12451. 1
  12452. 1
  12453. 1
  12454. 1
  12455. 1
  12456. 1
  12457. 1
  12458. 1
  12459. 1
  12460. 1
  12461. 1
  12462. 1
  12463. 1
  12464. 1
  12465. 1
  12466. 1
  12467. 1
  12468. 1
  12469. 1
  12470. 1
  12471. 1
  12472. 1
  12473. 1
  12474. 1
  12475. 1
  12476. 1
  12477. 1
  12478. 1
  12479. 1
  12480. 1
  12481. 1
  12482. 1
  12483. 1
  12484. 1
  12485. 1
  12486. 1
  12487. 1
  12488. 1
  12489. 1
  12490. 1
  12491. 1
  12492. 1
  12493. 1
  12494. 1
  12495. 1
  12496. 1
  12497. 1
  12498. 1
  12499. 1
  12500. 1
  12501. 1
  12502. 1
  12503. 1
  12504. 1
  12505. 1
  12506. 1
  12507. 1
  12508. 1
  12509. 1
  12510. 1
  12511. 1
  12512. 1
  12513. 1
  12514. 1
  12515. 1
  12516. 1
  12517. 1
  12518. 1
  12519. 1
  12520. 1
  12521. 1
  12522. 1
  12523. 1
  12524. 1
  12525. 1
  12526. 1
  12527. 1
  12528. 1
  12529. 1
  12530. 1
  12531. 1
  12532. 1
  12533. 1
  12534. 1
  12535. 1
  12536. 1
  12537. 1
  12538. 1
  12539. 1
  12540. 1
  12541. 1
  12542. 1
  12543. 1
  12544. 1
  12545. 1
  12546. 1
  12547. 1
  12548. 1
  12549. 1
  12550. 1
  12551. 1
  12552. 1
  12553. 1
  12554. 1
  12555. 1
  12556. 1
  12557. 1
  12558. 1
  12559. 1
  12560. 1
  12561. 1
  12562. 1
  12563. 1
  12564. 1
  12565. 1
  12566. 1
  12567. 1
  12568. 1
  12569. 1
  12570. 1
  12571. 1
  12572. 1
  12573. 1
  12574. 1
  12575.  @rico4229  "I think long term you will be proven wrong." Based upon what, hopes and dreams and fairy dust? "But that's my opinion" Exactly right, your opinion is not based upon science. There is this thing called the Periodic Table of Elements, Chemistry, and the Laws of Physics. There is only so many combinations of elements we can use for batteries, and for each known combination of elements, there is a known maximum energy density that is possible. This is why education is so important, and why our nation is going downhill fast due to the lack of proper education. "What you have to remember is that ICE cars have dreadful economy in cold weather especially when used over short distances. " how do you figure that? I've lived in cold climates most of my life. Starting cars and driving them in -30F temps. My car gets lower mileage in winter because of the winter fuel blends and denser air (more air per stroke means more fuel per stroke). Yes, I can lose range due to heating, but people often use electric plug-in heaters to warm the engine and such. I still beat the Tesla in the I94 2000mile road trip the youtuber made with my 20yr old Buick Lesabre. I beat his summer trip too. My car gets 44mpg in summer, and 36mpg in winter. On a long winter trip with mere minutes spent refueling, almost no time goes to warming the car, so fuel losses are due to fuel blend and atmospheric conditions. I've driven across teh US multiple times in my car, 2x 20hr trips, a 32hr trip, and a 36hr trip (all driving nonstop), and 2 more 18hr trips with another person, anther 2x 16hr trips with others, and a 28hr trip with my dad (14 out, 14 back), all nonstop. And that is just in the last few years. Rarely have to stop for gas more than 3 times per trip, and that takes 5-10min tops. I live close enough to work to walk or ride bike. Walking takes 45min, bike takes 15min, car takes 5-7min. But I usually drive as I will run errands after work, or go to events, and I go straight from work to save time. And because during a typical work day, I have to run over to the factory to deal with issues, or run over to the lab to answer questions, inspect something, conduct a test, or look at an issue. And I can't afford to waste large amounts of my work day walking/biking around town. Even driving from my office to the lab a few miles away, can take a total round trip time of 20min, even if I'm only there for 5min. Sometimes I only have an hour between two meetings to run over there. Biking is far too slow, and would cost the company tons of money, and would eventually cost me my job. "There is no ideal solution, but all I can say is that the future is not ICE the future is electric." you said their is no solution, but then said the solution is electric. One, you contradicted yourself. Two, you're wrong, teh future is not electric. Reason being is we don't have nearly enough sources of electrical energy that don't run on coal, oil, or gas. Wind turbines are never going to be the answer, nor is solar. There are reasons why neither will be the solution. Hydro is definitely not the answer either. Hydro is most common in my state, and there is nowhere near enough. Wind is unreliable, and thus we have no real wind farms in my state. We are too far north for solar to be viable. Multiple utilities in my area tried it and tore their solar fields down within a few years. Could have saved them millions by showing them the simple math any high school kid can do as to why it would fail. In college (for engineering) I did a study and report on solar power and batteries for the home, specifically evaluating the Tesla power wall. I got an A, but my report proved I could build a Powerwall just as good as a Tesla ($17k), for only $2500, but that solar was also not viable for our region as a primary source of energy. The study did not reach the conclusion I was hoping to find, but I follow the facts, not my feelings, and the math was irrefutable (and so I got an A). The vast majority of total energy is not consumed by cars anyways. And EPA regulations are preventing progress from being made in higher fuel efficient ICE vehicles as well.
    1
  12576. 1
  12577. 1
  12578. 1
  12579. 1
  12580. 1
  12581. 1
  12582. 1
  12583. 1
  12584. 1
  12585. 1
  12586. 1
  12587. 1
  12588. 1
  12589. 1
  12590. 1
  12591. 1
  12592. 1
  12593. 1
  12594. 1
  12595. 1
  12596. 1
  12597. 1
  12598. 1
  12599. 1
  12600. 1
  12601. 1
  12602. 1
  12603. 1
  12604. 1
  12605. 1
  12606. 1
  12607. 1
  12608. 1
  12609. 1
  12610. 1
  12611. 1
  12612. 1
  12613. 1
  12614. 1
  12615. 1
  12616. 1
  12617. 1
  12618. 1
  12619. 1
  12620. 1
  12621. 1
  12622. 1
  12623. 1
  12624. 1
  12625. 1
  12626. 1
  12627. 1
  12628. 1
  12629. 1
  12630. 1
  12631. 1
  12632. 1
  12633. 1
  12634. 1
  12635. 1
  12636. 1
  12637. 1
  12638. 1
  12639. 1
  12640. 1
  12641. 1
  12642. 1
  12643. 1
  12644. 1
  12645. 1
  12646. 1
  12647. 1
  12648. 1
  12649. 1
  12650. 1
  12651. 1
  12652. 1
  12653. 1
  12654. 1
  12655. 1
  12656. 1
  12657. 1
  12658. 1
  12659. 1
  12660. 1
  12661. 1
  12662. 1
  12663. 1
  12664. 1
  12665. 1
  12666. 1
  12667. 1
  12668. 1
  12669. 1
  12670. 1
  12671. 1
  12672. 1
  12673. 1
  12674. 1
  12675. 1
  12676. 1
  12677. 1
  12678. 1
  12679. 1
  12680. 1
  12681. 1
  12682. 1
  12683. 1
  12684. 1
  12685. 1
  12686. 1
  12687. 1
  12688. 1
  12689. 1
  12690. 1
  12691. 1
  12692. 1
  12693. 1
  12694. 1
  12695. 1
  12696. 1
  12697. 1
  12698. 1
  12699. 1
  12700. 1
  12701. 1
  12702. 1
  12703. 1
  12704. 1
  12705. 1
  12706. 1
  12707. 1
  12708. 1
  12709. 1
  12710. 1
  12711. 1
  12712. 1
  12713. 1
  12714. 1
  12715. 1
  12716. 1
  12717. 1
  12718. 1
  12719. 1
  12720. 1
  12721. 1
  12722. 1
  12723. 1
  12724. 1
  12725. 1
  12726. 1
  12727. 1
  12728. 1
  12729. 1
  12730. 1
  12731. 1
  12732. 1
  12733. 1
  12734. 1
  12735. 1
  12736. 1
  12737. 1
  12738. 1
  12739. 1
  12740. 1
  12741. 1
  12742. 1
  12743. 1
  12744. 1
  12745. 1
  12746. 1
  12747. 1
  12748. 1
  12749. 1
  12750. 1
  12751. 1
  12752. 1
  12753. 1
  12754. 1
  12755. 1
  12756. 1
  12757. 1
  12758. 1
  12759. 1
  12760. 1
  12761. 1
  12762. 1
  12763. 1
  12764. 1
  12765. 1
  12766. 1
  12767. 1
  12768. 1
  12769. 1
  12770. 1
  12771. 1
  12772. 1
  12773. 1
  12774. 1
  12775. 1
  12776. 1
  12777. 1
  12778. 1
  12779. 1
  12780. 1
  12781. 1
  12782. 1
  12783. 1
  12784. 1
  12785. 1
  12786. 1
  12787. 1
  12788. 1
  12789. 1
  12790. 1
  12791. 1
  12792. 1
  12793. 1
  12794. 1
  12795. 1
  12796. 1
  12797. 1
  12798. 1
  12799. 1
  12800. 1
  12801. 1
  12802. 1
  12803. 1
  12804. 1
  12805. 1
  12806. 1
  12807. 1
  12808. 1
  12809. 1
  12810. 1
  12811. 1
  12812. 1
  12813. 1
  12814. 1
  12815. 1
  12816. 1
  12817. 1
  12818. 1
  12819. 1
  12820. 1
  12821. 1
  12822. 1
  12823. 1
  12824. 1
  12825. 1
  12826. 1
  12827. 1
  12828. 1
  12829. 1
  12830. 1
  12831. 1
  12832. 1
  12833. 1
  12834. 1
  12835. 1
  12836. 1
  12837. 1
  12838. 1
  12839. 1
  12840. 1
  12841. 1
  12842. 1
  12843. 1
  12844. 1
  12845. 1
  12846. 1
  12847. 1
  12848. 1
  12849. 1
  12850. "Progressives" hate Capitalism and blame the "system" because of their own lack of personal responsibility. No society is perfect, so some problems will always exist to a certain degree. At first these progressives get in office and make changes they think will improve things, slowly at first as the ideas are initially reasonable and worth at least trying sometimes. But over time they gain more power and push bigger ideas. Until, one day, it's become a single-party system in their region and they hold practically all of the local power and can do whatever they want. So, what do they do? They implement their Utopian ideas. Then, as their ideas fail to produce the results they should have (in a theoretically perfect society where everyone acts perfectly at all times), rather than accept the growing evidence their ideas don't work in the real world the way they think they will/should, and try something different, they instead choose to blame "the system". They claim their must be some other deep-seated and underlying evil that is preventing their utopia from succeeding. They assume a patriarchy must be to blame. Or they claim white European conquerors are to blame for enacting the greatest conspiracy in human history, somehow. Or, they blame capitalism, since they ironically become opposed to individual freedom and free expression, and incorrectly conflate corporatism and monopolistic/cartel behavior for capitalism. They simply cannot take responsibility for the policies they enacted, and even more so they refuse to accept that the problems they are seeing are the direct result of their own policies. They simply cannot accept that their ideas didn't work, will never work, and so something else must be preventing their ideas from succeeding. And so they throw fits and lash out in anger, violence, tyranny, and go mad as they start seeing everyone around them (even friends and allies) as a conspirator that is trying to cause their ideas harm.
