Youtube comments of Solo Renegade (@SoloRenegade).
-
2400
-
1700
-
1300
-
1200
-
1000
-
1000
-
946
-
814
-
752
-
691
-
678
-
651
-
621
-
612
-
592
-
587
-
555
-
539
-
539
-
524
-
517
-
463
-
462
-
434
-
424
-
391
-
388
-
384
-
370
-
363
-
361
-
357
-
339
-
335
-
333
-
326
-
325
-
318
-
318
-
310
-
308
-
307
-
302
-
301
-
292
-
275
-
274
-
263
-
255
-
244
-
240
-
233
-
228
-
213
-
212
-
205
-
199
-
Iran ties down at most a Carrier group already assigned to teh region, and in no way pulls assets from the Pacific. China is still hemmed in by India, Indonesia, ASEAN, Philippines, South Korea, Guam, Japan, Australia, etc. US isn't going it alone. Iran cannot project power outside of their territorial waters unless the Western nations allow it, such as right now.
Also, Saudi Arabia, Israel, NATO and others could potentially help with the Iran issue with ease. Pakistan is hemmed in by India. China fights alone in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.
198
-
197
-
192
-
185
-
183
-
183
-
183
-
182
-
182
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
180
-
179
-
178
-
178
-
175
-
173
-
172
-
171
-
165
-
163
-
161
-
159
-
158
-
158
-
157
-
156
-
156
-
155
-
153
-
151
-
147
-
146
-
141
-
140
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
137
-
136
-
136
-
136
-
136
-
128
-
128
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
124
-
123
-
122
-
119
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
115
-
114
-
112
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
107
-
104
-
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
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
100
-
99
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
90
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
83
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
It's useful, if done right, following actual tactics, missions, objectives, and with everyone playing by the rules. With the intent of building teamwork, practicing specific maneuvers, or rehearsing a mission (like a large sandbox walkthrough). But if you're just playing randomly with random other people, maybe not so much.
It just all depends upon how you're using it, who you're doing it with, why you're doing it, and what you're hoping to achieve.
Good exercise, good fun otherwise.
55
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
@jebise1126 if the ammo isn't produced anymore, it's because the weapon system is obsolete and we're just burning through legacy stockpiles. When I joined the Army after 9/11, we spent years finishing up burning through stockpiles of various obsolete munitions from WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Once it was gone we fully switched to the new stuff.
Ammo is cheap and easy to build compared to the weapons themselves. And given how many Russian tanks were destroyed, and how many lacked real ERA, the T-62 and BMPs and other light armor can easily be defeated by cheap RPG-7, of which a factory in the US is the largest manufacturer, and they are very cheap and simple to make. As the war shifts, we use less and less of certain weapons. Ukraine is not using a lot of those high tech AT missiles anymore. They are using drones with simple munitions, RPGs, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, etc. HIMARS is one of their most advanced weapons being used to great effect right now. and they are simpler than a Javelin in terms of technology.
Ukraine has already developed one of their own homegrown HIMARS rockets for example. They figured out how to make a variant of their own they could make themselves in Ukraine so they could fire more often. It probably isn't as good or as long ranged as the other variants, but it just has to be good enough, and mass producible.
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
the 1880s to 1960s alone was incredible, and that was a mere 80yrs. the last Civil War veteran died in, I believe, 1952.
Submarines
Automobiles
Iron Warships with modern weapons
Airplanes
Helicopters
Manned spaceflight
Nuclear bombs and reactors
Electricity, electric light
Radio
TV
Vacuum tubes, transistors
Computers
Radar
Sonar
Jet engines
Gasoline engines
Diesel engines
ICBMs
Cruise missiles
Remote Control Vehicles
microwave
modern medicine (penicillin, blood plasma, surgeries, etc.)
Farming with tractors and combines
Advances in firearms
Dinosaurs, Galaxies, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, most of modern physics...
The evolution of engineering as a specific career
Mach 1, 2, 3, etc.
Landing on the Moon
.......
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
@jaylee5692 were you ever issued thermals? We had individual thermals in Afghanistan, and thermal scopes on all the M2, Mk19, and M240.
Then the cost of the M4, and for some reason they issued my unit 1 Aimpoint M2, 1 Trijicon, and 1 Eotech PER SOLDIER in Afghanistan. I ended up running the Eotech with 3X zoom. Don't forget weapon lights, and some units get lasers. then radios and GPS units (Dagger/plugger).
Then there is the M203s we had, and the AT-4s, M249, uniforms, rucks, poncho, sleeping bags, cold/wet wx gear, boots, body armor (front/rear/side plates, carrier, and helmet), first aid kit, combat life saver bags (everyone in my unit was trained), etc.
That stuff isn't cheap.
42
-
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
-
90,000 US factories outsourced to third world countries due to globalism and lack of reasonable tariffs for decades.
If every factory employed at least 200 employees on average (janitors, engineers, HR, finance, transportation, inventory, line workers, electricians, etc.), that is MILLIONS of jobs people would have right now.
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
Guns only, lightweight, super maneuverable, unarmored aircraft were already proven obsolete in WW2 with the Japanese designs. And the Japanese designs were built to a doctrine that was already obsolete in the 1930s.
the fact they saw no value in missiles, shows how ignorant they were. Not to mention how important range has been in a design since WW2 (Zero, P-51, B-21, F-35, extended range F-16/F-18/F-15, etc.). In fact, Sparrow missiles scored a large portion of air to air victories in vietnam, as well as Sidewinders.
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
Years ago I was living in Northern AZ, and someone cut a major line while digging, cutting off internet to much of the state for about 3 days. Couldn't buy gas unless you had cash, cellphones weren't working, etc. It was awesome. People actually came outside, sat in the grass (what there is in AZ), had great conversations. Best 3 days of living in AZ I had. But once the cable was repaired, it was over. everyone back inside, stopped talking to each other, heads down in their phones, it was depressing. I grew up pre-internet, pre-cellphone, and I hate the way things are now.
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
Living alone, I had to start working on my cooking skills if i wanted to enjoy better food and more options. Now I find enjoyment in cooking and learning new things/recipes. Why do women see cooking as so demeaning? A nice homecooked meal has incredible positive psychological value. Not to mention cost saving, healthier diet... But I can handle my own cooking, so women now have to bring something else to the table of value. Already do all my own chores too (cut grass, clear snow, trash, laundry, home repair, general cleaning, dishes...).
The things of value women can bring to a relationship are getting more demanding as time goes on since all the things they used to add to a relationship are being handled. And the last thing I want is someone stopping me from using my hard earned cash to do science/engineering experiments, enjoy hobbies, go on vacations...enjoying the ability to spend money on things I've wanted to own since I was young and can now afford.
29
-
29
-
29
-
@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
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
Star Wars was a passion of mine since I first saw it.
Much later in life in Iraq and Afghanistan I would read Star Wars novels I found among books sent by the USO between missions. I'd often have one in my cargo pocket or in the truck while on patrol (we'd often time have stops along the way with nothing to do but wait).
One day I was realizing I wanted a certain book to read, but couldn't find it. Coincidentally I heard a bit of advice from one of the Star Wars writers (I believe it may have been Aaron Allston) who said that, "if you can't find the book you want to read, write it". I immediately began work on a scifi story I'm still working on slowly in the background. A Star Wars-like epic, with enough material now for well over 3 books.
I really like that Carrie echoed this idea of George Lucas making the movie "he wanted to see". Bring the passion to the work. Create something you're passionate about. As another author said, "no tears in the writer, no tears in the reader". Write what you know, and if you feel it when you're writing it, the audience will feel it when they read it. The lead female character in my story is also much as Carrie described George wanting Leia to be (I too am influenced and inspired by my favorite stories, movies, and TV shows like Lucas).
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
@Jamie-wh3kd The fact you have to ask is telling.
how women can hold sway over them, how women can help them in their careers, etc. Women, who know how, can have immense influence over the family, and her efforts and influence can enable a man to reach levels in his career he couldn't achieve alone. Smart women know how to use their power effectively, even if in such a way most people don't realize it's being wielded.
there is a saying, "behind every great man is a great woman.", and that used to mean something. Most modern women have no clue what it means or why it matters. Instead of using their talents for the betterment of society and the family, they seek the destruction of society and the family for their own personal gain.
A proper family works together as a unit, to achieve more than is possible alone.
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
I lived for 3.5yrs in AZ on $9k-$11k in expenses per year.
That was rent, food, utilities, cellphone, car insurance, gas, car maintenance, etc. I have all my tracked expenses and budget to prove it. That was with rent being $640/month for a single bedroom apartment.
Where I live today, post-Bidenomics, food has gone up (nearly 2x), gas has gone up (~1.5x), rent has gone up to about $1100, but most everything else has remained comparable in terms of expense, slightly higher. So a person could live on closer to $18k where I live now. But wages are far higher too. An entry level job in AZ was minimum wage, $15k/yr, but now you can easily find places offering $15'hr to over $20/hr if you're not lazy and willing to work. So expenses haven't doubled for me, but entry level wages for workers have doubled, tripled or more. I've known of misc jobs that were offering as high as $35/hr starting with no experience (labor jobs, but nothing like concrete nor plumbing, welding, etc.).
House prices, car prices, land price, etc. all Suck! But it's still possible to live. people just expect too much early in their lives and don't know how to be frugal and not splurge on everything. People have become glutenous consumers.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Math isn't hard. Most math teachers do a terrible job. I've proven this, and I've seen others do it as well. There are better ways to teach math. I wouldn't change the content, but rather the delivery. I tutor many people in math, from grade school through college level, and the one thing students Always say to me over and over is, "Why didn't they just tell me that from the beginning!?", after I explain it my way. It's become my catch phrase. I've helped students completely turn around their understanding in a course, in as little as 10min before.Too many math teachers were those who never struggled at math the way most do. It came more naturally to them, and so they don't understand why everyone is so confused. I was good at math, but had to work at it, I was not a natural. I have extremely high empathy, which helps me understand another person's point of view as well. I teach others the way I wish I had been taught. Math has been over complicated by these math teachers. Also, some math people want to feel superior over others, and so sometimes will do something to establish their superiority over others, not caring the damage they re doing to math overall. Me, I know most people are perfectly Capable of understanding math no problem. The issue is how it is being taught, and personal motivations of the student as well. Just because someone Can learn something, doesn't mean they Want to.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
Best plane to never fight? HA!!! Never wise to make such bold statements, especially regarding dubious aircraft choices.
Ta-152, DeHavilland Hornet, XF-107, F8U-3 Crusader II, YF-23, F-16XL, F-20, Avro Arrow, YF-12, and countless others deserve that title FAR more.
18
-
@shwethang4347 Most deployed soldiers are terrible shots, and blame the ammo for failing to hit the target. 5.56 has tons of "stopping" power.
But, please explain, objectively, and scientifically, what you think stopping power is? And then explain why the 5.56 doesn't have it.
I deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, fought as a front line grunt for years. The M4 worked just fine for us. We also had the M2 and 240B if we needed to reach out and touch someone. Or, we could get support for helicopters, artillery, marksmen, etc.
I was hitting 500m with Ease in Afghanistan with my M4, and could have hit further if necessary.
also, 5.56 penetrates body armor that will stop a 6.8, 7.62, etc.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
yes. many WW2 aircraft survived the war and soldiered on for years longer (C-47, P-51, F4U, A-1, A-26, etc.).
Then you had this short era of rapid development following WW2 in which aircraft service lives were sometimes shorter than their WW2 ancestors. Lots of designs, lots of failures and some successes.
And then coming out of the late 50s and into the 60s we got a series of aircraft that just won't die. A-4, U-2, C-130, B-52, and many more.
we went from aircraft lasting 6-30yrs, to lasting 1-3yrs, to lasting decades.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@thewryneckarchivist no, that's not it. They lack empathy to begin with. Empathy tends to grow with knowledge, not diminish.
Those who become mathematicians, tend to be those who never struggled with math growing up. They never struggled as their students do/will. They can't understand why students don't understand things, because they never struggled with it. To them concepts came easily, and too often they only know one right way to solve problems, their way. The Way that came so easy to them, even if that way is a more complicated way to solve things.
Teachers who also learned math through struggle make better teachers. They can see how a student is stumbling, recognize the struggle with a given concept, as they once experienced it as well. They can explain the problem in different ways, to help the student understand.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
A-10 is cheaper per hour for the bombs put on target than other jets. Longer loiter time, slower and lower on target (smart munitions are making their mark now though). The gun may not work as well against certain targets, but not all targets are heavy main battle tanks either. The gun works for troops, bunkers, etc too. The psychological effect of the A-10 and its gun on the enemy should not be overlooked. I've been in Combat and gotten support from Kiowas, Apaches, Cobras, Predators, and A-10s, B-1, etc. Seeing those A-10s coming in low making danger close gun runs has a huge effect on friendly troops, and enemy troops, good for us, bad for them. Since the 30mm isn't good enough, then the 20mm of other jets is even less effective. and why should infantry and helicopters have 50cal and 20mm if they are worthless? guns are guns, and they work.
The gun is also objectively better than the gun on the Su-25, but i don't hear anyone complaining about that.
Bullet holes are hard to count from the air, and bombs falling afterwards can mask gun kills. Just look at the over estimated impact of CAS on tanks in WW2, such as by the Typhoon.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@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
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@GoodAvatar In what way, specifically, did Trump attack the 1A? Why is asking for oversight of vote counting a bad thing? Are liberals not loud and stupid?
If Trump was so wrong, why is Biden building the wall? Why is Biden ending the war in Afghanistan as Trump planned? Why is Biden trying to attack the Constitution and claiming "we the people" is not eh citizens, but instead the gov itself? Why is the left attacking the 2A hardcore? Why are independents, libertarians, and conservatives being censored online? Why are centrists and conservatives being targeted? why are Christians being blanket labeled as terrorists, far right, and scum? Why is the left racist against whites? Why is the left sexist against women? Look what happens when anyone in Hollywood speaks out against the left. What happens when anyone questions "climate change" with cold hard scientific facts and analysis? What about questioning COVID using facts, data, and science?
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
I have 4 degrees (all in STEM), and yes I've held jobs using all of them including presently. Yet, I am the first to advocate for trades, apprenticeships, entrepreneurship, etc over college. Unless you're going to school for things like Law, Medicine, STEM, or a proper business degree, forget college. Not everyone should go to college, nor does everyone need to. I've always been top of my class in math, sciences, engineering, even at college. It works for me and I got all 4 of those degrees without any debt. But it doesn't work for everyone, nor does it need to. Not everyone needs to be an artist, musician, engineer, mathematician, lawyer, etc. We need all sorts of people for society to function properly.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Su-25 does NOT have a straight wing, a simple investigation will show this. it is a tapered and swept wing, and can go Mach 1 without external payload.
Su-25s are tough, but they lack many of the redundancy design features of the A-10. A-10s have come back many times taking significant damage from MANPADs, telephone pole SAMs, and heavy AAA.
A-10s are No more vulnerable than the helicopter, but NO ONE is claiming the Ah-1 and AH-64 is obsolete and should be retired.
You clearly don't know much about this subject. the US has decades of experience dealing with all manner of antiaircraft weapons. Vietnam, 1991, Iraq and Afghanistan. There are good first-hand accounts of these conflicts describing how tactics evolved to deal with all of these threats. Just because Russia sucks at it, doesn't mean everyone does. F-16s were attacking down low and doing gun runs in 1991 while successfully fending off MANPAD attacks the whole time. We have at least 3 high tech countermeasure systems in the west that I am aware of, that have been battle tested and proven to work. Don't make the mistake of drawing bad conclusions from Ukraine. Just like how people are clamoring the "tank is obsolete" when it absolutely is not. We operated for decades in similar conditions of urban warfare with far fewer tank losses than other nations experienced in Syria and Ukraine, because we used them properly.
12
-
12
-
12
-
@xyzoub the average russian soldier has something like less than 2yrs training/experience. the US has a truly professional military where people serve 3-40yrs. On my first combat deployment i had more training and experience than a russian Spetznaz soldier, and better equipment.
24mil russians were slaughtered in WW2 on a single front war, and only survived due to the significant help of the western allies. The US fought in Atlantic, Med, North Africa, Italy, France, Germany, and the entire Pacific, China...all while supplying its allies and russia with food, medicine, ammo, tanks, trucks, airplanes, fuel, ships, etc.
In WW2, russia never conducted interdiction, strategic bombing, etc. just human wave tactics year after year with low grade equipment.
1812? what were the russians doing in 1812? whatever it was, no one seems to deem it worth talking about.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@BloxyHD Not really. I'm not a fan of ritual suicide, and am steadfastly opposed to not letting leaders learn from mistakes. but to be effective in battle, you must be willing to charge the enemy. You have to act like you're too tough for them to kill, too tough for them to beat. You fight like you're life depends on it, because it does. Ideally, you only fight in favorable conditions, but that doesn't always happen. When you get caught unprepared and unaware, you have to fight like hell to survive with the odds stacked against you. simply running away isn't going t o work. Evans knew this, and so tried to slow the enemy advance long enough for the carriers to get to safety. One ship versus the entire task force was worth it. and he achieved his objective and slowed the japanese. He even fought so hard, the japanese thought they were facing the main fleet and ended up retreating. Japan followed Bushido, and they lost. Us didn't follow bushido, and they won.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
@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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Rule of 3s
3 hours without shelter (to include clothing, hat, gloves, etc. as well as something like a tarp/poncho)
3 days without water
3 weeks without food
in teh short term, go light on food, ditch the cooking gear, know that you might be hungry and lose a few pounds, but overall you're going to survive easily without food, or very limited amount of ready to eat food, in a 3-5day pack.
Instead of food, focus on water, including collection and filtering, and on dressing for the environment (from the cold of night, to warmth of day, to dealing with rain and wind and snow). keep it simple, keep it minimal.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@kurtwicklund8901 wrong. they understood that steep mountains are not good for tanks. notice the lack of US armor in the steep mountains of Afghanistan.
Also, transporting tanks and offloading them on islands is hard. the smaller and lighter the tank though, the easier it gets, and the more you can transport.
Look at the tiny tankettes Italy used to fight in the mountains.
China, Korea, SE Asia, pacific islands, are not friendly to heavy armor. the terrain is too steep, too wet, lots of rivers to cross, and it's hard to move large armor to islands. Large tanks are sitting ducks in the terrain china will fight in.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Art Stone, But you're wrong, or rather, FEMA is wrong.
"The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) supports citizens and emergency personnel to build, sustain, and improve the nation's capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards."
FEMA's own name and stated purpose is not exclusive to natural disasters. FEMA even has plans for nuclear war, and that most certainly is not natural.
Is a pandemic a natural disaster? What if that pandemic was actually an engineered biological attack?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@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
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@f-86zoomer37 How about public platform laws be enforced. Censorship and "fact Checking" is editorializing. They are "publishing" select content, while rejecting others. You cannot do this on a platform.
When free to the public platforms are used as a primary means for political representatives to communicate with their constituents, you no longer have the right to censor them. Ona public platform you are free to ignore content you don't like or agree with.
But when private entities control the means of communication for a nation, they become more powerful than the gov itself. This is unacceptable. This is where regulation to ensure a free and fair market exists are necessary. Yes, many of us want a smaller gov, but a gov that still performs its primary functions, such as border security, and in enforcing free market capitalism by preventing monopolies and monopolistic behavior, by preventing lobbyists from overriding the will of the people, by passing laws favoring small businesses and startups over larger businesses, that lets businesses succeed or fail on their own merits and not allowing bailouts, and not allowing businesses to grow so large that they require bailouts to avoid a larger economic collapse, and they can under the idea of monopolistic behavior. "Too big to fail" is an effective monopoly.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@NANA-lq5md Yes, but so does everyone else too, to b honest.
USAF still uses the U-2, F-117, B-52, F-15, F-16, A-10, F-5/T-38, C-130, C-5, etc.
Look at the E-2 and C-2 for the USN.
F-4 was only recently retired. Look how long the F-8, T-33, F4U, P-51, C-47, A-1D, A-26, Mig21, Mig17, and A-4s lasted in service around the world. Tu-95?
Look how long the MG42 family has been in service (not to mention its M60 descendant). 1911?
M113, CH-47 and OH-6 for the US Army?
CH-53 for the USMC?
2.5ton and 5ton trucks, Jeep, Humvee?
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Why it won't be like Stalingrad;
Stalingrad is not in Ukraine
Stalingrad was a Russian war of defense, Ukraine is a Russian war of aggression/offense.
Russia doesn't have the public support.
Russians didn't want to fight in WW2 either, and were conscripted, but they lacked the internet of today to learn truth and to be influenced by outsiders, and mobility is easier today than then.
Russia has no manufacturing today.
Russia has no airpower or artillery of consequence in Ukraine
Ways it will be like Stalingrad;
Russian soldiers are going to starve (no logistics).
Russian soldiers are going to freeze (no logistics, lack of equipment, winter).
Russian conscripts are being sent into battle against their will without training, equipment or weapons.
Russians are going to die in large numbers. (1.2mil Russian casualties in 6moths at Stalingrad).
Russians will be defending due to lack of offensive capability, lack of artillery, lack of airpower, lack of rifles, lack of ammo....
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@catbert7 Yes, in your fantasy utopia everything always works 100% of the time. You've clearly never lived in a frigid climate before. And in my area, 100miles of range is nothing at all. That wouldn't even get me to my Dad's house and back. Also, my car and both of my airplanes cost me less than a single EV. For the cost of an EV, I can buy gas for my car for 32yrs (based upon my average monthly bill for gas over the past 10yrs, yes I keep detailed list of every penny I spend).