    1
  12851. 1
  12852. 1
  12853. 1
  12854. 1
  12855. 1
  12856. 1
  12857. 1
  12858. 1
  12859. 1
  12860. 1
  12861. 1
  12862. 1
  12863. 1
  12864. 1
  12865. 1
  12866. 1
  12867. 1
  12868. 1
  12869. 1
  12870. 1
  12871. 1
  12872. 1
  12873. 1
  12874. 1
  12875. 1
  12876. 1
  12877. 1
  12878. 1
  12879. 1
  12880. 1
  12881. 1
  12882. 1
  12883. 1
  12884. 1
  12885. 1
  12886. 1
  12887. 1
  12888. 1
  12889. 1
  12890. 1
  12891. 1
  12892. 1
  12893. 1
  12894. 1
  12895. 1
  12896. 1
  12897. 1
  12898. 1
  12899. 1
  12900. 1
  12901. 1
  12902. 1
  12903. 1
  12904. 1
  12905. 1
  12906. 1
  12907. 1
  12908. 1
  12909. 1
  12910. 1
  12911. 1
  12912. 1
  12913. 1
  12914. 1
  12915. 1
  12916. 1
  12917. 1
  12918. 1
  12919. 1
  12920. 1
  12921. 1
  12922. 1
  12923. 1
  12924. 1
  12925. 1
  12926. 1
  12927. 1
  12928. 1
  12929. 1
  12930. 1
  12931. 1
  12932. 1
  12933. 1
  12934. 1
  12935. 1
  12936. 1
  12937. 1
  12938. 1
  12939. 1
  12940. 1
  12941. 1
  12942. 1
  12943. 1
  12944. 1
  12945. 1
  12946. 1
  12947. 1
  12948. 1
  12949. 1
  12950. 1
  12951. 1
  12952. 1
  12953. 1
  12954. 1
  12955. 1
  12956. 1
  12957. 1
  12958. 1
  12959. 1
  12960. 1
  12961. 1
  12962. 1
  12963. 1
  12964. 1
  12965. 1
  12966. 1
  12967. 1
  12968. 1
  12969. 1
  12970. 1
  12971. 1
  12972. 1
  12973. 1
  12974. 1
  12975. 1
  12976. 1
  12977. 1
  12978. 1
  12979. 1
  12980. 1
  12981. 1
  12982. 1
  12983. 1
  12984. 1
  12985. 1
  12986. 1
  12987. 1
  12988. 1
  12989. 1
  12990. 1
  12991. 1
  12992. 1
  12993. 1
  12994. 1
  12995. 1
  12996. 1
  12997. 1
  12998. 1
  12999. 1
  13000. 1
  13001. 1
  13002. 1
  13003. 1
  13004. 1
  13005. 1
  13006. 1
  13007. 1
  13008. 1
  13009. 1
  13010. 1
  13011. 1
  13012. 1
  13013. 1
  13014. 1
  13015. 1
  13016. 1
  13017. 1
  13018. 1
  13019. 1
  13020. 1
  13021. 1
  13022. 1
  13023. 1
  13024. 1
  13025. 1
  13026. 1
  13027. 1
  13028. 1
  13029. 1
  13030. 1
  13031. 1
  13032. 1
  13033. 1
  13034. 1
  13035. 1
  13036. 1
  13037. 1
  13038. 1
  13039. 1
  13040. 1
  13041. 1
  13042. 1
  13043. 1
  13044. 1
  13045. 1
  13046. 1
  13047. 1
  13048. 1
  13049. 1
  13050. 1
  13051. 1
  13052. 1
  13053. 1
  13054. 1
  13055. 1
  13056. 1
  13057. 1
  13058. 1
  13059. 1
  13060. 1
  13061. 1
  13062. 1
  13063. 1
  13064. 1
  13065. 1
  13066. 1
  13067. 1
  13068. 1
  13069. 1
  13070. 1
  13071. 1
  13072. 1
  13073. 1
  13074. 1
  13075. 1
  13076. 1
  13077. 1
  13078. 1
  13079. 1
  13080. 1
  13081. 1
  13082. 1
  13083. 1
  13084. 1
  13085. 1
  13086. 1
  13087. 1
  13088. 1
  13089. 1
  13090. 1
  13091. 1
  13092. 1
  13093. 1
  13094. 1
  13095. 1
  13096. 1
  13097. 1
  13098. 1
  13099. 1
  13100. 1
  13101. 1
  13102. 1
  13103. 1
  13104. 1
  13105. 1
  13106. 1
  13107. 1
  13108. 1
  13109. 1
  13110. 1
  13111. 1
  13112. 1
  13113. 1
  13114. 1
  13115. 1
  13116. 1
  13117. 1
  13118. 1
  13119. 1
  13120. 1
  13121. 1
  13122. 1
  13123. 1
  13124. 1
  13125. 1
  13126. 1
  13127. 1
  13128. 1
  13129. 1
  13130. 1
  13131. 1
  13132. 1
  13133. 1
  13134. 1
  13135. 1
  13136. 1
  13137. 1
  13138. 1
  13139. 1
  13140. 1
  13141. 1
  13142. 1
  13143. 1
  13144. 1
  13145. 1
  13146. 1
  13147. 1
  13148. 1
  13149. 1
  13150. 1
  13151. 1
  13152. 1
  13153. 1
  13154. 1
  13155. 1
  13156. 1
  13157. 1
  13158. 1
  13159. 1
  13160. 1
  13161. 1
  13162. 1
  13163. 1
  13164. 1
  13165. 1
  13166. 1
  13167. 1
  13168. 1
  13169. 1
  13170. 1
  13171. 1
  13172. 1
  13173. 1
  13174. 1
  13175. 1
  13176. 1
  13177. 1
  13178. 1
  13179. 1
  13180. 1
  13181. 1
  13182. 1
  13183. 1
  13184. 1
  13185. 1
  13186. 1
  13187. 1
  13188. 1
  13189. 1
  13190. 1
  13191. 1
  13192. 1
  13193. 1
  13194. 1
  13195. 1
  13196. 1
  13197. 1
  13198. 1
  13199. 1
  13200. 1
  13201. 1
  13202. 1
  13203. 1
  13204. 1
  13205. 1
  13206. 1
  13207. 1
  13208. 1
  13209. 1
  13210. 1
  13211. 1
  13212. 1
  13213. 1
  13214. 1
  13215. 1
  13216. 1
  13217. 1
  13218. 1
  13219. 1
  13220. 1
  13221. 1
  13222. 1
  13223. 1
  13224. 1
  13225. 1
  13226. 1
  13227. 1
  13228. 1
  13229. 1
  13230. 1
  13231. 1
  13232. 1
  13233. 1
  13234. 1
  13235. 1
  13236. 1
  13237. 1
  13238. 1
  13239. 1
  13240. 1
  13241. 1
  13242. 1
  13243. 1
  13244. 1
  13245. 1
  13246. 1
  13247. 1
  13248. 1
  13249. 1
  13250. 1
  13251. 1
  13252. 1
  13253. 1
  13254. 1
  13255. 1
  13256. 1
  13257. 1
  13258. 1
  13259. 1
  13260. 1
  13261. 1
  13262. 1
  13263. 1
  13264. 1
  13265. 1
  13266. 1
  13267. 1
  13268. 1
  13269. 1
  13270. 1
  13271. 1
  13272. 1
  13273. 1
  13274. 1
  13275. 1
  13276. 1
  13277. 1
  13278. 1
  13279. 1
  13280. 1
  13281. 1
  13282. 1
  13283. 1
  13284. 1
  13285. 1
  13286. 1
  13287. 1
  13288. 1
  13289. 1
  13290. 1
  13291. 1
  13292. 1
  13293. 1
  13294. 1
  13295. 1
  13296. 1
  13297. 1
  13298. 1
  13299. 1
  13300. 1
  13301. 1
  13302. 1
  13303. 1
  13304. 1
  13305. 1
  13306.  @williammeek4078  as I've debated with others multiple times before: if it works for YOU, Great! I'm happy for you. but that doesn't give you the right to force it on others. It I pay $12/month for insurance on my sedan, and at 20yrs old it still gets 44mpg, 36mpg on winter gas. I paid half what you did for my car. I spend about $1000-2000 per year on gas, but I drive more than you. replaced the tires once on my car for $400. Replaced all 4 shocks and struts myself in 1hr too, for the cost of parts. Oil changes cost $15 total and take me about 30min. Wipers cost about $30 every other year. Replaced a few light bulbs here and there (headlight, blinker, taillight,trunk light...) on a 20yr old car. total cost of ownership for me so far is about $23,000 over 2x as many years as you. and my previous car cost even less. ($2k to purchase, drove it for years at 36mpg, replaced a few things over the years including 2 sets of tires, battery, shocks, swaybar, ball joints, CV axles, gas was typically under $2/gal back then). Blew a head gasket, regret not putting a new/rebuilt engine in it as it would have been rather cheap ($3k for a 0mile engine at the time, and due to my upkeep the car was in great condition still). and my previous truck cost less too. (free truck due to being totaled in collisions 2x, got 27mpg, drove it for years with almost no maintenance, just an alternator, battery, and 2 tires on the rear, gas was as low as $0.85/gal back then). Sold it for $300 and it went through 2 more owners and nearly 10yrs more of driving.
    1
  13307. 1
  13308. 1
  13309. 1
  13310. 1
  13311. 1
  13312. 1
  13313. 1
  13314. 1
  13315. 1
  13316. 1
  13317. 1
  13318. 1
  13319. 1
  13320. 1
  13321. 1
  13322. 1
  13323. I have a natural talent for learning things, and comprehending it deeply. But I still had to work hard at math my whole life just like everyone else, and struggled at times with things like fractions (becasue it was taught horribly in hindsight). But math was highly logical and it was my best and favorite subject in school. But I am not one of those with natural talent at math. But In school and college I was a 4.0 student, always top of the class, always the curve buster, always one of the first to turn in my tests. But I worked hard to be that. I am highly competitive, and I focused not just on speed but precision and accuracy. I would turn in tests quickly, ace them, and get praised for my handwriting, showing my work, drawing diagrams and pictures to go with my work, etc. I didn't just turn in work as fast as I could, I was simply just that well prepared going into the test. By the time the test came around I could do it in my sleep. I had to work hard to get to the point in many classes, but it's not impossible. I've had to work extremely hard my entire life to get where I am, to accomplish what I have, and to learn things. People always ask me, "how do you know so much?", as they see me as too young to know such things, not realizing many of the topics I know well I've been working on in earnest for 20-30yrs already, maybe more. they don't realize how hard I worked in short time periods, and the tricks i've learned along the way to speed up my ability to absorb and comprehend new information.
    1
  13324. 1
  13325. 1
  13326. 1
  13327. 1
  13328. 1
  13329. 1
  13330. 1
  13331. 1
  13332. 1
  13333. 1
  13334. 1
  13335. 1
  13336. 1
  13337. 1
  13338. 1
  13339. 1
  13340. 1
  13341. 1
  13342. 1
  13343. 1
  13344. 1
  13345. 1
  13346. 1
  13347. 1
  13348. 1
  13349. 1
  13350. 1
  13351. 1
  13352. 1
  13353. 1
  13354. 1
  13355. 1
  13356. 1
  13357. 1
  13358. 1
  13359. 1
  13360. 1
  13361. 1
  13362. 1
  13363. 1
  13364. 1
  13365. 1
  13366. 1
  13367. 1
  13368. 1
  13369. 1
  13370. 1
  13371. 1
  13372. 1
  13373. 1
  13374. 1
  13375. 1
  13376. 1
  13377. 1
  13378. 1
  13379. 1
  13380. 1
  13381. 1
  13382. 1
  13383. 1
  13384. 1
  13385. 1
  13386. 1
  13387. 1
  13388. 1
  13389. 1
  13390. 1
  13391. 1
  13392. 1
  13393. 1
  13394. 1
  13395. 1
  13396. 1
  13397. 1
  13398. 1
  13399. 1
  13400. 1
  13401. 1
  13402. 1
  13403. 1
  13404. 1
  13405. 1
  13406. 1
  13407. 1
  13408. 1
  13409. 1
  13410. 1
  13411. 1
  13412. 1
  13413. 1
  13414. 1
  13415. 1
  13416. 1
  13417. 1
  13418. 1
  13419.  @nimdaqa  "....We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration. To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which lies close to our heart. Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to ensure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement. But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
    1
  13420. 1
  13421. 1
  13422. 1
  13423. 1
  13424. 1
  13425. 1
  13426. 1
  13427. 1
  13428. 1
  13429. 1
  13430. 1
  13431. 1
  13432. 1
  13433. 1
  13434. 1
  13435. 1
  13436. 1
  13437. 1
  13438. 1
  13439. 1
  13440. 1
  13441. 1
  13442. 1
  13443. 1
  13444. 1
  13445. 1
  13446. 1
  13447. 1
  13448. 1
  13449. 1
  13450. 1
  13451. 1
  13452. 1
  13453. 1
  13454. 1
  13455. 1
  13456. 1
  13457. 1
  13458. 1
  13459. 1
  13460. 1
  13461. 1
  13462. 1
  13463. 1
  13464. 1
  13465. 1
  13466. 1
  13467. 1
  13468. 1
  13469. 1
  13470. 1
  13471. 1
  13472. 1
  13473. 1
  13474. 1
  13475. 1
  13476. 1
  13477. 1
  13478. 1
  13479. 1
  13480. 1
  13481. 1
  13482. 1
  13483. 1
  13484. 1
  13485. 1
  13486. 1
  13487. 1
  13488. 1
  13489. 1
  13490. 1
  13491. 1
  13492. 1
  13493.  @MotoroidARFC  "it isn't the landing, it's the launching. That's when the aircraft is at its heaviest and needs a strong structure to tolerate the catapult forces. " Wrong. the aircraft is at 1G on takeoff, and then is accelerated to speed laterally. the weight of the aircraft actually helps, as it's inertia slows the catapult. but the weight is not a multiplier on the catapult, as the forces are not acting in the same directions. And catapults are tuned to the weight/size of aircraft. But on landing, the jet can experience many G's and in ways that can break many parts of the aircraft, from wing spars, to landing gear, to the tail or fuselage, tail hook, and more. This is where weight is critical, as the weight is acting with the forces on landing. many aircraft can takeoff heavier than they can land, even civilian airplanes that don't fly off short airfields. They have to dump fuel or payload (bombs even) before landing to get below their max landing weight. Sometimes thy just have to fly in circles for a while to burn enough fuel. Also on landing, the bombs can be ripped clean from the aircraft and be sent across the deck. "Eagles weren't designed for that. " a naval version was drawn up, and it would have done just fine. Take a look at the gear of the FJ-1 and Fj-4, of the F4D and F-8. Heck, look at the F-4 nosewheel or the A-4. Even the F-16 was considered for a naval version. "Just look at how dinky the landing gear is compared to the Super Hornet landing gear; specifically the nose wheel vs nose wheels." the F-18 and such have beefy nose gear because they are pulled in a VERY bad angle on the nose strut by the catapult. But most aircraft in history had the catapult attach to teh fuselage and wing roots. F4F, F6F, F4U, A-4, F4D, F-8, F-4, Etendard, FJ-1, F11F-1, FJ-4, and many many more. the U-2, C-130, B-25, AV-8B, and many more also never used catapults at all. When you want to launch using the nosewheel, then yes, you need to beef it up, but also by adding a strut that moves backwards along the fuselage. Or you can just launch using the older time tested method of pulling on the airframe. "This channel has a video about the Sea Eagle." then you should know better...
    1
  13494.  @MotoroidARFC  " It's also fact that CATOBAR aircraft can launch with heavier loads than ski jump users which is why the USN use CATOBAR F-35Cs off their big deck carriers." that has Nothing to do with structure of teh aircraft. that has everything to do with not being able to go fast enough to produce enough lift to carry more weight. a catapult can get it to a higher speed, producing more lift, thus carrying more weight. But an F-35C can catapult launch at full weight, and be weight restricted on the Queen Elizabeth due to the ski jump, even though it's tough enough for a catapult. This doesn't prove your point, debunks it in fact. "USN carriers have catapults that use the nose gear to connect to the catapult shuttle. They don't use any other catapult system for their CATOBAR aircraft." You can use an airframe strap on US carrier catapults if necessary. not a big deal. Argentine, French, and other foreign naval aircraft have launched and landed on US nuclear carriers. The Argentine Etendard for example, requires the airframe strap, and they were launched using it. US catapults can 100% launch such aircraft. Just because US aircraft presently don't use that launching method, in no way mans the catapults can't still do it. And the US carriers still launch foreign aircraft that way at times. "Also, when aircraft land they are lighter as they have burnt off or dumped their fuel and, if fighting or live fire training, have fired or dropped their munitions." not always. aircraft go on missions in combat and find themselves unable to fire all their weapons, and will jettison them before landing. Also, emergencies happen, and a jet might have to return to land immediately, and will have to dump weight in a hurry in order to land. "The USMC use the shorter range F-35B from the gator freighters. Also, why mention out of service and long obsolete aircraft which cannot operate from today's carriers? You're just vomiting word salad and proving you know nothing." The F-4 is still in service around the world, the last F-8 was retired in 2008 I believe, there are still Etendards in service, as well as A-4s. U-2s are still in service, as are C-130s, OV-10s, the Harriers were only recently retired, but other nations still fly them. The older aircraft are relevant in proving that structurally the takeoff is no big deal, and flimsy aircraft can launch using catapults fully loaded. But if you had any clue what you were talking about, I wouldn't have to explain such basics to you. I teach kids STEM (aerospace engineering STEM in fact), and they understand these concepts with ease, and most of them are still in middle school. Your childish attempt to invalidate my arguments by simply dismissing them is not going to work. Closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and shouting, "lalalalalala!" doesn't change reality. You're arguing with the wrong person. I'm a combat vet of OIF/OEF, a professional airplane and helicopter pilot, an Aerospace engineer who designs airplanes with tens of patents and I do record setting work for NASA, and military/aviation history is a favorite pastime of mine. So bring facts, logic, reason, and science if you wish to have a chance at winning here.
    1
  13495. 1
  13496. 1
  13497.  @MotoroidARFC  "they retired the Super Étendard and got rid of their carrier." irrelevant. doesn't change the catapults and their capabilities. "And who will keep throwing away the cables needed to launch them as bridle catchers don't exist on French or American carriers?" If we found ourselves in a war of attrition against China lets say in a WW3 scenario, and both sides were taking incredible losses of aircraft. Now let's say in order to recoup our losses quickly, we need to mass produce a fighter jet quickly and cheaply. The heavy nose landing gear results in a much heavier, more costly, and harder to mass produce aircraft. And it might make sense to resort to different launching methods to produce more aircraft faster. Having the option to do that can be critical in a war. The cost and space taken up by those cables is so small as to be laughable. It's annoying to rely on a consumable, but it is easily replenished as well. We fought all of WW2 using them, and we had FAR more carriers and FAR more carrier aircraft to launch every single day. It's not an issue. Also, bridle catchers could easily be added to the carriers if needed. "And why bring aboard such old aircraft when a modern one is more worthy of the limited space?" red herring. this argument was never made. But if you're referring to why bring older allied aircraft aboard? it's about international training and cooperation, in case aircraft have to land on another nation's carrier in a time of war for any of a number of reasons (aircraft damaged and can't reach its own carrier, it's carrier was sunk, etc.). "U2s operate from land bases. Sure, they did tests but that doesn't mean they will do it routinely and they never have. " wrong, they routinely operated U-2s from carriers for many decades. they tested it, but you can find pictures of numerous different models/generations of U-2s flying from carriers in multiple decades, as well as U-2 pilots talking about their experience using carriers in operations. Just down the road from me in a small farm town we have two U-2 pilots. One is retired, the other actively serving. I've also given a presentation on this a few months back. Wow, you finally got something right. Even a broken clock is right 2x a day. Yes, the C-130 was only tested, but it proved possible, and with surprising ease too. And in a pinch it could be done any time, so long as we have the large nuke carriers and C-130s. And a war in China could bring about the need to use C-130 to speed up resupply in desperation. You just never know.
    1
  13498. 1
  13499. 1
  13500. 1
  13501. 1
  13502. 1
  13503. 1
  13504.  @MotoroidARFC  "sending an F-4 up against something two generations more advanced is wasteful. It would be better for it to haul stuff for the newer ones. It would stay out of the fight and release weapons when the newer ones call for it. " red herring. you're off topic again. "Upgrades can only go so far before the basic design limits it." actually, that's not true. A fully upgraded F-4 would be just as effective at being a missile truck as an F-15EX or F-35, and just as effective at deploying standoff weapons for CAS. The maturity and proliferation of precision standoff weapons has changed the game, and speed is no longer the key. "And in some cases the time and money spent on that could have been spent on things more worthwhile." give an example. "In the Eagle II's case, other nations funded the upgrades which made it attractive to the USAF. It's telling they didn't fund the upgrades on their own and didn't even bother with their F-4s. So no, if it's too old, it's not worth it." The US gov needed stop gap fighters, and given that the F-15EX had all the upgrades, the gov bought those as they were available. You know what else is available that the USAF doesn't have much of? The F-16 Block 70. We could also buy those. But do you realize how old the F-15 and F-16 platforms are now? And yet short of the F-22/F-35, they are basically the best fighters on earth. By the time the F-15EX came along, all the US F-4 had already been long retired, and production lines no longer existed. You can't buy something no longer being produced, even if it could have been upgraded if still produced. You want to talk about age? try the A-4, C-130, B-52J, U-2, Mig21, Mig17, AH-1, UH-1, CH-47, UH-60, etc. Many aircraft in operation today are as old or older than the F-4. And many of the newer aircraft are going to far exceed the F-4's service life. If your assertions were true, none of those older aircraft would still be flying or combat effective. but many are still some of the best in the world at what they are doing. If I upgraded an F-4E with F-35 radar, F-35 avionics, new ejection seats, new bubble canopy with gold tint, stealth paint, composite airframe, new engines, new air intakes, new IRST and targeting sensors, and updated its flight controls to the latest in fly by wire, and gave it meteor missiles, AMRAAMs, AIM-9X, helmet mounted sight, HARM, small diameter bombs, Harpoon, and more. What role in modern air combat would the F-4 not be well suited for? "so a service is to train people in an obsolete method of launching aircraft and begin manufacturing the equipment to do that just so they bring back into service obsolete aircraft which would need upgrades themselves and trained crews to operate them? " no, they retain the ability to use alternatives, and retrain people when/as needed. the method of launching is not obsolete. In what way is it obsolete? just because it's not popular anymore, doesn't make it obsolete. it still works just fine and very effectively. It's just not preferred. A little common sense goes a long way, should look into getting some. "Fantasy. No one will wait around for all that to happen. They will work with what they have and in more effective ways." They will work with what they have, including th ability to bridle launch aircraft. When you're taking high losses, you will resort to putting into service anything you can get, even if it's not what you wanted/preferred. I've been in combat for years of my life, I have made do with what we had, fixed things, modified things, and I am telling you, when sh1t gets crazy, technology is not your friend. the ability and know-how to revert to low tech methods and still win is underappreciated these days. We had all the tech and gadgets overseas, and yet rarely used it. old fashioned methods still worked, were still more reliable and consistent, and could be used to surprise enemies expecting us to use the technology and weren't expecting us to attack them the way we did. And things break, and the more advanced and complex they ar, the harder it is to fix them, the more parts it takes, and the harder it is to support logistically in teh field. sometimes you'll have to wait MONTHS to get the parts you need, and in the meantime you have to make do with what you have. and so you resort to low-tech solutions, even grabbing civilian equipment to use. "And they're still lighter than at launch." So??????? you're like a broken record. this is what, teh 6th time you've repeated this? And still you have yet to make a valid point.
    1
  13505. 1
  13506. 1
  13507. 1
  13508. 1
  13509. 1
  13510.  @pillmuncher67  figuring out how to game nature. Nature rewards efficiency. Those who find ways to survive efficiently will be able to prosper, and also have free time. Keep in mind these hunter gatherers survived this way for thousands of years. They were living like this during the medieval period, the Egyptian period, Sumerians, Greeks, Persians, etc. If they were doing something wrong they'd have died out thousands of years ago. Think of life as a game, the rules are simple: stay alive, reproduce. | They still have to work to survive, but they found ways to be efficient at it, as did many other cultures. When new challenges present themselves, they must adapt and overcome. But they also can fall victim to disease, illness, and other factors. They are still going to be less efficient at surviving overall than some other cultures, but well enough to continue to endure. We used to be less efficient. Most people used to be farmers, until industrialization helped more people seek other work. And this drive to ever greater efficiency enables people to succeed in the game of life more an more as efficiency increases. their overall prosperity and leisure increases too. But even my grandfather who started farming with horses, said everyone got it wrong about farming. There were tough times, but they didn't have to work endlessly either. the busy periods were planting and harvest, but between then was periods with less to do, and he said they were able to kick back and relax much of the year. Still hard work, but he didn't feel it was as hard as people made it out to be. Sharks don't spend 100% of their time hunting and eating. Dolphins have time to play.
    1
  13511. 1
  13512. 1
  13513. 1
  13514. 1
  13515. 1
  13516. 1
  13517. 1
  13518. 1
  13519. 1
  13520. 1
  13521. 1
  13522. 1
  13523. 1
  13524. 1
  13525. 1
  13526. 1
  13527. 1
  13528. 1
  13529. 1
  13530. 1
  13531. 1
  13532. 1
  13533. 1
  13534. 1
  13535. 1
  13536. 1
  13537. 1
  13538. 1
  13539. 1
  13540. 1
  13541. 1
  13542. 1
  13543. 1
  13544. 1
  13545. 1
  13546. 1
  13547. 1
  13548. 1
  13549. 1
  13550. 1
  13551. 1
  13552. 1
  13553. 1
  13554. 1
  13555. 1
  13556. 1
  13557. 1
  13558. 1
  13559. 1
  13560. 1
  13561. 1
  13562. 1
  13563. 1
  13564. 1
  13565. 1
  13566. 1
  13567. 1
  13568. 1
  13569. 1
  13570. 1
  13571. 1
  13572. 1
  13573. 1
  13574. 1
  13575. 1
  13576. 1
  13577. 1
  13578. 1
  13579. 1
  13580. 1
  13581. 1
  13582. 1
  13583. 1
  13584. 1
  13585. 1
  13586. 1
  13587. 1
  13588. 1
  13589. 1
  13590. 1
  13591. 1
  13592. 1
  13593. 1
  13594. 1
  13595. 1
  13596. 1
  13597. 1
  13598. 1
  13599. 1
  13600. 1
  13601. 1
  13602. 1
  13603. 1
  13604. 1
  13605. 1
  13606. 1
  13607. 1
  13608. 1
  13609. 1
  13610. 1
  13611. 1
  13612. 1
  13613. 1
  13614. 1
  13615. 1
  13616. 1
  13617. 1
  13618. 1
  13619. 1
  13620. 1
  13621. 1
  13622. 1
  13623. 1
  13624. 1
  13625. 1
  13626. 1
  13627. 1
  13628. 1
  13629. 1
  13630. 1
  13631. 1
  13632. 1
  13633. 1
  13634. 1
  13635. 1
  13636. 1
  13637. 1
  13638. 1
  13639. 1
  13640. 1
  13641. 1
  13642. 1
  13643. 1
  13644. 1
  13645. 1
  13646. 1
  13647. 1
  13648. 1
  13649. 1
  13650. 1
  13651. 1
  13652. 1
  13653. 1
  13654. 1
  13655. 1
  13656. 1
  13657. 1
  13658. 1
  13659. 1
  13660. 1
  13661. 1
  13662. 1
  13663. 1
  13664. 1
  13665. 1
  13666. 1
  13667. 1
  13668. 1
  13669. 1
  13670. 1
  13671. 1
  13672. 1
  13673. 1
  13674. 1
  13675. 1
  13676. 1
  13677. 1
  13678. 1
  13679. 1
  13680. 1
  13681. 1
  13682. 1
  13683. 1
  13684. 1
  13685. 1
  13686. 1
  13687. 1
  13688. 1
  13689. 1
  13690. 1
  13691. 1
  13692. 1
  13693. 1
  13694. 1
  13695. 1
  13696. 1
  13697. 1
  13698. 1
  13699. 1
  13700. 1
  13701. 1
  13702. 1
  13703. 1
  13704. 1
  13705. 1
  13706. 1
  13707. 1
  13708. 1
  13709. 1
  13710. 1
  13711. 1
  13712. 1
  13713. 1
  13714. 1
  13715. 1
  13716. 1
  13717. 1
  13718. 1
  13719. 1
  13720. 1
  13721. 1
  13722. 1
  13723. 1
  13724. 1
  13725. 1
  13726. 1
  13727. 1
  13728. 1
  13729. 1
  13730. 1
  13731. 1
  13732. 1
  13733. 1
  13734. 1
  13735. 1
  13736. 1
  13737. 1
  13738. 1
  13739. 1
  13740. 1
  13741. 1
  13742. 1
  13743. 1
  13744. 1
  13745. 1
  13746. 1
  13747. 1
  13748. 1
  13749. 1
  13750. 1
  13751. 1
  13752. 1
  13753. 1
  13754. 1
  13755. 1
  13756. 1
  13757. 1
  13758. 1
  13759. 1
  13760. 1
  13761. 1
  13762. 1
  13763. 1
  13764. 1
  13765. 1
  13766. 1
  13767. 1
  13768. 1
  13769. 1
  13770. 1
  13771. 1
  13772. 1
  13773. 1
  13774. 1
  13775. 1
  13776. 1
  13777. 1
  13778. 1
  13779. 1
  13780. 1
  13781. 1
  13782. 1
  13783. 1
  13784. 1
  13785. 1
  13786. 1
  13787. 1
  13788. 1
  13789. 1
  13790. 1
  13791. 1
  13792. 1
  13793. 1
  13794. 1
  13795. 1
  13796. 1
  13797. 1
  13798. 1
  13799. 1
  13800. 1
  13801. 1
  13802. 1
  13803. 1
  13804. 1
  13805. 1
  13806. 1
  13807. 1
  13808. 1
  13809. 1
  13810. 1
  13811. 1
  13812. 1
  13813. 1
  13814. 1
  13815. 1
  13816. 1
  13817. 1
  13818. 1
  13819. 1
  13820. 1
  13821. 1
  13822. 1
  13823. 1
  13824. 1
  13825. 1
  13826. 1
  13827. 1
  13828. 1
  13829. 1
  13830. 1
  13831. 1
  13832. 1
  13833. 1
  13834. 1
  13835. 1
  13836. 1
  13837. 1
  13838. 1
  13839. 1
  13840. 1
  13841. 1
  13842. 1
  13843. 1
  13844. 1
  13845.  @death_parade  "Again, ignoring your personal attacks", one, they are insults, not attacks. two, good, finally someone at least smart enough to separate insults from arguments. "Looks like you never heard of what a NOTAM is. What an ADIZ is. What an FIR is. Or the fact that airline communications are on the VHF band, not on the Ku or Ka band in which Starlink operates." nope, pilot, well aware. but the fact india routinely bans communications and airline traffic explains a lot for me..... India has the potential of a world leading nation, but remains third world, the reasons are becoming clear why. no india cannot stop communications in international waters. imagine jamming SOS signals and shit. India does not have blanket authority in international territory. Jamming is illegal in the US and would be an act of war if done by a foreign country. By US law, HAM radio cannot be stopped, even by the US gov, as it is part of our national defense network and is protected by law, and jamming is illegal in the US, except by the US gov for specific reasons in specific places and times, usually with prior warning. Forcing foreign code on starlink is hostile, and acting like you own space is hostile. Do you also prevent spy satellites taking photos of india? "Based on this comment, do you still think so?" hell yes. it's like debating a child. there is an old parable. Don't roll in teh mud with a pig, you'll only get dirty and they'll enjoy it. You're the pig in that. You will say any outlandish and false thing you need to in order to be right. Yet, india does Not have the authority nor the ability to do what you claim. And why you and India want so badly to stop communications is beyond me. it's a tyrannical move.