Also, wind, solar, and hydro are not viable in my area due to the long dark winters, nearly perpetual cloud cover, irregular winds, etc.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The AIM9 is the first ever operational air to air missile, fitted to F-86 Sabers.
In Vietnam, the USAF F-4s scored;
32 kills with the AIM9
5 kills with the AIM4
50 kills with the AIM7
5 maneuver kills
15 kills with 20mm
not sure what the Navy got.
the F-4 was built as a fleet defense interceptor, and it was not standard to equip interceptors with guns at the time. But everything else had guns still, from the F-8, A-4, F-105, to the F-100, etc.
When the F-4 was designed, the Navy already had the F-8 and A-4, so it didn't want a multirole fighter that wasn't as good at either role as the dedicated aircraft, so they switched it to being an interceptor.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@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
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I'm a logical person, so much so I earned the nicknames "Data" and "Spock" in the military.
Coincidentally, I've also achieved Sun Tzu's greatest victory many times, both in actual combat and in training. Winning without fighting. Winning before the fight ever even started.
But I will not tolerate illogical and irrational people. This is likely why I'm single, and I accept that. Life is short, and I don't want to waste it taking care of an overgrown child.
I can have a peaceful conflict free relationship, if the other person is logical, reasonable, rational, self disciplined, and takes responsibility for themselves.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Exactly right, we should give them no slack and call them on their incompetence mercilessly.
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
it requires planning, coordination, communications, and everyone knowing their roles and responsibilities. Everyone has to be good enough at their respective jobs and disciplined in their execution under fire, such that everyone else can trust them to do their jobs right and on time. But more than that, it requires at least a few people in each element of the operation to have a working understanding of the bigger picture and how the other elements work and are mutually supporting.
Infantry
Tanks
Artillery
Air support
Engineers
etc.
all pieces of the puzzle have their role and timing, and some people have to understand this to ensure they do the right things at eth right time. And even harder than that, they need to know when and how to improvise when things don't go to plan. Recognizing when something has been delayed or accelerated, and understanding that you need to likewise delay or accelerate your element accordingly. Or, if an element is getting defeated, how to help them without compromising the overall mission objectives. Also, the ability to recognize when you are winning, even though it didn't go as planned, and to capitalize on that. And doing all of this, without the elements ever getting in each others' way.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
exactly. Whether moving or non-moving, the more total points of failure you have, the higher statistical likelihood you'll get a failure. Every single cell within a battery is individual critical to the success of teh vehicle.
I can't think of any one comparable component in an ICE car that is so critical to safety as a single cell of an EV battery.
Any one cell goes up, you lose your car, possibly your home, possibly your life.
If any one component fails on an ICE car, you just aren't going anywhere that day, or you pull to the side of the road and call a tow. And there are nowhere near to 7000 critical points of failure in a single ICE car, and that doesn't include an EVs other critical failure points like the brakes, tie rods, ball joints, wheel bearings, suspension arms, shocks and struts, swaybar, transmission, etc.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@nagantm441 Russia does not have fire superiority over Ukraine. Have you not heard the phone calls from Russians, teh interviews with Russians that surrendered?
Russians were getting pounded by Drones, HIMARs, etc.
And it doesn't matter fire superiority. If they land multiple hits on us every day, doesn't matter how many we fire back, they still hit us every day. the effectiveness of enemy artillery against your position, isn't determined by how many rounds you sent back in their direction. It matters how many rounds they send your way, how often, and how effective it is. Are they hitting things? are they disrupting our operations? etc. And the fact they were able to hit us so frequently even after years of fighting should tell you something.
Yes, they lacked long range artillery, because we had radar that can detect single rounds, and can trace it back to its launcher even before it hits the ground. so the further away it was, the higher it's trajectory, the easier it was to detect and track on radar and return fire. So they were smart and moved in closer and fired low angle shots at us to stay under the radar. But they still got their rounds out on our positions. But it's still artillery. it still kills people. it still sends people heading for cover. it still damages vehicles and buildings.
Still waiting for your combat experiences with artillery.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@waefawawrgaw2835 who is starving in the US? I can feed an adult for less than $30/month. We have food banks and charities, welfare, etc. Stop telling lies.
Poverty was all but eliminated in the US. Almost every job is paying well above poverty line.
Poverty in the US today is a CHOICE.
US healthcare is the best in the world, and that's a fact. it's also expensive due to corporatism of the insurance companies, doctor's union, and big pharma like pfizer colluding with the gov to keep prices high and stamp out any competition. I drew up a business plan a few years ago to offer MRI for $40 each, and Xrays for $20 each, and it was hugely profitable, but illegal in my state.
US spends the most on education in the world, the failure is due to gov run education, no child left behind, stripping teachers of authority and discretion, lack of parenting, woke nonsense being taught rather than history and math, and emphasis on testing rather than actual learning. Private schools in the US are doing FAR better on Far less money, and the students, parents, and teachers are all happier. Also, homeschooling is an option and homeschooled kids overall outperform their public school peers in college due to a variety of factors.
So stop whining, stop lying, stop making excuses, and stop spreading false propaganda.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Wrong. I could show Ukraine how to defeat the minefields and breach, but they lack the skills and experience to execute it.
Also, NATO has access to abilities Ukraine doesn't , like air power, air assault, paratroopers, and more that changes the game if used properly and appropriately.
Ukraine lacks skill at timing and combined arms warfare, which is crucial to defeating the Russian defenses. Ukraine is proving not good at making good mathematical decisions regarding which attacks to use and when either. This is something Many nations/people are bad at, not just Ukraine. people struggle to make the tough rational call, and people struggle to play the game of: yes you'll take losses now, but you'll lose less overall if you do X now than if you delay and try something else later. People would rather bleed themselves slower and lose more in the long-run, than to take one big hit early (but overall smaller losses), but win the long-game and save more lives in the end.
Ukraine is demonstrating good strategic thinking regarding drone attacks, but not regarding ground attacks.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sperez5402 many other aircraft in history that size only ever had 2 engines.
having 3 engines creates cost, weight, maintenance, range, and other issues.
Sticking 3 engines in signals they couldn't achieve the performance on only 2. US has achieved far better on only 2 jet engines since WW2. Look at the A-5, F-111, F-14, XF-108, SR-71, F-22, F-15EX, and many more.
the B-2 has engines, but it's a large bomber.
B-21 only has 2 engines.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Faith is the belief in something in the Absence of Proof. The problem is that many parents themselves have never thought deeply about their beliefs either. They don't know what Faith really is, and they don't know how to defend their faith against terrible arguments of "science". 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.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
2:00 most things that persist in time are rooted in truth.
the joke about most women walking around unmedicated is one such example. Or the fact MOST societies and religions in ALL of human history found it necessary to Limit the choices of women, and for the men to be involved in selecting mating partners and enforcing behaviors such as monogamy upon them, should tell you something. The fact that literature going back to King Arthur, great philosophers, and more all describe women's behavior accurately should be a warning, is meant to be a warning, to us. It's all rooted in fundamental truths.
Yes, many women are not like that, and rise above these behaviors, etc. But they are not the majority of women, they are the exceptions, and they are the women men fought wars over and made exceptions for.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@markharc7615 To run a nation successfully, and defend it successfully, requires cold hard facts and logical reasoning, over emotion. Leaders have to be able to make hard choices based upon objective facts and reality, and to be able to choose the lesser of evils (sometimes sacrificing a few to save the rest). And at times, leaders must also be individually strong and capable to achieve or maintain their status. Women, overall, have proven an overall inability to perform consistently and reliably in this manner over the course of their lives.
Physical strength, ability to set emotions aside, objectivity regardless of personal feelings, and the ability to make hard choices that involve the deaths of people.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@crusader5989 The P-47 couldn't win a dogfight for bragging rights stateside. Pilots would dogfight for beers and prestige, and everyone learned to just not go up high and force the P-47 low and the fight was guaranteed.
Greg tends to focus on theoretical ideal performance, not real world (various states of maintenance, wear, pilot skill, etc.). And some of my data comes from pilots who fly the real planes today.
How many air races has the P-47 competed in, let alone won? How many speed records does the P-47 hold?
P-39s were actually good, and US pilots admitted they were overly harsh on it, and it actually still managed a positive kill ratio in US hands. And Greg has a whole video on this. And I've found additional supporting evidence of my own as well.
The P-47 wasn't bad, especially the P-47N, but it simply was Not as good as the P-51 except in toughness/ruggedness because it was massively overbuilt. The F4U used the same engine and was a better airplane (and actually competed in air races and won), it just wasn't as good at high altitude as teh P-47, but it could do everything else the P-47 could do and better.
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
peer review is a scientific process. It merely means you must share your data, your calculations, and your conclusions, so others are able to validate, test, and confirm or deny your results. This is a Necessary part of science. But it doesn't Have to be peer reviewed, just Able to be peer reviewed if anyone was so inclined to verify your work, or had doubts about your methods or conclusions.
Peer review as a gate keeping method is something entirely different, very real, and very much an issue. Preventing people from publishing their work is anti-science, anti-peer review.
AI peer review has forced tens of thousands of "peer reviewed" papers to be depublished for fraud, plagiarism, and false conclusions. AI is highly logical, and will sniff out the flaws with ease.
Veritasium did a whole video on the topic of how studies were showing that ~60% of all published "peer reviewed" research is false and doesn't hold up to the rules of scientific inquiry. Had those items faced true peer review, they'd have been caught much sooner.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@senseofthecommonman Had the Typhoon not existed, other aircraft would have been mass produced even more so than the troublesome and maintenance intensive Typhoon, that would have destroyed those trains and such instead. Therefore, no meaningful difference would have occurred. The Typhoon did a job, that other planes could also have done had the Typhoon not been an option. All the manufacturing and maintenance resources for the Typhoons would have gone into other airframes doing that same job.
And being a combat vet who has received air support from many types (A-10, F-18, AV-8B, B-1, AH-64, OH-58, AH-1, AC-130, MQ-1...). I don't care which aircraft puts ordnance on target, just so long as someone does it. I don't get personally attached to the aircraft, only the results.
The Typhoons consumed a lot of resources in terms of material, engineering, maintenance, time, etc, that could have gone into less troublesome airframes.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@greendroid77 "That depends on where you live in the States."
wow, you just figured that out? that's literally what "market rate" means.
"No one owes you equal outcome. "
I never claimed they did, you did. I get paid over market rate, as I work hard and do good work.
"Everyone these days has grown up having it so good they think they're owed a cushy job and a cushy place to live."
Agreed, most people are far better off than they try to claim. But that's not what I was addressing. I'm addressing the false argument boomers try to make, which is borderline Illegal by federal law even.
"Why because you went to college? No one made me go to college thank God as I knew it was a scam."
I never said anything about college, or needing to go to college. I did, and did it debt free, and got degrees in STEM, and it was well worth it for me.
" I went out and got my hands dirty and ate shit sandwiches for many years."