    1
  13846.  @death_parade  "by your logic, G7 including USA are "third world"" this is a completely false argument, false equivalency. putting out a NOTAM for runway closures due to maintenance, or tower lights out, or parachut jumping areas active is not teh same as banning communications and internet access to teh public for no reason. "India can indeed stop any marine vessel in international waters from broadcasting signals into India when such signals are found carrying communications detrimental to Indian national interests. " no it cannot, international waters does not fall within India's jusrisdiction. and I'd like to see you try stopping radio broadcasts from China. "I never said India would jam HF radios in USA." I asked you a very specific question,a nd you gave a very specific answer, it's not a strawman to point out the response you gave, as it was your argument, not mine. " we could diplomatically ask the US government to use its law enforcement agencies to put a stop to any such hostile transmission. " and the US gov would tell you to piss off, as it is illegal to restrict such lawful transmissions in teh US. "Nobody is "forcing foreign code on Starlink". Strawman argument. " not a strawman, if you want Starlink to implement a code detrimental to their service, at Your demand, that is foreign code added to appease you, not them. it's not code they wanted to add. "And in order to comply with the law of the land, Starlink might have to do this one day." wrong again. you're claiming you can enforce laws on US companies and individuals, in US terriroty, and you cannot. That would be an act of war. "Already explained above how this is legitimate, moral and not tyrannical. Already explained above the exact mechanisms that India can employ in each case. Its not my fault your comprehension is poor. " what you've explained is a dictator's fantasy, but not practical or enforceable in reality. it's a child's view of reality.
    1
  13847. 1
  13848. 1
  13849. 1
  13850. 1
  13851. 1
  13852. 1
  13853. 1
  13854. 1
  13855. 1
  13856. 1
  13857. 1
  13858. 1
  13859. 1
  13860. 1
  13861. 1
  13862. 1
  13863. 1
  13864. 1
  13865. 1
  13866. 1
  13867. 1
  13868. 1
  13869. 1
  13870. 1
  13871. 1
  13872. 1
  13873. 1
  13874. 1
  13875. 1
  13876. 1
  13877. 1
  13878. 1
  13879. 1
  13880. 1
  13881. 1
  13882. 1
  13883. 1
  13884. 1
  13885. 1
  13886. 1
  13887. 1
  13888. 1
  13889. 1
  13890. 1
  13891. 1
  13892. 1
  13893. 1
  13894. 1
  13895. 1
  13896. 1
  13897. 1
  13898. 1
  13899. 1
  13900. Taking global readings? Yeah, most of that early data was in the US only, and a few other countries. less than 10% of the world had temp records until the advent of satellites. So that's the first lie. Second, global average temps fails to account for Heat Island effect. Look into this issue, and educate yourself on how heat islands can artificially give false high readings, that are then used to interpolate other nonexistent stations, and also learn how it drags the average up, even when the average has not changed. So there is another lie. Ice cores only give you a LOCAL temp record, not a global average. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This is scientific FACT. If in reaching 400ppm of CO2, having started at 200ppm, we saw a 0.7C temp rise (I'll round to 1.0C for easier math, and give climate crazies benefit of the doubt), then to get to 2.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 800ppm. And to get 3.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 1600ppm. And to get a 4.0C total rise, we'd have to get to 3200pm. See how ridiculous this is? Oh, and during the Cambrian Explosion we were at 4000ppm. And during the Roman era, global temps were 10C warmer on average than today. It was warmer during the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Also, greenhouses operate at 1200ppm, and classroom or lecture hall full of people is at 800ppm. Also, high CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and faster, and NASA has admitted this is causing a massive regreening of the planet. Also, high CO2 affects Stomata levels in plants, making them more drought resistant and water efficient. This enables plants to grow in deserts and be more hearty in warm periods. Methane has almost NO EFFECT on our atmospheric temps, due the the fact our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs. Even if we saturated our atmosphere with massive amounts of methane, we'd see at MOST 1.0C temp rise. Sea level rise has NOT accelerated in over 200yrs, since well before the use of fossil fuels. It has remained steady and linear. Even the IPCC released multiple studies in recent years admitting that even if they achieved EVERY demand of the Paris accords, over the next 85yrs we'd reduce the rise in temp by less than 0.1C. The IPCC also fraudulently misrepresented a questionnaire they use to claim 97% scientific consensus. Also, Mann's hockey stick graph was proven to be a scientific fraud in Canadian court. In my part of the US, we've had 3 consecutively colder years in a row, with an even colder winter expected than the past 3 winters in a few months.
    1
  13901. 1
  13902. 1
  13903. 1
  13904. 1
  13905. 1
  13906. 1
  13907. 1
  13908. 1
  13909. 1
  13910. 1
  13911. 1
  13912. 1
  13913. 1
  13914. 1
  13915. 1
  13916. 1
  13917. 1
  13918. 1
  13919. 1
  13920. 1
  13921. 1
  13922. 1
  13923. 1
  13924. 1
  13925. 1
  13926. 1
  13927. 1
  13928. 1
  13929. 1
  13930. 1
  13931. 1
  13932. 1
  13933. 1
  13934. 1
  13935. 1
  13936. 1
  13937. 1
  13938. 1
  13939. 1
  13940. 1
  13941. 1
  13942. 1
  13943. 1
  13944. 1
  13945. 1
  13946. 1
  13947. 1
  13948. 1
  13949. 1
  13950. 1
  13951. 1
  13952. 1
  13953. 1
  13954. 1
  13955. 1
  13956. 1
  13957. 1
  13958. 1
  13959. 1
  13960. 1
  13961. 1
  13962. 1
  13963. 1
  13964. 1
  13965. 1
  13966. 1
  13967. 1
  13968. 1
  13969. 1
  13970. 1
  13971. 1
  13972. 1
  13973. 1
  13974. 1
  13975. 1
  13976. 1
  13977. 1
  13978. 1
  13979. 1
  13980. 1
  13981. 1
  13982. 1
  13983. 1
  13984. 1
  13985. 1
  13986. 1
  13987. 1
  13988. 1
  13989. 1
  13990. 1
  13991. 1
  13992. 1
  13993. 1
  13994. 1
  13995. 1
  13996. 1
  13997. 1
  13998. 1
  13999. 1
  14000. 1
  14001. 1
  14002. 1
  14003. 1
  14004. 1
  14005. 1
  14006. 1
  14007. 1
  14008. 1
  14009. 1
  14010. 1
  14011. 1
  14012. 1
  14013. 1
  14014. 1
  14015. 1
  14016. 1
  14017. 1
  14018. 1
  14019. 1
  14020. 1
  14021. 1
  14022. 1
  14023. 1
  14024. 1
  14025. 1
  14026. 1
  14027. 1
  14028. 1
  14029. 1
  14030. 1
  14031. 1
  14032. 1
  14033. 1
  14034. 1
  14035. 1
  14036. 1
  14037. 1
  14038. 1
  14039. 1
  14040. 1
  14041. 1
  14042. 1
  14043. 1
  14044. 1
  14045. 1
  14046. 1
  14047. 1
  14048. 1
  14049. 1
  14050. 1
  14051. 1
  14052. 1
  14053. 1
  14054. 1
  14055. 1
  14056. 1
  14057. 1
  14058. 1
  14059. 1
  14060. 1
  14061. 1
  14062. 1
  14063. 1
  14064. 1
  14065. 1
  14066. 1
  14067. 1
  14068. 1
  14069. 1
  14070. 1
  14071. 1
  14072. 1
  14073.  @bill_4615  being a patronizing idiot doesn't win people either. fun fact, using an exclamation mark is Not "yelling". Using ALL CAPS is considering "yelling". Exclamation points are about Emphasis. But go ahead and make this all about you. You, who advocates sitting on our hands doing nothing. Yes, o master strategists who's never accomplished anything of note, tell the rest of us how to win this fight you advocate abstaining from.... You bow out, have no solutions, but expect the rest of us to care what you think about how to win against this insanity. People like you are why Russia is having the issues it's having today in Ukraine. Apathy. "The woke mob doesn't control everything." technically you're right, but largely you're wrong. they control media, politics, education, social media, hollyweird, most large cities, many states, Europe is infected by their ideology, corporate jobs, etc. " Ignore them and push for good policies with good arguments." you really don't get it do you? these people can't be reasoned with. the only way to beat them is to stop tolerating them. stop caring what they think. Give them harsh truths and reality. They need discipline and many need a good punch in the face at times. "Don't fall into their language trap. " as you try to police my language and tell me how I'm wrong and you're right. even as you advocate doing nothing like a coward, too afraid to confront the woke mob. "When they try to engage you with fluff and nonsense just ignore it and make a rational, sensible, argument. It will sway more minds. " you just don't get it. these are Not rational people. they are brain dead NPCs that do what their overloads command like robots. "You don't have to tell someone they are wrong in order to convince someone else you are right." when someone does something wrong, you absolutely need to call them out and tell them they did wrong. That's how you raise children, and that's how you make these people understand. You hold them accountable, you give them consequences for their actions. "Democrats / Liberals / the woke want to feel a part of something and to feel morally superior to others. Many want to root for the underdog. Instead of feeding into their victim narrative bring a message that uplifts people and offers hope. Don't confront- enlighten." you can't enlighten idiots. So, you propose babying them, and pandering to them. cause that works sooooo well...... You are so wrong and ignorant.