So? I did that as a child, then went to college and got a white collar job. Has no bearing on teh argument. You're starting to sound like a boomer in fact.
" Every older generation has always gotten a head start on the new generation you're not special or unique like your gen Z mommy's might have told you."
wow, you're immature. I'm not Gen Z in the slightest. Your behavior is only validating my original comment.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
4
-
4
-
4
-
@astronite1220 I've been "barefoot" for the past 7 years continuously, year round. Both in deserts, Rocky mountains, and even snow in the northern US. I do wear shoes, but they offer no warmth (I rely on a set of socks for that in winter), no padding, no support, and no heel lift. They are like a mechanics glove, I can ball them up and put them in my pocket if I want. I hike local/state/national park trails in them, carry loads with them, do physical work in them. I feel every rock, tree branch, pointy object, etc beneath my feet. Yes it does hurt at times when i step on something undesirable, but I also find I respond faster to such situations too, and don't step as hard, resulting in few actual injuries from such objects. My ankles, calves and feet are stronger, and my balance is improved. It takes time to get used to it (weeks to months at least), to strengthen muscles, but my knees feel far better than ever (that I injured in Iraq), and when I run/climb I even push off the jagged edges of rocks. People are always amazed when they see me do it, and my family still make comments all these years later about my shoes and how they think I'm crazy. But the barefoot approach is far better, and the science backs it up. That doesn't mean everyone has to do it, just that it does work if you actually give it a chance. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ПавелКузнецов-ф3т "Red dot isn`t going to help your aim because you did not aim in such enviroment, because enemy are not easy to detect. You shoot on sound with long bursts because they often very close to you and there is a not a zero chance to hit someone. "
wow, are you a 12yr old airsofter? no way you're an actual vet.
Shooting at sound? unacceptable. Only shoot at what you can see or if someone calls out a confirmed target. If you can't see them, chances are they can't see you either, so don't stupidly give away your position.
Red dots still work in the woods. If all you're ever doing is lying prone, sure, lie on your belly like a coward while the rest of us actually do something. Not everywhere is tall grass, and even then you're saying why have iron sights, since they are as useless in your ONE scenario.
You give a rare and singular example fo what Might happen in a singular moment, and assume ALL combat is identical in every way to your one Singular example. And it's not even a good or legit example. Your tactics in that situation are trash.
I love fighting people who fight as you do. Very easy to defeat, as your tactics and understanding of combat are childish. you have given NO legitimate unbiased reasons why you shouldn't have a red dot.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@W I've thought about it, but I'm more likely to write a whole book on education. I've spent 15+yrs in the college system (too long) as a student, instructor, tutor... As well as worked in 3 different career fields, all of which involved me training people on skills specific to those fields. I've also volunteered in multiple STEM educational programs for kids.
One key is simply empathy. Another is focusing on what is important (and being able to recognize what is/isn't important). Another is understanding the theory of teaching rather than focusing on mindless procedures to satisfy some arbitrary metric. Repetition is another key concept. Understanding the "Learning Curve", and using it to your advantage. Structuring homework in a FAR better fashion with more realistic and practical approaches to grading. Understanding that people learn more/faster through failure, and by helping others. So many ideas, and applicable aspects, any one of which i could dive into at the drop of a hat and talk for hours.
Then the trick is to apply all of this to specific topics and in a classroom environment. Once again, I have even more ideas about the classroom environment, and on how to figure out which method to use to teach a subject to a class, since there is always more than one way.
And so much more. And I have tested these ideas personally, and made adjustments to them based on how it went (and continue to adjust my ideas and methods, and seek out other peoples' ideas).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Aqua Fyre 100 volunteers in a single attack? last I heard only 20 died. and casualties are expected, the volunteers know that. Keep in mind most of those foreign volunteers are combat hardened veterans of other wars, not idealistic children seeking glory. Even if russia managed to kill 200, weeks ago over 16,000 foreign volunteer soldiers had entered Ukraine. Russia has a singular pitiful strike to point to.
There is no misguided bravery here. I fought overseas, and we fell in on new equipment and developed new tactics on-the-spot with no prior training on how to operate or use them, and were continually given new prototype equipment to use as time went on. Cross training is easier than people claim, especially when you're using it all day every day. It's not bravery so much, when you know what you're doing from Experience.
perhaps you should try your Russian propaganda and fear mongering on people wit no actual combat experience, they are more gullible to your words. Also, trying to propagandize people dedicated to fighting communist ideas like that of Russian gov, US democrat party, and Chinese CCP is a waste of your time.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1) good hygiene has nothing to do with femininity.
2) sure, he'll bow to your authority, but you wont respect him or love him any more either.
3) I already do 100% of the chores now, and my house is cleaner than most single women's'.
4) I understand women, because I was raised by women. But that is also why I am still single too.
5) yes, it does. That's why we call them Betas and Soy Boys. You wont respect a weak man (see #2).
6) depends upon what you deem bad habits. totally subjective. Women have awful habits too, so I don't see how this works.
7) all scientific evidence to the contrary.
8) all evidence to the contrary. Total BS.
9) literally scientifically false. Symptoms of low testosterone listed below. Complete lie.
Low sex drive.
Erectile dysfunction.
Decreased sense of well-being.
Depressed mood.
Difficulties with concentration and memory.
Fatigue.
Moodiness and irritability.
Loss of muscular strength.
10) yes, because he's a Beta, Simp, emotional Soy Boy. More likely to become a stalker too when you divorce him.
11) women prefer strong men. As Jordan Peterson says; be a Monster, and then learn to control it. (see #2)
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko "That's a ridiculous statement. BVR missile is a fire and forget type missile that cannot differentiate friend from foe."
Wrong. The Mig29 lacks sufficient long range radar, as Ukraine shows. US missiles and radar are more advanced, and US datalink and such CAN differentiate friend and foe in BVR and provide targeting guidance to the missile. Thus the Mig29 never gets close enough to maneuver with teh F-18, and since they never get close enough, teh missile doesn't have to worry about friendlies mixed with enemies in BVR shots.
Russia can't distinguish friend from foe, but US can, as ukraine is proving.
"In 2019 The Indian Air Force confirmed that it shot down one of its own helicopters during clashes with Pakistan in February over Kashmir, killing all six on board. "
exactly, flying russian aircraft, lacking US friend or foe technology in teh F-18.
"BVR missiles, according to data from the Gulf war, the accuracy of BVR missiles is only 34%."
the Gulf War was OVER 30 YEARS AGO!!!!!
Shit has changed since then, in the US (not in Russia).
"Nowadays, there are many countermeasures such as flares, missile decoys, electronic warfare system and laser to misdirect, disrupt or blind oncoming missiles."
which modern US and Israeli systems have been designed to ignore.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@fyrchmyrddin1937 exactly.
Hypersonics are also stupid expensive, and so to use them like you would a TOW, when the TOW, Javelin, NLAW, and many others are getting it done at a fraction of the cost, is not justified. When you spend $150mil to take out a single T-72 from the 1980s, you're going to lose the war in the long run. Or when facing a T-55, why waste a Javelin when an $11k RPG-7 will be more than enough?
the US also evaluated supersonic vs subsonic cruise missiles decades ago, and found the subsonic Tomahawks were better. The supersonic missiles have to fly higher and could be detected farther away, where as the slower sea skimming missiles could get within a few missile before being detected. The slower cruise missiles were also cheaper and better able to be used more cost effectively to overwhelm defenses. There was more to their study/results than I'm saying. But they found subsonics made more sense overall, at least thus far.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mikebreen2890 "We don't actually need a huge amount more electricity, that's the bottom line. "
I want evidence to back up this childishly naive claim.
solar isn't cheap energy. Solar isn't even viable where I live. I'd have to cover every square inch of my land in solar to even convert my house from gas to electric furnace. I'd have no lawn, no trees, the house and sidewalk/driveway would all have to be completely shaded out. And then I'd still have to cut down all my neigbhor's trees to prevent them from casting shadows on my solar panels. And all of that would cost more than my house is worth.
My coworker has a VW EV, and he's installing some solar of his house, and it costs 40k, and wont power his house, only part of it. I can pay my current annual electric and gas utilities bill for 44yrs for that much money.
a single EV car is like adding an entire new house to the grid. if you calculate the total miles driven by all cars in the US each year, and convert that into kW hours needed of energy for EVs to travel that far, and that is how much additional grid energy we need. and to provide that much energy to the grid requires a band new power plant (either nuclear, coal, oil, or gas powered) every single week for 30 yrs to add that much additional electric capacity to the US grid.
Electricity isn't free nor magically produced.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@grizwoldphantasia5005 the 3 best dive bombers of WW2? F4U, A-36, and take your pick for the third (SBD, SB2C, Val, Ju87, etc.).
The A-36 service life had nothing to do with its accuracy. It was a stop gap limited run until the P-51 production started. But the airplane was praised by people like Robert Johnson, and so beloved by its pilots, who preferred it over the P-47 even, that they flew them until the very last one was damaged beyond repair. They fought tooth and nail to keep those planes flying to avoid switching to something else.
The F4U became the Navy dive bomber by the end of the war, with a 4000lb payload it was the F-35 of its day. Decks being filled with F4U and A-1 after the war.
A-36 and F4U were far superior to the SBD, SB2C and others due to multirole fighter capability (self escorting), accuracy, speed, etc. And could use a variety of bombs as well as rockets.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wbertie2604 the B-17 was not in service for 30years in a meaningful way. It's primary service life was 1936-1945, 9yrs, after which it was RAPIDLY phased out of service in favor of the B-29, B-50, B-36, B-58, B-45, B-47, B-57, etc. Some B-17 were used longer simply due to massive surplus of parts, airframes, and pilots. But they were not used as bombers, but rather target drones, engine testbeds, and special missions. Research, not operational bombers after 1945.
B-58 was 1960-1970, 10yrs
Curious you conveniently left of the F8F with a service life of only 7yrs.
Keep in mind that WW2 ended in 1945, and in the 20 years afterwards we got things like the B-52, U-2, C-130, A-12, F-86, A-4, F-8, F-106, F-4, F8U-3, etc. A lot of airframes came and went in those years due to the rapid pace of development, and the changes in tactics as a result. There was a lot of tactical theory flying around that was found to be wrong in light of actual conflicts, and doctrines and designs had to change to adapt to those realities, as you stated.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@michaelwittkopp3379 "But, MANPADs have one major problem; If you are 50...60 miles behind your lines, you don't have one ready, nor available. You have a very small window to shoot down even a slow helicopter. It'd have to be circling overhead. "
wild baseless speculation devoid of any understanding of how real combat works. If there are enough targets 50-60mi behind the lines to justify sending helicopters, those units will also have their air defense assets with them or supporting them as well. you're literally making crap up, but it's pure fantasy on your part.