    1
  14074. 1
  14075. 1
  14076. 1
  14077. 1
  14078. 1
  14079. 1
  14080. 1
  14081. 1
  14082. 1
  14083. 1
  14084. 1
  14085. 1
  14086.  @eymed2023  oh, you're one of those people.... "real socialism has never been tried." No, socialism has failed every time because it's a failed theory. It doesn't work because it ignores reality. It's a fantasy for those of low intelligence. When gov tells companies what they can/cannot buy/sell, when they tell consumers what they can/cannot buy, that is gov-run socialism as you mentioned. And that is exactly what the US gov has been doing. They have been controlling healthcare, controlling energy, controlling car production, strangling aviation manufacturing, controlling many other industries. No matter how good your "perfect democracy" is, it will never work. Utopia is ripe for pillaging. And the US is not a Democracy (mob rule), it is a Republic, and for good reason. "It's intended to reduce poverty and make everyone richer and safer by ensuring people are highly compensated for their work." that doesn't work, it never works. you pay people according to teh effort they put in. if they are a worthless employee, you fire them, if they don't put the effort in, you promote the employee who did. life isn't fair, and it never will be. "What 50% of americans and brazilians call "Socialism" is actually a combination of government protectivism, human rights, and just basic human decency." that's your personal opinion, not a fact. "Taxing policies in the US are intrusive, inflationary and disruptive to market. Smarter taxing policies could minimize or eliminate those issues." this i agree on, but has nothing to do with socialism. "The main culprit is the lack of a real, robust democracy to combat corrupt governors." wrong, the problem is too much gov, and gov failing to enforce anticompetition laws, anti-monopoly laws, taking bribes from corporations, election campaign finance fraud, allowing rich people in one state, in influence representatives of a different state, etc. Too much gov control over the lives of individual people. You don't fix corruption by giving teh corrupt more power. Welfare is a primary culprit of problems in teh US. it incentivizes laziness and uselessness. Prior to taxpayer funded welfare, we had charity, and it scientifically and objectively worked Better than gov welfare, and it incentivized people getting back on their own feet. Trump actually fought against the corruption, and pointed it out head on and they destroyed him for it. He admitted openly he was using the system the other politicians created, but that those politicians will never fix it because it benefits them. And he rightly pointed out that if it's ok for them to do it, then they can't get mad at him for doing it. But that doesn't make it right, and he acknowledged that. And he said all of that right to their faces. And he deserves credit for that.
    1
  14087. 1
  14088. 1
  14089.  @eymed2023  I thought you said you were moving on with your life? guess we can establish your word doesn't count for much then. "Keep in mind that I mean FULL democracy, as in the WHOLE package. Not just one or two elements." and what might that "whole package" be? you're just making stuff up. Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. "—Parlaments and councils with proportional representation of seats. —Score voting for presidents and decisions. —Yearly debates, public assemblies and plebecites. —Anyone can vote, run for president, or create a party. Or join the debates. —Anyone can propose laws or policies and have everyone vote on weather to approve them or not." Don't need a parliament for democracy. democracy can be by direct democracy too, and thus no council is strictly required. score voting? wtf is that? are you saying some people don't actually get a vote? or that some people count less? debates are good, but not required for democracy to exist. Depends on what the debates are for and about, and done by who. Allowing anyone to join a debate results in chaos. good luck with that. "Anyone can propose laws or policies and have everyone vote on weather to approve them or not." dumbest idea I've ever heard. "The short explanation is that human societies are complicated, and so are the power dynamics in a democracy." wrong, you're just using that as a scapegoat to avoid being wrong and to pretend it's too complex to grasp so you can get away with BS. Total cop-out. "The majority tends get divided over issues they disagree on. " if they disagree, then they are not the majority now are they? " If there's an issue that only affects 1% of society, that one 1% has plenty of oportunities to try and get that issue fixed by suggesting policies and trying to get them approved." and they'll get voted down 100% of the time too. Hence, mob rule. "There is nothing to GUARANTEE that minority opinions will be heard or that minority groups will be cared for. But a democracy is still the system that gives minorities the best chance of being heard and cared about." wrong, the best system for representation of minorities is a Republic. "For example, if 40% of people want higher taxes and the 40% want lower taxes, the 20% has an IMMENSE ammount of power to decide who's gonna win." wrong, becasue that 20% doesn't exist as a voting block, they are not elligible to vote (children), choose not to vote/participate, or they take a side and increase the 40% on either side. Terrible argument! "ALL citizens are represented at the parliament by someone they chose. OR they can create a party themselves." wrong. there is always a finite number of representative seats in a gov, unless you do a direct democracy (mob rule). Otherwise everyone represents themselves, chaos ensues, and you have mob rule. "The average joe also tends to be (comparatively) more humanitarian and more concerned about the wellbeing of others than the typical autocratic governors. Most people DON'T want minority groups to be enslaved or killed. " correct, and this bore itself out best during the rise of the US under Capitalism in a wide range of ways. "There are exceptions (such as the USA in the 1800s)," bold faced lie which proves you know NOTHING about early American history. "A — People with heavy opinions on both sides tend to be a minority, while the majority is calmer and more open to debate. In which case, democracy leads to more debates and thus, better policies being put in place that end up being better for everyone." provide a real-world case example of this occurring in history. "B — The majority is angry, intolerant and violent, and only a minority of people are sane. In this case, democracy still gives the sane ones a chance to win whereas autocracy gives them none." this is called mob rule You're not very good at this whole debate thing. lots of speculation and little to no evidence or logical reasoning. misusing statistical examples, failing to cite examples or show how it plays out in reality. The best way to do this is pick ONE issue at a time,a nd focus on that before moving onto the next. this scatter-brained approach is terrible. the fact you can't boil down what democracy is to one paragraph tells me you don't understand it. we're off in the weeds in all different directions making a proper coherent argument impossible as you are trying to make 15 different arguments simultaneously. pick your best one and stick with that for the moment. otherwise this is joint childish nonsense and a waste of time.
    1
  14090. 1
  14091. 1
  14092. 1
  14093. 1
  14094. 1
  14095. 1
  14096. 1
  14097. 1
  14098. 1
  14099. 1
  14100. 1
  14101. 1
  14102. 1
  14103.  @NinjaRunningWild  "Many people reason emotionally & cutting through their beliefs is impossible on a logical level. " you defat those people by making them think it was THEIR idea. You have to be super sly and slowly and tactfully shift teh argument in a nonaggressive way, using their own arguments to slowly turn them, and then make them feel like they came up with it. But when dealing with College, science, math, physics, engineering, you beat them to death with logic until they submit. they CANNOT refute science an keep their jobs. There are rules to scientific debate, scientific method, etc. And you just have to constantly call out their logical fallacies, call out their errors in data collection and processing, cite your sources, show your work, do the math, etc. they can't refute cold chard facts. But you have to defeat them publicly. Others have to witness it. Others have to see in no uncertain terms that person is objectively wrong. "People might reluctantly agree in the moment because you’ve succeeded in making them so uncomfortable (INTPs are pros at this) that they just want the interrogation to end, then they’ll go right back thinking what they thought, feeling what they feel, previously, rendering all your intellectual heavy lifting moot. " Doesn't matter, when they give in, I've won. Doesn't matter what they feel nor believe afterwards. "People see what they want to see." 100% true, but if they are going to come after me, they are going to get a fight. And they re never prepared to fight someone like me.
    1
  14104. 1
  14105. 1
  14106. 1
  14107. 1
  14108. 1
  14109. 1
  14110. 1
  14111. 1
  14112.  @aleksazunjic9672  " Thus, U-boat campaign slowed down significantly US troop deployment in Europe, " False. very few US soldiers were lost crossing the Atlantic. and the total tonnage sunk by every U-boat in WW2 amounted to only 1/4 of the new tonnage produced by the UK alone. They didn't even slow down UK production, and thus had literally 0 impact on US production in WW2 if we say for the sake of argument that every ship and its cargo sunk by a U-boat was made in the UK. "Thus, U-boat campaign slowed down significantly US troop deployment in Europe, and only in second half of 1943 they managed to partially solve this problem. " Wrong again. the US was planning to invade France in 192, but the British convinced the US to invade Africa instead and save them in Egypt. US conducted a large scale invasion of North Africa already in 1942, and landed almost unimpeded. We then spent a lot of time delivering supplies to Africa and the Med. I know a US Merchant Marine who is 105yrs old who crossed the Atlantic in WW2 8 times and did most of his trips to the Med. We talked for hours on his WW2 experiences. And in 1943 most US troops were still stateside training while we sent airplanes across to prepare Europe for invasion by first destroying the Luftwaffe. " Meanwhile, USSR was fighting practically alone. I'm sorry if truth hurts your feelings, but the truth is simple - Soviet Union won WW2 in Europe, Americans and British were just helpers." HAHAHAHA! knew it, you're a communist bot. drinking that communist koolaid. Stalin admitted the Soviets only held on due to US Lend Lease. And it took Russia HOW long to reach Berlin? 24mil dead Soviets? And the US reached Berlin by the same time and with less than 1yr of fighting, and losing only a few tens of thousands of troops to do it? US also defeated Japan single handedly. Soviets almost lost fighting on a single front. US won on every front, and had at least about 9 distinct fronts it was engaging in simultaneously around the globe, while supplying all the Western Allies with stuff at the same time. US finished WW2 with a 6,000 ship navy and more aircraft than it knew what to do with. US went on to become the world's only superpower and a wealthy and prosperous nation. Soviet Union languished in poverty, famine, and ultimately collapsed. And Russia remains poor to this day, with few exports on the global economy outside of energy and raw material. No real tech exports, and they aren't even exporting military equipment anymore. It took the Soviets 30yrs to reverse engineer the AIM9 missile into a reliable and functional missile. Acquired an AIM9 in the 1950s and they didn't get it working reliably and in large production until the 1980s. Meanwhile copying British jet engines, US B-29, and more. Elon Musk has already launched more rockets with SpaceX than all the Soyuz rockets ever launched by Russia.
    1
  14113. 1
  14114. 1
  14115. 1
  14116. 1
  14117. 1
  14118. 1
  14119. 1
  14120. 1
  14121. 1
  14122. 1
  14123. 1
  14124. 1
  14125. 1
  14126. 1
  14127. 1
  14128. 1
  14129. 1
  14130. 1
  14131. 1
  14132. 1
  14133. 1
  14134. 1
  14135. 1
  14136. 1
  14137. 1
  14138. 1
  14139. 1
  14140. 1
  14141. 1
  14142. 1
  14143. 1
  14144. 1
  14145. 1
  14146. 1
  14147. 1
  14148. 1
  14149. 1
  14150. 1
  14151. 1
  14152. 1
  14153. 1
  14154. 1
  14155. 1
  14156. 1
  14157. 1
  14158. 1
  14159. 1
  14160. 1
  14161. 1
  14162. 1
  14163.  @OnkyoGrady  "However, you can't say what the role of gov is, and i can't either. " I can say what the role of gov is, as I understand why gov exists at all. And you could too if you read up on it more. There are set primary roles of gov, regardless of public opinion, and then their are roles gov can take on that are debatable whether they should or not. "I think an incredible case can be made for our model, buy others can do likewise. We can point to material and economic excellence, and they can point to their own metrics wins to justify their own methods (happiness, infant mortality, education etc)." Of course. I think the underlying ideas the US Founding Fathers built upon are superior to anything else ever devised (and that is based upon facts and evidence, not just blind bias), but the modern US has strayed from this vision. Some things weren't provisioned for and so needed changing, other things are blatant power grabs of corporations and politicians, and other things are idealistic notions of lazy people that don't actually work as advertised. I actually have a document I'm working on creating for a revised US gov that builds upon the ideas of the Founding Fathers, US Constitution, and more, but accounts for modern issues, while devising ways to limit corruption and such better. It solves healthcare, education, and more. The hope is that if I can lay out a complete idea (keeping in mind no idea is, or ever will be, perfect) people will better understand what I mean and how it works in totality, and can be modelled in simulations or games to show that it does in fact work as advertised (and if not, make changes until it does).
    1
  14164. 1
  14165. 1
  14166. 1
  14167. 1
  14168. 1
  14169. 1
  14170. 1
  14171. 1
  14172. 1
  14173. 1
  14174. 1
  14175. 1
  14176. 1
  14177. 1
  14178. 1
  14179. 1
  14180. 1
  14181. 1
  14182. 1
  14183. 1
  14184. 1
  14185. 1
  14186. 1
  14187. 1
  14188. 1
  14189. 1
  14190. 1
  14191. 1
  14192. 1
  14193. 1
  14194. 1
  14195. 1
  14196. 1
  14197. 1
  14198. 1
  14199. 1
  14200. 1
  14201. 1
  14202. 1
  14203. 1
  14204. 1
  14205. 1
  14206. 1
  14207. 1
  14208. 1
  14209. 1
  14210. 1
  14211. 1
  14212. 1
  14213. 1
  14214. 1
  14215. 1
  14216. 1
  14217. 1
  14218. 1
  14219. 1
  14220. 1
  14221. 1
  14222. 1
  14223. 1
  14224. 1
  14225. 1
  14226. 1
  14227. 1
  14228. 1
  14229. 1
  14230. 1
  14231. 1
  14232. 1
  14233. 1
  14234. 1
  14235. 1
  14236. 1
  14237. 1
  14238. 1
  14239. 1
  14240. 1
  14241. 1
  14242. 1
  14243. 1
  14244. 1
  14245. 1
  14246. 1
  14247. 1
  14248. 1
  14249.  @T1Oracle  40k miles is literally nothing. report back in 20yrs and over 300k miles. Any car can last 40k+ miles with pretty much no maintenance. I've never had to do anything but oil changes and tires on ICE cars I've had with less than 70k miles. Problems typically start north of 100k miles, and most ICE cars die between 250-350k miles depending upon how well the owner took care of them. But it's easy to put a crate motor into them at that point and make them last again. let's see how easily and affordably you swap that battery pack in 20yrs. I paid $8k for my Buick in 2015 with 21k miles on it. Didn't have to replace anything but oil, wipers, and tires until nearly 90k miles. It's approaching 120k miles now and everything still works. Done a few minor things here and there, but overall very little maintenance cost. the car gets 27-44mpg (27 on winter gas, 36-44 on the freeway in summer). This car will easily last over 300k miles. At which point I plan to put a new engine in it. My previous car was a Ford Taurus that blew a head gasket at 275k miles. Could have done an engine swap for as little as $3k back then. Car was in good shape still, and I really wanted to do the engine swap but circumstances weren't in my favor back then. Bought that car for $2k in 2007. I take care of my vehicles, and so they last. My car before that was a 1995 Ford Ranger that got 27mpg even in town and lasted for well over 300k miles and had next to no maintenance done to it the entire time I owned it. Replaced the alternator once (seized up from sitting while I was in Iraq), some ball joints, a blinker from hitting a deer, stuff like that. Otherwise just oil, batteries, tires, wipers, brakes, etc. for the truck. Sold the truck to my sister in 2008, and she sold it to a friend a few years after that, and he had it for many more years. The thing just wouldn't die. It had been in 2 major car accidents before I got it, and it hit multiple deer, a few racoons, and got beat up even more after I sold it. No EV would survive what that truck went through. How much did you spend on your EV? How much will you spend to replace it later? I bet you spent more on your EV than I spent on all of my last 3 ICE cars combined over the past 25+ years of my life (counting purchase prices and any repairs I had to do above and beyond normal stuff like oil, wipers, tires...). I also bought 2 airplanes for less than $50k, one of them cost only $18k and gets 42mpg and was built in 1964. The other one gets 44mpg and is much newer. Far more sustainable than an EV that will get recycled in only 1-2 decades and has tons of rare earth elements that can be toxic or dangerous if not handled properly. Don't forget the cobalt and lithium in your car was mined using child and slave labor (even Tesla is buying such lithium as their is not enough non-conflict mineral sources of lithium to build all the batteries for EVs). Also, my car insurance is $15/month. It pays to be a good driver. What are you paying for insurance on your EV? Did you take out a loan for your EV? I always pay cash for all my cars, no debt, no interest.