"I expect future helicopters to be faster, stealthier, with more fire and forget type of weapons. Even ground sensing navigational aids. "
you obviously don't know anything about helicopters. they have an inherent speed limit, which is why they don't already go faster. I am a professional helicopter pilot. And they already have ground sensing navaids, but that doesn't help avoid MANPADs nor destroy targets. Helicopters have also had firer and forget weapons for decades, but you can't shoot unless you have some sort of preliminary guidance or targeting data.
"Ps. Think back to Ukraine's first raid on that Belgorod refinery. It was done with helicopters, and not even the KA-52 Alligators, only MI-17s. Even the present day AH-64 Apache is far superior than both, at such missions."
yeah, try that again.....and what if you were fighting a competent military with actual air defenses?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@aldopedroso6212 When you see what 600 B-29 can do in a fire bombing raid, and then a single bomber comes over and nearly matches it.
Imagine what 600 bombers, each carrying nukes, would do in a single night to Japan.
It helped convince the Emperor that if they continued to fight on they faced near total destruction, not just economically, but as a culture/race as a whole.
The bombs help put the nail in the coffin, and saved millions of lives from pointless destruction.
If you study the US logistical and research elements of WW2 in enough detail, you'd be surprised how methodical EVERY decision was, and how every weapon was evaluated for production. they did studies on everything. tracked data on everything they could, in every theater. it seems cold hearted, but it's just science. that's a largely ignored reason why the US is so good at war. We are methodical, competitive, and HIGHLY scientific in our approach to everything.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sheevinit1490 "It's not the plane, it's the pilot. Is the F-16 a better airplane than the MiG-29? Yes."
yes, exactly, the F-16 is a better plane, and so with equal pilots, the F-16 wins. With better pilots the F-16 always wins. It would require a better than average Mig29 pilot, against a lesser F-16 pilot, and/or element of surprise or vastly superior numbers to beat the F-16.
This also means that Ukraine has better pilots than Russia since they have been able to survive and defeat superior Su-27 family aircraft and weapons using inferior Mig29. This is why russia fears Ukraine getting F-16, as they know it's a better plane and that Ukraine has the better pilots.
"In the hands of a skilled pilot and armed with equivalent weaponry, the MiG-29 is easily a counter to the F-16."
yes, if you stack the deck in the Mig29 favor, it's possible.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@deucebollards The stated definitions are not objective definitions. The 1994 ban did Nothing to stop mass shootings like Columbine, nor have we seen a huge spike in gun violence since it was lifted. AR15s have become the single most popular firearm in America since (making them unbannable by the way, common usage), and rifles of ALL kinds (that includes AR15s, plus bolt actions, lever actions, single shot...) only account for less than 400 deaths per year (compared to almost 10,000 gang-related gun homicides every year in Democrat run cities like Chicago, NYC, LA, Seattle, Detroit, etc. where guns are highly restricted already.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Zankaroo the pilots did fail, as they also failed with the P-38 initially.
But yes, the ultimate failure was that of the gov/military officials.
But just like the P-38, P-51, F4U, Spitfire, and others, once teh bugs got worked out it turned into a capable plane that could fight a Zero and win. Pilots wanted to turn fight and be aggressive, and they had to be taught to be more patient and use boom and zoom and wingman tactics to win (true for all of the best US fighters including the P-51, F4U, P-47, etc.). The age of pure maneuvering to win dogfights died in the 1930s, and the new pilots had to be taught that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rsr3959 I can work with that. 5min seems a reasonable rule of thumb. I can easily sit for much longer than that, but I see where you're coming from. Yes, weather conditions dependent. sometimes I can listen in to a group of people's conversations from across the street in town, or from 1/4mile down the trail outdoors depending upon conditions. But other times it's them who can hear me and I can't hear them. When sound is an issue, I also focus Heavily on moving slowly and deliberately (you can learn a lot from watching how deer move in the woods). I also try to mask any noise with background sounds (moving along a noisy river, although that is a double edge sword), time my movements with intermittent sounds, etc. I also wear minimalist shoes all the time too, as they are much quieter than stiff soled boots/shoes, and better for your feet, balance, and other aspects of physical fitness. But they allow me to move much more quietly and make me far more mindful of what is beneath my feet and where I am stepping (becomes subconscious).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Blackmamba12345 I've only ever had to replace a water pump on one vehicle, and that model had a known water pump issue. never had to replace on on any other vehicle, EVER.
never once replaced an exhaust.
dpf? what is that? egr? never heard of it.
what does a cambelt do exactly? pretty sure none of my cars have one.
brakes and tires are on EVs too, and tires wear out faster on EVs.
"Electric cars only require tyres, wiper blades and brakes that’s it."
I already said that in my earlier response, you didn't read it. you also have gearbox oil, battery coolant, wiper fluid, ball joints, tie rods, shocks and struts, drive axles from the gearbox to the wheels, front end alignments, tire rotations and balancing, risk of water damage and corrosion, headlights, blinkers, taillights, trunk lights, door locks, window mechanisms, software updates, etc.
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JE-zl6uy I've been in college recently, these kids would learn far more outside of college than in it. They can get an even Better foundation as I did, in the real world. Books and Knowledge are at our fingertips. Many college courses are self-guided study anyways, you're teaching yourself. But instead of doing it for free, you pay someone to bless you as you do it. I've never met a truly smart person who was not opposed to our education system in its current state, even many of my professors are dismayed at the state of college education these days. I have been in the college system for the past 16yrs, and I have watched it change. I have been a student, an instructor, a tutor and mentor. I have 4 degrees now, in multiple fields of study. I've got many patents, world records, and earned awards along the way in the various careers I've had. College was an impediment more than a help along the way. I'm done with college, even though I have enough material to fill 7 PhD thesis's in 3 different fields of study. I've had enough of the train wreck college has become.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
My rule for extended fasting, is that you look at what the healthy weight range is for you, and compare that to what your weight is. the difference (if you have excess weight above that), is what you can use for extended fasting without issues.
Let's say you weight 200lb, but should be around 160-180lb. That's 20-40lb excess. Let's use 20lb. From what I've seen, most people lose somewhere between 1-2lb per day while extended fasting. Depends upon the person and level of activity. Let's use 2lb to be conservative (don't want to fast too long and risk issues, if you don't know what works for you and how much you lose). 20lb/2lb per day is 10 days of fasting without issue. But if you used the 40lb figure, and only lost 1lb per day, you could go 40days.
This is the general rule of thumb I use. It is not backed by any studies, use at your own risk.
When I fast, I change NONE of my daily routine and habits, other than not eating anything, only drinking water.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
when you skip all the misc BS training not related to flying and air combat, and you compress the training due to teh time not spent BS'ing, and you start with experienced pilots, some fighter pilots, who already have the basics down, you can train people a lot faster. And with so few jets, you take only the top performers, while keeping the rest in reserve and give them additional training over additional time, until aircraft become available for them as well.
Not hard at all.
My first time in combat, my entire unit was thrown into combat with experimental vehicles, experimental weapons, doing a mission for which no tactics nor techniques existed, and we figured it all out as we went. We excelled and thrived on that battlefield. We were also all volunteers, there by choice, motivated, and wanted to be the best. And we became the best, all on our own, with no formal training.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As of today it is legal to own such things as functional;
F-16 fighter jets, F-18 fighter jets, A-4 attack jets, Tanks, Artillery, 88mm Flak guns, Gatling guns, Machine guns, grenades, grenade launchers, shotguns, sniper rifles, handguns, rifles, Muskets, lever rifles, bolt action rifles, silencers, explosives, etc.
All of these are weapons of war and legal to own.
3
-
3
-
@hitime2405 Doesn't guarantee victory though. But the SPAD is a good pick in WW1.
And keep in mind, there are more metrics that make a good fighter than just pure speed
Mig25 is fast, but sucks.
Mig21 was fast, but struggled to dogfight the F-4, F-5, and such.
The F-104 was fast, but sucked in dogfights.
Whereas the F-16 is fast and curb stomps in dogfights.
The F-18 and F-35 aren't nearly as fast, but they destroy in dogfights too.
There are other metrics of performance, even for WW1 fighters. Things like climb rate, ceiling dive speed (will it hold together), maneuverability, etc. Even at 138mph, you're not flying past an airplane going 120mph. and they might lose less energy in a turn than you as well, negating that speed advantage in a fight. And then you have tactics in a dogfight that favor the slower more maneuverable craft (as Werner Voss famously made clear).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
P-51 was not "average", it was a top tier fighter.
P-51 was far cheaper, consumed half as much aluminum per aircraft, burned half as much fuel as the P-47, flew farther, faster, and was a superior dogfighter at pretty much all altitudes. The P-51 took nearly half as many maintenance hours between sorties. P-47 was slow to accelerate, slow to climb, and needed significantly more runway length to get airborne. The German test pilots hated the P-47, only praising it for it's high altitude performance and nothing else.
WW2 was won by logistics, and logistically the P-47 consumed more than twice as much as the P-51 in nearly every way, while offering less performance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zombifiedpariah7392 Princess Leia, Elektra, Alien, Aliens, Apollo's wife in the original BSG show, Dr. Quinn, Cleopatra, Underworld, Wonder Woman, Ghost in the Shell, etc. When you start looking, examples come out of the wood work like crazy. I could spend hours digging up more examples.
And Disney removed all the best female characters from Star Wars such as Winter, Mara Jade, Jiana Solo, and more. Tons of amazing female characters in fiction that never made it to the TV screen.
3
-
3
-
@MattyEngland fair.
but make no mistake, I do not owe content creators ANYTHING. They post their content out there relying on DONATIONS from people, and ad revenue via YouTube.
Youtube steals a lot for ad revenue from creators, far more than is lost due to adblockers. And even when adblockers are not in play, the ad revenue alone for most youtubers is not enough to live on.
It's not my job to rescue people from bad choices in their lives. If they are struggling being a youtuber, then they need to find a better career.
Much of what is on Youtube can be found elsewhere for free in books, articles, other free sites, etc. I can find all this stuff on my own, and often times do a far better job communicating, understanding, or analyzing the data for topics I'm interested in than a typical Youtuber does. Why would I pay for that? I wouldn't. I use youtube out of convenience. when it ceases being convenient, I will stop using it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Are women smarter than men?
In school, K-12, my parents moved a lot due to not having a lot of money and following the jobs and available housing options. So I ended up attending 5 different schools before graduating High School.
Next I spent the next 17yrs attending 6 different colleges and earning different STEM degrees (while working in three different career fields).
In all that time, no girls/women ever came close to challenging me intellectually. The only people who ever stood a chance or came close were all men. Didn't matter the class either. English, Philosophy, History, Math, Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, etc. the guys were always far smarter and better performing overall. I always graduated at or near the top of my class in every school, class and degree program with ease.
My sisters graduated top of their classes in high school, but they are nowhere near as smart as me, and they know it and have even admitted it to me many times. It just means they worked hard and got good grades, and had easier competition in their grades. But even they've many times discussed how much smarter men are/were in school/college.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@scrotor189 exactly. some of us still prefer 20in at times. and in a purely scientific study, they are OBLIGATED to test a 20in, regardless of personal feelings on the matter.
Everyone is arguing over what is "standard" or not, when most barrel lengths tested aren't standard anywhere. Some say military standard, but the military uses exclusively 14.5" and 20", not 16". And civilians rarely use 14.5" compared to 16" or even something like 10.5" these days. But 20" barrels are still really easy to find and purchase, let alone longer barrels. what would have been proper is testing each length (say 9"-24") with the same round, and a barrel twist at that length optimized for that round. then try the same thing again with a different common round (55gr?) in barrels from 9"-24" with optimized twists.
People say, "other videos test those barrels". but you have different parameters, target placement, field conditions (temp, elevation, etc), different twists, different ammo, etc. and so data from one set of tests cannot be combined nor correlated to another wholly different study/comparison in a meaningful way.
This video had the opportunity to be THE comparison video, and failed.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zerofighterfairy F-8, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, Bird of Prey, X-29, F-16XL, F-4, AH-64, AH-66, etc.
And unlike Russia, the US built these, and have concepts for far more.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hellfire platform is becoming the swiss army knife of munitions. Launched from every weapons platform (C-130, AH-64, UH-60, predator, Tanks, Ships, etc....), with a huge multitude of variants and warhead options (even the ninja blade version). Anti-tank, anti-personnel, anti-ship, now anti-aircraft...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SellamAbraham no, he did not lower a 2000ft rope and hover 2000ft out of ground effect.
I actually had lawyers twice try to recruit me into law, second guy tried to hire me on the spot. Even had a chance to go to Harvard back in the day on a full-ride scholarship for law. It's wise to know how law works.
Serving my country, fighting in wars, patenting tens of things, clawing my way up from poverty, being a pilot, starting a business, working for NASA, setting world records, etc. is pretty American life if you ask me. I've done pretty well as an American.
If you think being American is not knowing science, not knowing the law, being a bafoon, engaging in criminal behavior, and being a woke whiny child, then you must be talking about some other country in the Americas other than the USA.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@polygraphliedetector Healthcare should Not be "free". If you're hiking in the woods, you can say, think, and believe whatever you wish. If attacked, you can defend yourself. But when you're alone in the woods and you get injured, you have no right to healthcare.
Another example, lets take a "Wild West" doctor. An east coast doctor moves out west and sets up shop in some frontier town. A bunch of thugs/gunmen get into a gun fight and bring their injured to his house and demand he patch up their guys. He refuses without payment. They force him at gunpoint to do it for free. When he finishes they leave. Now the doctor has lost medical resources (bandages, medicines, etc), which he now doesn't have the money to go buy more. Every time someone demands free services he loses more until he has nothing left to give and has to close up shop. Without payment, he can't stay open. Without payment, he is a slave by US law. US contract law requires the contract be mutually beneficial to all parties involved otherwise it is unlawful and void.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@texaswunderkind My first time in combat, we were deployed, without knowing what the vehicles we'd be using looked like, and with no formalized nor successful tactics yet devised for the job we were tasked with doing. We had to figure it out on the fly and make it up as we went. Units we replaced were suffering up to 30% casualties. My company deployed 20 men short at only 100 men, and we lost only 1 in combat, and 3 others injured enough to be sent home. We figured it out and became top experts at what we did. But we had a rather unique unit and group of guys. It was a perfect storm of the right people in the right place with the right leadership to figure it out.
The military signed huge contracts for the vehicles we used after that deployment, and many modifications we made to them are still being used, and many of the tactics we came up with became common practice across the military.
Success in war is about adaptability, adapting on-the-fly, and knowing how you equipment works to find ways to use it to defeat the enemy's tactics and equipment (gotta seek to understand the enemy's equipment too). We did regular After Action Reviews after Every single mission while it was fresh in our minds, and devised changes to our own tactics daily to adapt to anything we saw or encountered, often times anticipating what the enemy would do next, or how they would change their tactics in response to us.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@cstgraphpads2091 "Where is the evidence that they've "already burned through their T-62 stocks"?" if they still had T-62 in good enough shape to send, why are they sending T-55?
Regarding your other questions, just because AT weapons can destroy a tank, doesn't mean the tank is worthless.
What is the primary role of a tank after all? To serve as a rolling pillbox/bunker in support of infantry.
If you are on the defense against tanks, artillery, and infantry, infantry with AT weapons and artillery support is a good choice. But if you're going to attack an enemy that has those things, as you advance your own artillery may be of limited use, while the enemy can keep firing. And as you advance out of your protected defenses and push into the defenses of your enemy, you're exposed and out gunned. This is where the tank comes in, to provide support and cover for infantry, taking out machinegun nests, bunkers, infantry, other tanks, etc. This is where it starts, and it gets into more complex stuff from there. but the nature of the Ukraine conflict is such that the basics are what matters now primarily anyways.
3
-
3
-
@micahwest2793 Most cases involving the defensive use of a firearm only involves brandishing the firearm. Either pulling up a shirt to show the gun in it's holster, or putting one's hand on the grip, etc. up to and including drawing the weapon, and drawing the weapon and pointing it at the assailant. And like the lady in Charleston, a single brandishing of a firearm, or use of a firearm in self defense, can save anywhere from 1 to Tens of lives each time. That lady drew her weapon and fired, and surely saved tens of lives that day. But often times just showing the criminal you're armed is enough to make them abandon their plans and run away. I know people who've done this personally. One guy saved his wife, and she never knew that she had ever been in danger. Guy came out of the store with his wife in the car with guys approaching her from behind (she was between her husband and them, facing him and not them). He saw them and made it clear he had a gun, and they all turned and ran away. She never even saw the guys, even though they had gotten within a few feet of her. And he never told her either (didn't want to freak her out). That's how guns save lives.
Also, most such defensive use of a firearm that doesn't involve the trigger being pulled goes unreported, hence why the FBI uses statistical analysis to estimate how many more lives have been saved than they know about.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
We are not having more extreme weather. in fact we're having LESS. When was the last F5 tornado? We're experiencing record low forest fires in the US. Hurricane frequency and severity is down in recent decades. Deaths due to natural disasters is way down. The predicted famines have not materialized and instead we're seeing year after year improvements in crop yields. I haven't experienced a single Blizzard since I was a child. We used to get multiple per year. We rarely get severe flooding anymore either. We've had a handful of tornados in my area in the past 10yrs. We used to get multiple every single year.
try again with you WEF propaganda. it doesn't work on smart people who know science. Chemistry, heat transfer, math, periodic table, etc. this stuff is not locked behind a paywall. we're taught to do it starting as children. teh basics behind how this stuff works is easy enough to explain, yet NASA, NOAA, Michael Mann, and others refuse to share where they're getting their numbers from.
People like you refuse to address heat island effect, the complete lack of historical global temp data prior to the 1970s, and much more.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pauldzim It applies to what he is talking about. But on the ideas of irreducibility and such, yes, I have other ideas as well, and I disagree there too. Many topics in Philosophy are misconceptions as well. There are a lot of Bad assumptions being made in modern math and physics these days, some which go back decades, and few if any people have bothered to question them. And those who do are chased off. No one wants to have 50+yrs of work thrown out because they failed to check their assumptions. No one wants their life's work destroyed by admitting they were wrong. This isn't true of all math and physics. But many ideas he discusses here fall into that category for me. This adds to the confusion people have. The debate over Discovered vs Invented for example. Many people don't understand fundamentally what math is, otherwise they wouldn't have to debate that one as much as they do. Too many mathematicians and physicists are focusing only on the "big stuff" and failing to keep perspective. Math used to follow the logic, now it leads the logic, and we are making little progress as a result. Tons of competing ideas, but none providing anything definitive or ground breaking enough to matter in the grand scheme of things. People keep over complicating the ideas and arguments, making it seem harder than it really is. My argument stands.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@juliebella1221 "If you have a child it's a 24/7 gig. "
true for the non stay at home parents too. they get home from work and then they care for the kids. but done right, you don't have to look after them every waking moment, so stop lying about that. My parents did it right and had it easy with my siblings and I.
Also, as I previously pointed out, child care is temporary. it only lasts a few years, where as a career last decades longer. And you're supposed to be teaching kids how to fend for themselves during those years too so that they can fend for themselves as adults. And thus they are a form of labor around the house too. Going to work doesn't free you from your parental responsibilities.
"The rest, hubby's job couldn't pay all the bills and she ended up back at work anyway, now with all the duties of a Mom on top of it."
yet isn't it strange that statistically, kids are better off in 2 parent households, or with a single father? Almost like the father is more important and better able to shoulder the burden. But lets not forget that mothers initiate 80% of divorce, commit most domestic abuse, and cheat more than men. And when they do divorce, the courts refuse to let the father have the kids even when they want them, and yet the wife still complains how hard it is when the father offered to take the burden of the children off her hands.
Women these days are lazy and have no one to blame but themselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robthetindog8218 As I said, Many, not All.
However, I'm curious about Newsom. CA is losing seats in Congress, businesses, taxpayers, etc. Meanwhile rampant homelessness, taxation, crime, and violations of the Constitution, while crimes are going unpunished. Is this acceptable to you? Just curious.
Also curious about Biden. He's a weak leader, who most of us are not convinced is even the one making decisions in the White House. His actions are leading to rising inflation. His weak leadership is leading to potential conflicts and unrest abroad. Add to that the effect he's had on the rampant increase in illegal border crossings and the problems that is causing. Not sure what there is to like, curious what your thoughts are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@colincampbell767 Focusing on budget and schedules also stifles innovation. Yes, we can't ignore budgets and schedules. But you can't force innovation either. Instead the focus should be on results. At my job, we worked on the SpaceX model long before SpaceX existed. We are ruthless on "making it work". We also ignore senseless red tape when it gets in the way, just like Elon does with SpaceX and Tesla. We also don't overengineer things like NASA. The Apollo era was run this way too. Trial and error design and engineering, even though people don't want to admit it. People build up engineering intuition that way, and eventually just know what works and what doesn't. Managers Hate this, but it works, it's faster, it's cheaper, and it produces better long term results for a multitude of reasons. I can design something faster through trial and error with numerous quick prototypes than the math-centric engineers could do. What would take them 1-2yrs, we can solve in 2weeks to 2 months through trial and error and built up intuition.
Yes, some things do need a kickstart of investing from the government. Space used to be prohibitively expensive, and was only invested in for military reasons. People forget Apollo, GPS, Internet were about military advantage. But when space is accessible or affordable, the gov funding isn't as necessary to jumpstart innovation. As times change, so to do agencies and thinking need to evolve.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@akritasdigenis4548 P-51 was far cheaper, consumed half as much aluminum per aircraft, burned half as much fuel as the P-47, flew farther, faster, and was a superior dogfighter at pretty much all altitudes. The P-51 took nearly half as many maintenance hours between sorties. P-47 was slow to accelerate, slow to climb, and needed significantly more runway length to get airborne. The German test pilots hated the P-47, only praising it for it's high altitude performance and nothing else.