    1
  14250. 1
  14251. 1
  14252. 1
  14253. 1
  14254. 1
  14255. 1
  14256. 1
  14257. 1
  14258. 1
  14259. 1
  14260. 1
  14261. 1
  14262. 1
  14263. 1
  14264. 1
  14265. 1
  14266. 1
  14267. 1
  14268. 1
  14269. 1
  14270. 1
  14271. 1
  14272. 1
  14273. 1
  14274. 1
  14275. 1
  14276. 1
  14277. 1
  14278. 1
  14279. 1
  14280. 1
  14281. 1
  14282. 1
  14283. 1
  14284. 1
  14285. 1
  14286. 1
  14287. 1
  14288. 1
  14289. 1
  14290. 1
  14291. 1
  14292. 1
  14293. 1
  14294. 1
  14295. 1
  14296. 1
  14297. 1
  14298. 1
  14299. 1
  14300. 1
  14301. 1
  14302. 1
  14303. 1
  14304. 1
  14305. 1
  14306. 1
  14307. 1
  14308. 1
  14309. 1
  14310. 1
  14311. 1
  14312. 1
  14313. 1
  14314. 1
  14315. 1
  14316. 1
  14317. 1
  14318. 1
  14319. 1
  14320. 1
  14321. 1
  14322. 1
  14323. 1
  14324. 1
  14325. 1
  14326. 1
  14327. 1
  14328. 1
  14329. 1
  14330. 1
  14331. 1
  14332. 1
  14333. 1
  14334. 1
  14335. 1
  14336. 1
  14337. 1
  14338. 1
  14339. 1
  14340. 1
  14341. 1
  14342. 1
  14343. 1
  14344. 1
  14345. 1
  14346. 1
  14347. 1
  14348. 1
  14349. 1
  14350. 1
  14351. 1
  14352. 1
  14353. 1
  14354. 1
  14355. 1
  14356. 1
  14357. 1
  14358. 1
  14359. 1
  14360. 1
  14361. 1
  14362. 1
  14363. 1
  14364. 1
  14365. 1
  14366. 1
  14367. 1
  14368. 1
  14369. 1
  14370. 1
  14371. 1
  14372. 1
  14373. 1
  14374. 1
  14375. 1
  14376. 1
  14377. 1
  14378. 1
  14379. 1
  14380. 1
  14381. 1
  14382. 1
  14383. 1
  14384. 1
  14385. 1
  14386. 1
  14387. 1
  14388. 1
  14389. 1
  14390. 1
  14391. 1
  14392. 1
  14393. 1
  14394. 1
  14395. 1
  14396. 1
  14397. 1
  14398. 1
  14399. 1
  14400. 1
  14401. 1
  14402. 1
  14403. 1
  14404. 1
  14405. 1
  14406. 1
  14407. 1
  14408. 1
  14409. 1
  14410. 1
  14411. 1
  14412. 1
  14413. 1
  14414. 1
  14415. 1
  14416. 1
  14417. 1
  14418. 1
  14419. 1
  14420. 1
  14421. 1
  14422. 1
  14423. 1
  14424. 1
  14425. 1
  14426. 1
  14427. 1
  14428. 1
  14429. 1
  14430.  @humongouswalrus  most people I know are well aware all of it exists. And I know of stuff even more amazing that already exists as well. But I'm a professional Pilot and Engineer, so people I know, know more about these things. "I've never seen someone with a jetpack flying around like in San Andreas and flying cars usually refer to things like in Star Wars." You need to get out more. people have been flying around in personal jet packs since the 1970s. And there is a startup in UK that sells jet packs. They even have jet pack search and rescue now, and jet pack racing, and the military has been trialing the use of jetpacks. got google it. takes 5sec of your life. Children can do it. Flying cars have existed since about the 1950s, and there is a new concept these days just about every few months. some more practical than others. But flying cars will NEVER catch one for the average person, and I'm saying that as both a professional airplane and helicopter pilot, and as an Aerospace and Mechanical engineer. people do not appreciate the reasons why they will NEVER be viable. you can't just will away physics. Mars colonies are not that complicated. Mars has decent gravity, an atmosphere, water, etc. It's easier than living on a submarine. I've actually personally developed technology for NASA to enable going to Mars. A Moon base is actually much harder than Mars. Go read the book, "The Martian", as that book details how to do it. It's all real science, the author spent years consulting with actual engineers, chemists, NASA personnel, etc. when writing the book to ensure he got the details right. Right after the movie came out, NASA discovered water on Mars, making it even easier than the book/movie depicts. Notice how the character deals with a break of the Mars habitat.
    1
  14431. 1
  14432. 1
  14433. 1
  14434. 1
  14435. 1
  14436. 1
  14437. 1
  14438. 1
  14439. 1
  14440. 1
  14441. 1
  14442. 1
  14443. 1
  14444. 1
  14445. 1
  14446. 1
  14447. 1
  14448. 1
  14449. 1
  14450. 1
  14451. 1
  14452. 1
  14453. 1
  14454. 1
  14455. 1
  14456. 1
  14457. 1
  14458. 1
  14459. 1
  14460. 1
  14461. 1
  14462. 1
  14463. 1
  14464. 1
  14465. 1
  14466. 1
  14467. 1
  14468. 1
  14469. 1
  14470. 1
  14471. 1
  14472. 1
  14473. 1
  14474.  @bobsakamanos4469  "Lots of on-line talk about allies overboosting the engines, but engine fires, and detonation was problematic. It wasn't til 1944 that Allison finally upgraded their intake manifold." I actually talked to some experts on this a few months ago. Guys who worked for Rolls Royce as ngineers and mechanics, worked on both the Allisons and Merlins, and are doing primarily Allison work exclusively now. They dispute that vehemently. They have access to original blueprints and engineering details on the Allison no one else has access too (and I was debating them as an engineer and pilot myself). When I brought up the intake, carb, etc. they said it wasn't true. Perhaps some people didn't set them up right or something sometimes, but they said there is no real problem with it. The Allison is a very durable engine (provided it didn't lose cooling), and they shared a LOT of interesting details why the Allison was the better engine that I never knew nor heard of before. they've been used and abused ever since WW2. We went over a lot of neat engineering data most non-engineers would not understand. Technically minded/skilled people would understand, but we really got into it with some aspects. had a great one-on-one 1.5hr discussion with them about it. I've also seen first hand accounts of people who fly warbirds today that say the P-40 is tough to beat at low altitude, and that for airshow work, teh P-40 is the most fun due to the allison engine being a beast at airshow altitudes.
    1
  14475. 1
  14476. 1
  14477. 1
  14478. 1
  14479. 1
  14480. 1
  14481. 1
  14482. 1
  14483. 1
  14484. 1
  14485. 1
  14486. 1
  14487. 1
  14488. 1
  14489. 1
  14490. 1
  14491. 1
  14492. 1
  14493. 1
  14494. 1
  14495. 1
  14496. 1
  14497. 1
  14498. 1
  14499. 1
  14500. 1
  14501. 1
  14502. 1
  14503. 1
  14504. 1
  14505. 1
  14506. 1
  14507. 1
  14508. 1
  14509. 1
  14510. 1
  14511. 1
  14512. 1
  14513. 1
  14514. 1
  14515. 1
  14516. 1
  14517. 1
  14518. 1
  14519. 1
  14520. 1
  14521. 1
  14522. 1
  14523. 1
  14524. 1
  14525. 1
  14526. 1
  14527. 1
  14528. 1
  14529. 1
  14530. 1
  14531. 1
  14532. 1
  14533. 1
  14534. 1
  14535. 1
  14536. 1
  14537. 1
  14538. 1
  14539. 1
  14540. 1
  14541. 1
  14542. 1
  14543. 1
  14544. 1
  14545. 1
  14546. 1
  14547. 1
  14548. 1
  14549. 1
  14550. 1
  14551. 1
  14552. 1
  14553. 1
  14554. 1
  14555. 1
  14556. 1
  14557. 1
  14558. 1
  14559. 1
  14560. 1
  14561. 1
  14562. 1
  14563. 1
  14564. 1
  14565. 1
  14566. 1
  14567. 1
  14568. 1
  14569. 1
  14570. 1
  14571. 1
  14572. 1
  14573. 1
  14574. 1
  14575. 1
  14576. 1
  14577. 1
  14578. 1
  14579. 1
  14580. 1
  14581. 1
  14582. 1
  14583. 1
  14584. 1
  14585. 1
  14586. 1
  14587. 1
  14588. 1
  14589. 1
  14590.  @patrickbateman312  define "factory"? Notice the defintion doesn't specifiy where it was made. stop being a child. "7.62 NATO is an intermediate cartridge? I mean, compared to .50 BMG maybe, but not to anyone with 2 brain cells rattling around their skull who understands the classification of rifle ammunition. It's a full power cartridge, full stop. " the .223 is a powerful cartridge too. It can pierce body armor and has devastating affect on humans. Give me the OBJECTIVE criteria for determining what is and is not "intermediate" cartridge. define it. I dare you. "but not to anyone with 2 brain cells rattling around their skull who understands the classification of rifle ammunition." that would be an accurate description of you. That's probably why you can't understand it, becasue it does take more than 2 brain cells, to understand this. "It is a lightweight select fire rifle fed by a detachable magazine. " lighweight? I didn't see that in teh definition. now you're making stuff up. Many .223 type military rifles are NOT lightweight at all. Yet a .308 SCAR, FAL, AR10, etc. are all rather lightweight options. and the .308 pales in comparison in both size and capability to the .300, .338, .30-06, .416, 7mm, and many more, many of which are in active military use for the very reason teh intermediate .308 wasn't enough. "An assault rifle is a purpose built weapon." now you're altering the defintion again. Purpose and intent have NO bearing on the function of a weapon. it doesn't matter what the NAME of the Stg44 is, as it's just a NAME. that rifle did not Define anything. The AK-47 came out shortly after as well, and the M14 and M16 even later. And yet laws are drafted to limit the AR15 and other such designs. "How does it feel, I wonder, to be so spectacularly wrong on every count?" that's a good question, feel free to answer.
    1
  14591. 1
  14592. 1
  14593. 1
  14594. 1
  14595. 1
  14596. 1
  14597. 1
  14598. 1
  14599. 1
  14600. 1
  14601. 1
  14602. 1
  14603. 1
  14604. 1
  14605. 1
  14606. 1
  14607. 1
  14608. 1
  14609. 1
  14610. 1
  14611. 1
  14612. 1
  14613.  @nicholasbrown668  I mimic no one by myself. my opinions are my own, informed by experience and lots of research. Where as you have nothing but insults. You have no actual counter arguments and failed to point out a single thing that I said that was wrong, nor proved how it was wrong. "Hows that M4 doing with its high rate of overall failure?" proof you have no clue. I've never once had a military issued M16 or M4 fail on me or anyone in my unit. It was always improper handling, bad ammo, or a bad magazine. They do fail, but rarely. I've also never had a civilian AR15 fail on me either, but I've not shot the super low quality crap either (stuff that isn't even to spec in the first place). "But lemme guess you are one of those "if it ain't broke dont fix it" types?" Kind of, but no, not really. I'm more of the, if you are going to "fix" it, it had better be Actually Better than the thing you're replacing. For example, the XM5 is WORSE than the M4 in many ways. 1. Less reliable 2. More moving parts 3. More expensive 4. Harder to produce 5. Doesn't really offer any extra performance you can't already get out of an AR15 or AR10. 6. Lower mag capacity 7. Heavier 8. Higher recoil making average Joes shoot even worse than they already do (I've trained a LOT of soldiers on marksmanship over the years). Why would i switch from what works, to something that cost taxpayers money and doesn't actually improve my odds in combat? You know what else was a "fix" that didn't work? ACU camo. Another "fix"? MRAPS replacing HUMVEEs. When you're not fighting an insurgency, it makes no sense to be using monster trucks to drive around post.
    1
  14614. ​ @nicholasbrown668  "you avoided answering it again just to spout a bunch of nothing, are you going to tell the plan or just keep saying "they didnt attack me specifically because they knew they would lose" im quoting you there btw. I'm guessing with that pridefulness you think you are invincible huh?" Wrong again. you quoted me, yes, do you want a gold star for that? it's not about being prideful, its about having a proven track record of my ideas working, notably against the Taliban specifically. No, I'm not invincible, and jealous people like yourself always make that leap. I'm simply smart enough to know how to stack the deck in my favor, only fight when I can win, choose my battles, etc. "also stop the pridefulness its really unbecoming" That's your opinion, and it matters not. I will make whatever arguments I need t make to prove my point. you are not an arbiter here. You are no one. " if you refuse to give the details of your plan again, it just proves my point of you being a Pierre Sprey, who screams and screams of how genius he is and how he can solve everything, without ever providing proof" I'll take the time to spell out my plan when you stop behaving like a spoiled child, when you are ready to hear it, and not a moment sooner. I never claimed to have all the answers or able to solve everything. That is you making false and baseless accusations once again. I make you feel inadequate and so you hate me for it and start projecting your feelings of inadequacy onto others. I never claimed to be a genius either. I claimed to have a specific solution, to a specific problem, based upon years of personal experience, and decades of study. "Also to change Deobanism you would have to interfere with the religion lmaoooo so again are you going to say what your plan is or avoid giving the details of it just so you can keep up your ego?" this entire idea is 100% irrelevant to my plan. And since you have no idea what my plan is, entails, or how it works, maybe you should refrain from making a fool of yourself by acting like you know everything about an argument you haven't even heard yet. You're wasting your breath on this nonsense and are too stupid to realize it. "Also I was in Afghanistan as well, they wouldn't attack american units after awhile, but they would attack places that we left, and they would attack them IMMEDIATELY after we left, most of the rural population doesn't care for Americans in fact a lot of the rural population despises Americans (for the exact reasons I listed that you hilariously glossed over) if "most afghans" opposed the Taliban, we wouldn't have seen thousands upon thousands of people join their offensive as it tore through the country we would have seen people rising up" you may have been there, but you don't understand much. Most Americans oppose woke BS, climate alarmism, etc. yet we're still being subjected to it. If we have the majority, why not stop it? Becasue human psychology is not so simple. there is both individual and group psychology. people afraid to stick their neck out. It takes a few to sacrifice themselves to motivate the larger group to action. need a tipping point, trigger event, catalyst, and you need adequate motivation to carry through. American units were attacked constantly. the units in our AO got attacked daily. Our replacements suffered casualties within days of taking over our AO. the moment my unit left, they started attacking hard again. Same thing happened when my unit left Iraq too. Iraq is in disarray not because of the invasion, but because of the Obama pull out to Destabilize Iraq, enable ISIS to form, in order to destabilize Syria in a bid to overthrow Assad. The invasion of iraq was not the cause. Kidnapped kids? Who did? and for what reason? and where did they take the kids?
    1
  14615. 1
  14616. 1
  14617. 1
  14618. 1
  14619. 1
  14620. 1
  14621. 1
  14622. 1
  14623. 1
  14624. 1
  14625. 1
  14626. 1
  14627. 1
  14628. 1
  14629. 1
  14630. 1
  14631. 1
  14632. 1
  14633. 1
  14634. 1
  14635. 1
  14636. 1
  14637. 1
  14638. 1
  14639. 1
  14640. 1
  14641. 1
  14642. 1
  14643. 1
  14644. 1
  14645. 1
  14646. 1
  14647. 1
  14648. 1
  14649. 1
  14650. 1
  14651. 1
  14652. 1
  14653. 1
  14654. 1
  14655. 1
  14656. 1
  14657. 1
  14658. 1
  14659. 1
  14660. 1
  14661. 1
  14662. 1
  14663. 1
  14664. 1
  14665. 1
  14666. 1
  14667. 1
  14668. 1
  14669. 1
  14670. 1
  14671. 1
  14672. 1
  14673. 1
  14674. 1
  14675. 1
  14676. 1
  14677. 1
  14678. 1
  14679. 1
  14680. 1
  14681. 1
  14682. 1
  14683. 1
  14684. 1
  14685. 1
  14686. 1
  14687. 1
  14688. 1
  14689. 1
  14690. 1
  14691. 1
  14692. 1
  14693. 1
  14694. 1
  14695. 1
  14696. 1
  14697. 1
  14698. 1
  14699. 1
  14700. 1
  14701. 1
  14702. 1
  14703. 1
  14704. 1
  14705. 1
  14706. 1
  14707. 1
  14708. 1
  14709. 1
  14710. 1
  14711. 1
  14712. 1
  14713. 1
  14714. 1
  14715. 1
  14716. 1
  14717. 1
  14718. 1
  14719. 1
  14720. 1
  14721. 1
  14722. 1
  14723. 1
  14724. 1
  14725. 1
  14726. 1
  14727. 1
  14728. 1
  14729. 1
  14730. 1
  14731. 1
  14732. 1
  14733. 1
  14734. 1
  14735. 1
  14736. 1
  14737. 1
  14738. 1
  14739. 1
  14740. 1
  14741. 1
  14742. 1
  14743. 1
  14744. 1
  14745. 1
  14746. 1
  14747. 1
  14748. 1
  14749. 1
  14750. 1
  14751. 1
  14752. 1
  14753. 1
  14754. 1
  14755. 1
  14756. 1
  14757. 1
  14758. 1
  14759. 1
  14760. 1
  14761. 1
  14762. 1
  14763. 1
  14764. 1
  14765. 1
  14766. 1
  14767.  @BaritoneMonkey  you're adding manufacturing status and criteria. Also, you're adding some sort of arbitrary claim that since not all are capable, then none can be classified as something that fits teh definition. You're also adding an "intent" criteria. "An M249 is not an assault rifle - it's a freaking squad-based Light Machine Gun." yet it serves teh same role as a Heavy M16 variant does. the Marines even did this trading in M249 for open bolt HKs. it's not select fire, but otherwise fits teh definition, but since it is stuck on full auto you treat it differently. the M249 is used as an individual weapon, just like an M16. M240B is treated differently. What do you classify the BAR as? Intent of use doesn't matter. How it is actually used matters. "Look, I understand you're coming in with the legal definition of "assault weapons" in mind. Also, I think I understand where you're coming from emotionally" no, you clearly don't understand. One, if you understood, we wouldn't be having this debate. two, I'm am coming at this with ZERO emotion. Just cold hard facts and logic. My nickname in Basic Training was "Data" from Star Trek, and in Iraq my nickname was "Spock". That's how logical and unemotional about these things I am. "If you're coming in here to argue with your mind made up - you're wasting your time. This is not how you win anybody over to your way of thinking." you spend a lot of time and energy avoiding the actual question. I come here to correct people's ignorance and stupidity. If you can manage to prove me wrong, Great! then I'll have learned something new and useful today. But thus far you've failed to do so.
    1
  14768. 1
  14769.  @jamesnorland1552  There were 3 criteria stated in the video for an assault rifle. none of them say anything about how manufacturing was done, what the intended use was, nor the %manufactured that were or were not select fire. so to discriminate based upon such criteria requires altering the 3-item defintion to add more criteria, thus invalidating the 3-criteria definition. Select fire AR10 exist, and are used by the US military. We had them when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are still in use today. M1 garand and its derivatives were select fire, and if one can be made select fire, any who share similar parts can be made such as well. the M1 was essentially the US military's first assault rifle. Look at WW2 testimonials of soldiers and generals regarding how important and effective it was. It wasn't select fire, but the jump to semiauto was that big, and later the M1 became the M14 select fire mag fed rifle, using the same parts/design, and always used the .30-06 or .308. "M249 (the full-auto version) is not an assault rifle since it doesn't have select fire (only full auto and doesn't have semi). It is a machine gun, or more specifically a light machine gun." and yet it is an individual weapon, just like the BAR. it is not crew served. And it was replaced in the USMC by "heavy M16", with select fire and open bolt operation, serving the same purpose as the M249. And you can fire 1 round at a time from the M249, I've done it many times, as it's more accurate and wastes less ammo. Not as easy as the select fire M2, but still doable without difficulty. ALL M249 can take a mag. And making full auto weapons is easier than making semiauto. so any semiauto can easily be converted to full or select fire. "BAR is at worst battle rifle, and by definition, a light machine gun." biased and false. the soldiers who used it loved it, and many have called for a BAR or similar weapon return to service for decades. the BAR was so good the US withheld it from service in WW1. It was no more a light machinegun than the M16A1 was. And there is nothing "light" about the .30-06 round. It shoots a bigger round than most medium to heavy machineguns these fires these days. It was merely a full-auto M1 Garand. same caliber, just full auto. It's clear you have no clue about weapons or their history, or their inner workings. Your criteria and arguments are wildly inconsistent and in direct contradiction with existing gun laws and ATF prosecution. But even if the BAR was truly a bad battle rifle (assault rifle), that is yet another criteria that is not part of the original defintion you're now adding. whether something is or is not an assault rifle doesn't depend upon how good it was, or how well it performed its role. You're constantly changing the criteria and proving me right, that the defintiion is arbitrary, subjective, and false. Many of the greatest assault rifles in history weren't select fire. Here's something interesting, Wiki listing of what is intermediate, and many larger .30 cal rounds are listed, but no .223/5.56. How curious. Note the Stg44, Ak-47, M14, FAL, and more were all .30cal. "An intermediate cartridge is a rifle/carbine cartridge that has significantly greater power than a pistol cartridge but still has a reduced muzzle energy compared to fully powered cartridges (such as the .303 British, 7.62×54mmR, 7.65×53mm Mauser, 7.92×57mm Mauser, 7.7×58mm Arisaka, .30-06 Springfield, or 7.62×51mm NATO), and therefore is regarded as being "intermediate" between traditional rifle and handgun cartridges.[1]" "SCAR and M110, M14, FAL are all battle rifles and/or rifles. " no such distinction exists. they are assault rifles in every sense fo the word. Otherwise you're also claiming the Ak-47, and STG44 are also battle rifles, and thus not assault rifles. "And no just because you can shoot a target effectively at 300m and can be "served the same function of an assault rifle" doesn't means they are by definition." only 300m? you need to learn to shoot. M16 can hit out to 600m easy, and some people can hit out to 1200m with an M16. And all the .30cal can hit even further. That was big gripe about the smaller rounds when the military switched from .303, .30-06, .308, etc. was the loss of effective range. You need to do more research. your ignorance is wide ranging. But once again, effective range is not one of the 3 criteria stated in teh defintion. How many new criteria do you intend to add? "There are other classifications out there and they overlaps sometimes" exactly, the defintion is arbitrary and subjective. thus it is invalid as a legal defintion since a person cannot know for sure what is or isn't an assault rifle. oh, and your opinions, don't count. you don't make nor interpret laws. so you don't get to decide. "You can shoot an assault rifle at 20m effectively too, does that makes it a sub-machinegun?" only you would claim something so stupid. "Now like Ian had said the most gray area of the assault rifle classification is the cartridge. " you've proven otherwise, as you used a wide range of secondary criteria to try to discriminate, even as I provide clear proof that your understanding of intermediate cartridge alone is false.
    1
  14770.  @jamesnorland1552  "I genuinely don't get your point when you keep going against your words. You said "your opinions, don't count. you don't make nor interpret laws. so you don't get to decide." but somehow the criteria should include "how manufacturing was done, what the intended use was" like the designer of the weapon is qualified to make such laws?" Are you having a stroke? I am not expressing my opinions. I'm expressing verifiable facts. I'm using logical reasoning and discussing actual defintions, or lack thereof. And I never claimed what you're trying to insinuate, you and others claimed such things, and I was pointing out teh error of it. try again. My quote of Wiki proves me right, it proves teh AR10, AK-47, FAL, M14 and more are intermediate cartridge assault rifles per the 3-point defintion. you're not disproving anything but yourself. M27 IAR wasn't teh only version designed. HK416 is 100% an AR15/M16 derivative in every sense of the word, with common parts. Battle Rifle is not a valid nor legally recognized defintion. you're just making up more subjective opinions to suit your narrative. ATF would be so proud of you. " But the AR10 is not an assault rifle." ALL AR10 can be made select fire in minutes. But that's not the point, some legally owned AR10 are in fact select fire. "Since you have stated with your acclaimed marksmanship," you're stupid. learn to read. I never made any references nor claims to my own skills. Yes, I can hit 300+m with EASE with an M4/M16, but I was citing USMC standards, which require shooting out to 600m, and many youtubers who are shooting consistently at 1200m with AR15 platform rifles and .223/5.56. "So the U.S Army have defined it way narrower than what Ian actually do in the video that it has to be "short, compact" which is very ambiguous not gonna lie." that's not "narrower", that's, more broad, more ambiguous. Further proving my point that nobody has properly defined an "Assault Rifle" yet, including Ian. The 1994 assault rifle ban had a different definition, CA, has still another definition. Even the law cant agree what it is. "fully powered cartridges" and yet .30-06 is an intermediate, which is what the BAR and M1 fire. Also, the things you call battle rifles have very small intermediate cartridges. and that cited defintion of battle rifle is BS nonsense and even more subjective. There is no such thing as a "fully powered" cartriddge. this is just childish nonsense written by politicians with no comprehension of reality. Define these terms if you think they are real. Pretty sure ATF is going to be calling you for a job interview. they love gun haters and people ignorant of firearms like you.