WW2 was won by logistics, and logistically the P-47 consumed more than twice as much as the P-51 in nearly every way, while offering less performance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Thekilleroftanks I Literally said the Zero had armor.
Yes, they had radios, but removed them for various reasons through the war, i was generalizing.
I was thinking specifically of the Val such, and Japanese aircraft overall. an F4U could carry at least 4000lb of ordinance, I'd like to see a Zero try that. Compared to other dive bombers in the war, the Val had one of the lighter bomb loads. The Japanese wanted the range and maneuverability, but such things come at a cost early on when engines are less powerful.
Next time you try correcting someone, make sure you read what they actually wrote, and realize that a simple comment is not a History Thesis and doesn't include ALL possible variables, so Massive amounts of generalizing are necessary.
3
-
@oceanbytez847 Neither does 6.8 or 7.62 carry armor piercing power at those ranges. What other militaries regularly wear body armor? Body armor is for urban CQB fighting, not for sprawling open terrain, forest, jungle, etc warfare. if you're regularly fighting at such distances, they won't be regularly wearing armor, and there is artillery and other long range weapons to provide support. Most soldiers in China, Russia, etc, don't even have marksmanship skills at that range, even if their rifles are capable of it, same as the 5.56 M4.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@patsteirer "Right, so you have a right to say no to drivers licenses, right?"
Actually, you do have a choice to say no. Do you know how many Americans these days don't have a driver's license?
"Or traffic signals?" I see tons of people like you running red lights, ignoring stop signs, not obeying right of way, speeding, all day every day, driving the wrong way, etc, so yes apparently.
But vaccines and viruses are about acts of nature. People cannot be held accountable for tornadoes, or viruses, or hurricanes, or flash floods, or the actions of others. Those who fear COVID have tons of options. They can get vaccinated if they want, they can wear a mask if they want. they can stay home if they want. The only ones at risk are eth ones not doing these things. If 100 people are on an airline flight, and 10 aren't vaccinated, what are the vaccinated ones so afraid of? they are protected, the unvaccinated are the ones who should be worried, since the vaccinated could be infected still. But those still unvaccinated are NOT worried about a virus with such a low death rate, particularly among the younger age groups, and that has multiple known effective treatments available.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kirkchurchil8216 "grand thumbs vid on freezing rifles along with many other people testing this showed Al’s are way more reliable. They also look way better lol! I have no problem with AR’s but you elites are so cringe."
we're cringe? For citing facts and case examples from actual combat? For stating the Exact same things you just said?
I think you're just jealous that you don't have real world experience to back up your opinions with. Not that a person can't make an objective analysis based upon facts and scientific data. There is also bias in experience, something I strive to eliminate and form an objective final opinion without bias. But the facts are, the AK-47 is deadly (but so is a Ruger 22 pistol), but loses in so many areas to the M4 that it's not even close. M4 is far and away teh better rifle, and so many militaries use it, while few modern militaries remain who still use the AK-47.The evidence is there for any who are logical. But we have so many weak and emotional people these days, can't separate emotion from reason.
In war, to win, to survive, you have to master your craft, objectively. War doesn't give a shit what your opinions and feelings are. Win, adapt, survive. Failure to adapt your way of thinking to what works, what wins, gets you killed. No room for weak emotional fanboys in combat, they either die or man up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@evanfontenot7000 I get you there. I too prefer face to face as well. and it is easier to communicate thoughts and understanding more effectively. A lot is lost in text-only communication. Context such as inflection, tone, and such is lost, yet vital. It can change the entire discussion in some cases.
I don't expect you to go line by line. But when you make specific claims, I am going to question them. And when you make an inaccurate claim, I'm going to key in on that quickly. I wasn't even expecting a response at all, but when you did it started off with some basic topics that could have been manageable. But then we kept drifting off topic onto other issues, never saying focused on topic, and this makes the discussion difficult to manage. Gotta stick to one topic at a time.
"Cyrus is the name of Greek conqueror that is spoken of by I think Isaiah.
Seriously its a good honest read if you actually care about the questions you are asking. "
I just might read it, because now I am curious. But I highly doubt it will answer or address any of my questions. I do research the topics I debate, and since I've not heard of this story before, it becomes intriguing. Not only because it's new and I have no idea what it entails, but also to understand why no one else talks about it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
...and Russia lost 24mil people over the 5years they fought Germany, barely holding back the Germans, barely gaining ground, barely hanging on if not for Lend Lease supplies of tanks, fighters, bombers, medicine, food, fuel, ammunition, etc. And had the Western Allies not opened multiple fronts in the Atlantic, North Africa, Italy, and France, as well as strategically bombing Germany for years, the Russians wouldn't have fared nearly as well as they did against the Germans.
Had the US not taught the Russians how to do mass production and assembly lines prior to the war it would have been even worse.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ChristopherCricketWallace exaclty. i worked for a company that got bought by a large corporation. we built better stuff that our customers loved and kept buying and built a reputation, and the corporation came along and started focusing on cost cutting. Our stuff cost More to make, has constant issues, losing the reputation and customer loyalty, etc. they claim to care about cost, but our engineer driven model was far cheaper, far faster, more innovative, and could sell more product each year becasue it worked. our products only have3-10yr life cycles and sales cycles too, due to constant advancement in technology, not because our machines can't last decades (and they have lasted that long in the past).
They use quarterly budgeting now, and it is totally incompatible with what we do. They give you a budget and expect you to spend it or lose it, but the budegt never coincides with development cycles of when we neeed to purchase prototypes etc,a nd so we keep losing or budget just by default for no reason. can't build stuff without a budget.
3
-
3
-
Greatest "what-if" of all time? Not in the slightest. I find the Mig1.44 highly overrated and I struggle to see anything revolutionary in its design (and I don't care one bit what the paper specs Claim it might have been able to do). The Rockwell X-31, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, and British Aerospace EAP were all far more interesting than the Mig1.44. And the Su-57 thus far has been an underwhelming Gen4+ fighter at best, leading me to believe the Mig1.44 would have been worse than the Su-57.
F-20, F8U-3 Crusader III, F-107, F-108, Miles M.52, Martin Baker MB5, Super Tomcat, and others are far more compelling what-ifs, in my opinion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@atheistyoda8915 " Irrelevant. Battleships don't have nearly the same striking range as the aircraft on a carrier."
oh, but they do. Cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc. They were going to put hundreds fo vertical launch cells on the Iowas, giving it anti-space capabilities even.
"They're nothing more than a slow moving, big target that can't even strike targets from afar. "
same for the big carriers with aircraft that can't outrange anti-ship missiles that ships like the Iowa could carry. Even the Island airbases in the Pacific are at risk in a war with China, so the US is figuring out how to fight China without using carriers at all. But the USN is still building surface warships to fight China, while pulling out the carriers.
Name one valid way a battleship is obsolete. If Battleships are obsolete, then so too are Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, etc. And carriers are bigger, weaker, more vulnerable targets.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dr_shrinker "Wrong. The definition does not mention government anywhere. "
who claimed that? I sure didn't. I don't even know what that means.
"Competition for resources is the same as competition of wealth."
competition FOR wealth, maybe.
"Survival of the fittest is the more direct form of capitalism. Money is only a placeholder for the resources to survive. "
yes
"Socialism and communism don’t work in an “every man for themselves” dystopia."
it doesn't work at all, because there will always be disidents and criminals. Communism and Socialism only work ina world of hive-mind, where individuality doesn't exist. Well, individuality DOES exist, and thus Communism and Socialism will NEVER work. we live in the real world, where nobody will ever agree on everything, nobody wants the exact same things as you. Some people want a big house, many like me do not. Some want fancy cars, I want airplanes instead. Some want fancy clothes, I couldn't care less. Since we all are free thinking individuals who want different things in life, we'll get different outcomes, and Socialism and Communism will never work, unless you stamp out freedom by force. Unless you murder all who disagree with you.
"In a world without rule of law, people will still barter for goods and services….or physically compete for them. How’s that different than today’s system?"
proving why socialism and communism will never work.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wowser2153 No, that's what would be equality under Feminism. Men repair the house, the car, do all the heavy lifting, mow the lawn, shovel the snow, and more.
Men would be Happy to be a single income provider, pay all the bills, and do the "male tasks", so the woman could stay home with the kids, cook, clean, decorate, plan family gatherings, help him with the little things that make a big difference in his success (which brings more wealth to the family unit), etc. and relax (pulling her weight in the relationship). Assuming she is faithful, loyal, pleasant, and is not able to divorce for frivolous, childish, irresponsible, and temporary reasons.
I absolutely will never have a relationship with a nurse in the modern day. Nurses are some of the worst for cheating and monkey branching. Nurses are an automatic disqualification for me in regards to dating. So are "boss babes" and "career women". Too much Feminism Marxist baggage and brain damage to deal with.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Democrats: "vote for us, we're all about the little guy."
Democrats: "vote for us, we are better at managing the economy than Republicans."
Democrats: "vote for us, we want to take on big business, the rich, and corporations."
Democrats get voted in: "ok, kill small business, drive up inflation, prop up big corporations and the rich, make everyone dependent on the gov, kill the economy. Anything else we can mess up?"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
right? grab food when driving to/from another place, such as work or running errands.
Even better, stop eating out at all and learn to cook. FAR faster, FAR cheaper, FAR healthier.
I can make 2x 10inch pizzas for ~$2 each in only 25min (grabbing ingredients out of pantry to first bite). And they taste far better than restaurant pizza and is better than "gourmet" pizza dough. the dough recipe i have from my Mom requires only about 4 ingredients.
I can make a simple, large, juicy cheeseburger in less than 5min (grabbing ingredients to first bite) with as little as 3-4 ingredients, but i can add things like pickles, onions, mushrooms, lettuce, etc. at will. and for FAR cheaper than fast food burgers. Far larger, far tastier, far healthier, far cheaper. And they cost me no more than about $1.50 each (at current prices in 2024). I can make a burger in less time it takes to go through a drive thru.
I have multiple chili, and casserole recipes that are so cheap and easy to make that you could feed one adult for 30 days with these recipes on as little as $25/month (at current 2024 prices). I spend 20min making one recipe on average, and that dish will last me 7 days if I'm the only one eating it. 20min of cooking per week per dish, at $25/month is AMAZING! It's not hard.
3
-
3
-
3
-
by age 26 I had farmed, done construction, logging, janitor, been to more countries than most Americans will ever visit in their entire lives, served 8yrs in the military, fought in two wars, led men in combat, graduated college top of my class in Engineering, became a pilot, was an instructor in teh military, college instructor and CFI, etc.
By age 26 I had already accomplished more than most people will achieve in their entire lives.