    1
  14771. 1
  14772.  @random.3665  Wrong, this debate is ENTIRELY about the 2A, whether you like it or not. Without the 2A, nobody would bother arguing about this. so, define an "intermediate cartridge". Someone designs a new rifle cartridge, how do we know if it's an "intermediate" or "full power" cartridge? What is the objective criteria? "A definition being flawed, and therefore invalid, and being arbitrary, is NOT the same thing. " yes, it is. arbitrary definition is a flawed definition, is an invalid definition. "The fact that the definition Ian gave (which again, is pretty much the definition all western militaries use as well) confuses YOU doesnt mean its an invalid definition." it doesn't confuse me at all. it's arbitrary and logically inconsistent. "As long as people have the same understanding of what the words "intermidiate cartrige", "select fire" and "magazine" mean, the definition is pretty solid, and anybody could easily tell whether a firearm meets that definition or not." then define those terms. "When you are telling your troops things like: "The enemy is almost exclusively armed with assault rifles", your troops - knowing the definition of assault rifle - can instantly tell that the enemy 1) will have trouble fighting at ranges exceeding 500m, 2) will not be able to lay down the same volume of suppressive fire as a machine gun could, 3) will be effective in urban environments. All of that, without knowing which specific firearms the enemy actually has, just by knowing its an assault rifle. That is a useful definition." not true at all. I'm a combat vet and this is utter BS nonsense. you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. never once has this been a factor. Assault rifle or not, everything you just stated can be both true or false for any given type of rifle we've discussed thus far. Knowing what you choose to classify some unknown rifle as, tells me NOTHING useful about teh enemies' capabilities. Everyone in teh military knows the M4, M14, AK47, FAL, SCAR, M110, and more are "assault rifles" And most soldiers on both sides lack the skill to hit at 300m even if you gave them a .30-06 sniper rifle. And most "assault rifles" can hit accurately well beyond 500m. Hitting 500m with my M4 and EOTech in Afghanistan was child's play. Marines were required to shoot 600m with their M16 using Iron Sights.
    1
  14773. 1
  14774. 1
  14775. 1
  14776. 1
  14777. 1
  14778. 1
  14779. 1
  14780. 1
  14781. 1
  14782. 1
  14783. 1
  14784. 1
  14785. 1
  14786. 1
  14787. 1
  14788. 1
  14789. 1
  14790. 1
  14791. 1
  14792. 1
  14793. 1
  14794. 1
  14795. 1
  14796. 1
  14797. 1
  14798. 1
  14799. 1
  14800. 1
  14801. 1
  14802. 1
  14803. 1
  14804. 1
  14805. 1
  14806. 1
  14807. 1
  14808. 1
  14809. 1
  14810. 1
  14811. 1
  14812. 1
  14813. 1
  14814. 1
  14815. 1
  14816. 1
  14817. 1
  14818. 1
  14819. 1
  14820. 1
  14821.  @hirokoai3013  Climate change is not the emergency that is claimed. I have proven this to many alarmists effectively. That being said, there are ways to reduce pollution and such. One is NOT focusing on electric vehicles. the vast majority of all energy produced/consumed is by Buildings of all types. The only way to power all buildings reliably and cleanly is SMR Nuclear power. Massed wind farms change the climate, cause droughts, etc. They last about 20yrs and can't be recycled, and have significant maintenance and upkeep that constantly needs to be done. Not to mention the massive number of birds killed if what we have now were scaled up massively. Wind turbines are bad for the environment and a re not sustainable. Solar has geo-political issues. People and nations have repeatedly tried to make solar work, yet everyone so far has failed for legit reasons. Agriculture is undergoing change already as we speak, regardless of energy changes. the greatest impediment to that change though is corporatism (big corporate farming operators lobbying the gov, and gov regulations preventing innovation, gov farming subsidies to these big operators etc.). Central planning cannot solve any of these issues in a real and meaningful manner that addresses the needs of everyone. Energy generation/use, regardless of source (solar, wind, nuclear, coal, oil, etc) all generate heat. The greatest centers of heat generation globally are large cities with their pavement, concrete, glass, and all the energy needed for heating, AC, lights, cooking, etc. Regardless if it is all electric or not, it all generates the same amount of heat as if powered by gas, wood, etc. You cannot violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.
    1
  14822. 1
  14823. 1
  14824. 1
  14825. 1
  14826. 1
  14827. 1
  14828. 1
  14829. 1
  14830. 1
  14831. 1
  14832. 1
  14833. 1
  14834. 1
  14835. 1
  14836. 1
  14837. 1
  14838. Websters Dictionary 1978: Fascism: "a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition, the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc." Look at California, New York, Chicago, Washington state, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, LA, etc. One-party system that suppresses their opposition. NY and the democrats targeting trump, targeting anyone they deem "right wing".... Retention of private property and production by gov is a core tenant of Socialism and Communism. The Left loves starting wars. They dragged the US into Civil War, into WW1, into WW2, into Vietnam, into Ukraine, into Syria, into Egypt, into Libya, etc. Sometimes war is necessary, but they have quite teh record of getting us into stuff. They tried getting us into a war with Iran numerous times over in the past 10yrs. The political woke Left is extremely racist, particularly against white people, but the US Democrats are the party of Slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, and more, and they are still racist against blacks to this day, even if they pretend not to be. Woodrow Wilson famously wrote blacks out of early American history textbooks. Yet, the Left claims the people on the right and in teh center who don't engage in censorship, advocate for individual freedom, advocate for private property rights, advocate for less gov run business, advocate for capitalism and fair competition in the markets, advocate for people not being judged by their skin color, etc. are "fascists".
    1
  14839. 1
  14840. 1
  14841. 1
  14842. 1
  14843. 1
  14844. 1
  14845. 1
  14846. 1
  14847. 1
  14848. 1
  14849. 1
  14850. 1
  14851. 1
  14852. 1
  14853. 1
  14854. 1
  14855. 1
  14856. 1
  14857. 1
  14858. 1
  14859. 1
  14860. 1
  14861. 1
  14862. 1
  14863. 1
  14864. 1
  14865. 1
  14866. 1
  14867. 1
  14868. 1
  14869. 1
  14870. 1
  14871. 1
  14872. 1
  14873. 1
  14874. 1
  14875. 1
  14876.  @franciscoshi1968  "if people can't afford a standard plug at home they must be so poor they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for petrol. " wrong. shows how out of touch you are. Also, that is "Cherry Picking". A standard 120V plug wont recharge an EV. Many older homes, such as mine, have no ability to install an EV charger. to do so would require me hiring an electrician to completely redo my entire electrical panel and run new lines where none exist. It's not cheap, in addition to teh cost of the charger itself. And many others doesn't even own their house, nor have a garage to even park in. you pay as you go with fuel, but need to pay upfront for EV and solar stuff. "Cars are being written off for very little damage. No just EVs. Plenty of ICE cars with very light damage are also being written off." My first car was a Ford Ranger decades ago, by the time I got it it had already been in 2 major car accidents, one in which the front end was smashed in. we straightened it out well enough, and I drove it for many years, and it got 27mpg. Then I sold it after doing almost no maintenance besides oil, brakes, tires, wipers, and a battery. it had 3 more owners after me. can't do that with an EV. "The difference with EVs is that there is lots of FUD being spread as with this video. For the battery to be damaged enough in a crash to be a problem the car would be unrepairble." yes and no. otherwise repairable damage could damage the battery enough to cause a fire. but unrepairable damage would still total the car even if the battery managed to survive undamaged. The problem is, they don't know which cars have their batteries damaged and which do not. if even a SINGLE cell in the entire EV is damaged just barely enough to cause an issue, it becomes a fire hazard. And there is no cost effective way to find out. Thus making the car a complete gamble and too high risk for insurance companies and used car dealerships and even mechanics shops. "The battery is inside of the survival cell. If the battery gets damaged the survival cell would also be damaged." yes, but the damage may be hard to spot or detect. I'm saying this as a Mechanical Engineer that deals with high voltage systems every day. electronics can be damaged much more easily that structure. "That would make any car including ICE cars unrepairble and ICE cars with flood damage can not be repaired either. Anything with flood damage is an instant write off." correct "All this FUD is doing is making idiots loose money for really simple mistakes. Some one got an EV for $1k because it wouldn't charge. They thought the battery needed replacing and all it needed was a 12v battery. I am really upset that some one beat me to it. That was a $20k mistake from someone who believed the FUD." but that happens all the time. and do keep you eyes out for those deals. My uncle bought a Chevy S10 at auction that no on wanted for $100. they started it and it immediately made a noise. From experience, he knew exactly what the issue was, and so he bought it. He got a perfect condition S10 with no rust, perfect engine, everything, because of a $10 part that needed replacing. He fixed it on the way home that day by stopping at a parts store and fixing it in the parking lot. The major issue people have with EVs is that there are VERY REAL issues (lack of infrastructure, lack of grid energy, fire hazards, lack of in-home chargers, high purchase cost, lack of long-term used car market, etc.). And worse than that, they are being FORCED to buy EVs against their will by communists and socialists. And many of us are willing to start a war to stop socialism and communism in this country.
    1
  14877. 1
  14878. 1
  14879. 1
  14880. 1
  14881. 1
  14882. 1
  14883. 1
  14884. 1
  14885. 1
  14886. 1
  14887. 1
  14888. 1
  14889. 1
  14890. 1
  14891. 1
  14892. 1
  14893. 1
  14894. 1
  14895. 1
  14896. 1
  14897. 1
  14898. 1
  14899. 1
  14900. 1
  14901. 1
  14902. 1
  14903. 1
  14904. 1
  14905.  @tonii5690  My comment says nothing of the sort. But his video says short haul is the future, ignoring the fact most flights are much longer than that. Yes, given where I live and how far I can expect to drive in a single day, 300miles is NOT enough from an electric car, I can get 400-800 miles out of my car on a single tank depending on time of year and how I'm driving it. Not to mention recharge times and infrastructure compared to refueling. Also, living in a colder climate, you can lose 30% battery capacity for half the year, meaning that 300mile car is only 200 miles, once again, not nearly enough. I drive 200 miles just to see my sisters on a weekend, or to got to another city to see a museum or attend a show on a weekend. I can't park and charge at my destination, so how do I get home? As of now, physics regarding airplanes and batteries is not viable for regular air travel. As I pointed out in another comment on this video, if they model new planes after the likes of the Celera 500, and use hydrogen fuel cells, they might have something. Otherwise energy density of batteries needs to get Massively better, as well as battery swapping infrastructure to support it, because trying to wait to charge a battery for a commercial sized plane is not going to be practical in any way. Never mind the lack of electrical grid infrastructure to support all this. We need to start building nuclear SMR/thorium reactors Now by the thousands, or it's Never going to happen. Do the math, look at the physics, check the aerodynamics, see for yourself.
    1
  14906. 1
  14907. 1
  14908. 1
  14909. 1
  14910. 1
  14911. 1
  14912. 1
  14913. 1
  14914. 1
  14915. 1
  14916. 1
  14917. 1
  14918. 1
  14919. 1
  14920. 1
  14921. 1
  14922. 1
  14923. 1
  14924. 1
  14925. 1
  14926. 1
  14927. 1
  14928. 1
  14929. 1
  14930. 1
  14931. 1
  14932. 1
  14933. 1
  14934. 1
  14935. 1
  14936. 1
  14937. 1
  14938. 1
  14939. 1
  14940. 1
  14941. 1
  14942. 1
  14943. 1
  14944. 1
  14945. 1
  14946. 1
  14947. 1
  14948. 1
  14949. 1
  14950. 1
  14951. 1
  14952. 1
  14953. 1
  14954.  @rupe53  "The FCC classifies this as privileged information and limits what you can do with it. (as outlined in that quote I posted, which is actually one state's wording) " Again....the FCC only prohibits the information from being used to commit a crime, NOTHING more. "The FCC classifies this as privileged information and limits what you can do with it. (as outlined in that quote I posted, which is actually one state's wording) " I am old enough, but once again you're not being clear as to Which terms exactly you are referring to here. "hang-up, dial, or even hold " such words still apply to cellphones exactly as they did in the past. the technology may be different but it works on teh same fundamental principles as before. And yet again, you fail to specify Who was passing What information to Whom for What purpose that you claim is illegal, that doesn't involve committing an actual crime other than merely listening in a talking about it. You claimed someone was committing a crime, and I want to know who you think was committing what crime, in Context of what was said here. Again, if police, firefighters, and others want to have secure coms, it's VERY easy. HAM operators and other amateurs have been communicating with encrypted coms for many years now. Why can't police and military get with the times. If they wanted secure coms, they could have them tomorrow. The technology has existed for a long time. If you broadcast in the clear, you have no right to get upset if people listen in.
    1
  14955. 1
  14956. 1
  14957. 1
  14958. 1
  14959. 1
  14960. 1
  14961. 1
  14962. 1
  14963. 1
  14964. 1
  14965. 1
  14966. 1
  14967. 1
  14968. 1
  14969. 1
  14970. 1
  14971. 1
  14972. 1
  14973. 1
  14974. 1
  14975. 1
  14976. 1
  14977. 1