Since then I have been to more countries, awarded over 30 patents, hold multiple world records and world first in outer space, earned 4 degrees in STEM, became a professional airplane and helicopter pilot, and more.
and people still discriminate against me based upon age, claiming I'm too young to know stuff, because I've always known more than most of the older generations even in my 20s.
I was already planning my retirement in High School, already designing my future home in High School (which I am now getting ready to build finally). Even back then I cared about aviation, military matters, engineering, the state of education (as I witnessed its decline first hand, and am a licensed and experienced instructor), free speech, corruption, business laws that strangle small businesses and favor large corporations, and MUCH, MUCH, MORE.
3
-
3
-
3
-
We had this stuff happen in Iraq back in 2007. Civilian contractors were supposed to repair all of our specialty vehicles for us. One week we were getting hit by IEDs a fair amount and were running out of operational vehicles. Civilians said it would take 2 weeks to fix one of the trucks so that we'd have enough vehicles to run the next day's mission. We argued with them and they refused to work any faster. Us and our mechanics offered to help, they refused, citing the contract. Eventually after many back and forth arguments over many hours, we just broke into their shipping containers full of parts and took the axles, tires, etc we needed, hauled them and our truck down to Our motor pool and fixed the truck in less than 5hrs, and took it on mission the next day. We, the individuals, didn't sign a contract with them, and we had a combat mission to complete. They weren't going to stop us. Had they actually tried to stop us, I think that would qualify as treason.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Some people are ok being alone, but most of them are men. Once women get past 30+yr of age, they change their tune quickly. Most men Are content, and yet the women keep getting mad.
In recent years according to scientific data:
Women's depression is up and men's happiness is up.
Women's average life expectancy is dropping.
Men have more money and time for themselves, and women have less.
Women drop out of their careers and men don't.
.....
Women are not winning the feminist movement. They are depressed, unhappy, suicidal, stressed, lonely, etc. Men have been treated this way for centuries, they are used to it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@waynemapp6333 they have not been test flown yet, and until they do, it doesn't count. I'm not a hater. I judge on RESULTS. BO is not getting Results, and so i criticize them accordingly. They are way behind, they are slow, constantly having issues, far more expensive, etc. Until they do ANYTHING, I and going to complain about them. Look how many other private rocket companies have been created AFTER BO was created, and they already have paying customers, successful rockets from scratch, successful engines from scratch, and delivering payloads and doing things BO still can't do.
BO is going to get sh!t on until they actually DO SOMETHING, Anything!
Objectively, thus far, BO has been a failure. They failed to deliver on time, failed to reach orbit after all these years, failed to test a single rocket.
I work in the space industry with NASA, SpaceX and others, I hold multiple world records and world firsts in teh space race. Nobody even talks about BO. But there are tons of other companies already doing business in outer space.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
relying upon overbuilt durability at the expense of performance rather than relying upon pilot skill in a more maneuverable aircraft is the mark of a lazy pilot.
A good pilot has no intention of getting shot, and does everything in their power to never get hit. Plenty of P-47 pilots died as well, proving toughness wasn't going to save them. Not getting shot is what saves you. Relying on luck as well is not a winning strategy either.
And by the way, the P-47 has multiple vulnerable radiators on the bottom of the airplane as well, just like the P-51, Hurricane, Typhoon, Spitfire, Me109, IL-2, P-40, Ju-87, and many other legendary aircraft.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426 Trump said to march on the capitol, peacefully. He is not responsible for the actions of a few who didn't listen. But if you want to hold Trump accountable for that, then I want to hold Karmala, Biden, Cuomo, Hillary, etc... responsible for all the BLM and Antifa riots that destroyed many cities, attacked state and federal gov buildings, burned businesses, murdered innocent people in cold blood.... And the continued riots by Democrat supporters and voters. The rise in homelessness and rampant violence in the streets as police are defunded and innocent people left to fend for themselves.
He bluffed, and got a response. How is negotiation different from quid pro quo? How does one negotiate without engaging in quid pro quo? I'd like to know, so I can tell the difference.
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
@isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426 Racism is part of life. Even trees and grass are racist. In-group bias, these things are all part of nature and evolution. Without them species would go extinct. As an "intelligent" species, we chose to override our basic instincts. But racism in some form s on the individual level will always exist. the Only way to eradicate racism in humans is to kill all humans.
What do you mean by "the Jim Crow laws were pretty universal"? As in, applied universally across the country? sure. As in, all America/American's are racist because of Jim Crow laws? No. Given the choice, most average Americans would not have supported such actions. These are the actions of specific groups and individuals, in this case the Democratic Party and other politicians who supported it. You can't judge all people of such a large and diverse nation, on the actions of a few bad actors. Isn't that what the MSM says about the BLM riots and murders? Equal protection and consideration under the law, right? If applied to BLM, it MUST, by Law, be applied to Everyone else as well. Regardless of the law, it's morally wrong to condemn people for the actions of others, actions of the past, actions for which they had no knowledge, participation, or power to influence or stop in any way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cocomunga I've been in sandstorms, the middle of wide open deserts, and scorching heat (147F). Very easy to tell which way is north by watching the sun. And even with shifting dunes, in a wide open desert, short distance navigation while maintaining orientation (within 5-10 degrees accuracy of your intended direction even) is possible with no map or compass. Also, in survival, with clear skies like the Sahara, travel at night and use the stars to orient/navigate (extremely easy skill). Modern people are losing their basic survival skills.
He was stupid to keep moving in a sandstorm. Seems no one else was stupid enough to continue in the storm. Why he thought anyone else would continue is beyond me. Pause for the storm, like everyone else, move around slightly/periodically if worried about getting buried, and continue after it passes. He couldn't conduct basic navigation with clear skies (day or night), what made him think he could navigate in a sandstorm when he clearly understood the dunes could shift?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
my car insurance is less than $15/month. Health insurance is $42/month (medical, vision, dental...). no car payment. bought a house before prices got ridiculous. cook my own meals and have proven multiple times I can feed myself on as little as $15-20 a month in groceries (coupons, buy in bulk, chap brands, etc.) if I had to. And most of the ingredients I can grow in my garden to drive that price even lower. Electric bill is $36/month on average. The highest my heating bill has gotten in winter is $180/month (but I keep temps in the high 50s F to low 60s F, turn down water temp, use insulated blinds, heavy curtains, etc.).
Mortgage/rent, food, utilities are my biggest recurring expenses. But I do have a few additional monthly expenses that are not necessities, but with those I'm paying less than a typical person with rent/car payments.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@moonlightsparkle2690 but Battleships were never obsolete in WW2, nor after WW2, nor today. Nobody except the anti-battleship crowd claims battleships were unsinkable. That's not what makes a battleship useful.
A battleship can control the seas, and remain on station, especially with supporting assets like destroyers. Something no aircraft carrier can do.
the carriers ALWAYS hang back in the rear Behind the battleship fleets to make their strikes and run away. they never hold ground, they only conduct sneak attacks and fall back to replenish aircraft.
And as you point out, it only takes one decent hit to take a carrier out of the fight. don't have to sink it, just eliminate it's ability to either launch or land aircraft (if you can't land them, anything you launch is lost. If you can't launch, then once they land the aircraft are useless.).
Anyone who studies WW2 USN tactics and strategy seriously can see the USN knew how to use battleships properly, and did for the entirety of WW2, and into the modern age.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drno3391 "Interesting, you are basically saying that you can fool the acoustic and/or sismic pattern recognition mechanism simply by modifying the sound of the engine using different settings ?"
well, you're not exactly wrong, but you are WAY overthinking it.
"This means the pattern recognition feature is quite accurate (and would indeed spare civilian vehicles), amazing. "
no, I never said that. I specifically said it can't distinguish friend from foe. there are so many variants and modifications made to all military vehicles. you could never have accurate databases for all variations in all soil conditions (sand, clay, bedrock, mixed soils. farmland, hard packed dirt, etc.). That's the problem with such mines, they are not nearly as effective as people think otherwise we'd see them far more often.
But altering the vibrations of a single vehicle does nothing to clear the mines and make way for all the other vehicles coming behind you. the job is to CLEAR the mines so others can pass safely. but how do you do that when they are standoff munitions, that you may not even see? My modified vehicle would seek to do that (find them and render them safe).
Actually, I just thought of another method to potentially disable these now too. using tech the US military possessed almost 20yrs ago now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thekinginyellow1744 notice how many nicknames are a single syllable, as opposed to multiple syllables. It's faster and easier to say, especially over the radio. Often times things are happening fast in the military and you need to say things quickly and with as few syllables as possible. You may only have seconds, and there is no time for lengthy communications or hard to pronounce names/terms.
Also, not sure if you know this or not, but NATO Cold War code names were standardized so that Fighter names start with "F" (Fishbed, Fresco, Fulcrum, Flanker...), and Bombers start with "B" (Bear, Backfire, Blackjack...), Helicopters start with "H" (Hind, Havoc, Hip...), etc. And generally kept to one or 2 syllables. That way even if you're not familiar with the exact designation, by the name you know what sort of aircraft you're dealing with and how you need to think about dealing with it (dogfighting a fighter, or intercepting a bomber, or turkey shooting helicopters...).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Men: winning all the female events they enter
Men: breaking all records of women's sports
Men: do the majority of jobs that actually matter in society, and do them objectively better than women (parenting, teaching, mining, police, military, farming, construction, fishing, welding, engineering, truckers, chefs, business leaders, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a race war."
"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a class war."
"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a gender war."
"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a war in Syria."
"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a climate war."
"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a war on COVID."
"1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a civil war."
The left are a bunch of children, addicted to "war".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kateofone That is not white privilege, those are acts of Select individuals, in Select individual cases. That is Not the case overall. Anyone could profile anyone else. Not all white people do this, and nonwhites also do this to white people as well. But you deem to only single out white people, which is racism. But you judge all whites on the actions of a few, and then seek to punish them as a collective, based on nothing more than their skin color. You don't see white people as individuals, but as a collective of singular mind and action, incapable of acting as an individual, with varying values and cultures.
You're not challenging racism, your perpetuating it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Years ago I was living in Northern AZ, and someone cut a major line while digging, cutting off internet to much of the state for about 3 days. Couldn't buy gas unless you had cash, cellphones weren't working, etc. It was awesome. People actually came outside, sat in the grass (what there is in AZ), had great conversations. Best 3 days of living in AZ I had. But once the cable was repaired, it was over. everyone back inside, stopped talking to each other, heads down in their phones, it was depressing. I grew up pre-internet, pre-cellphone, and I hate the way things are now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First truck was a 1995 For Ranger, 4cyl, 5spd, rear wheel drive. Drove it for years, went through multiple car accidents (not me, previous owner, family member), then sold it to my sibling, and they drove it for a time, then sold it to a friend...it just refused to die.
Next vehicle was a 2000 Taurus, drove until 285k miles before the head gasket blew. Regret not putting a new engine in it as the car was in good condition and I took care of it. Everything else was still fine.
Next vehicle was a 2004 Buick Lesabre, still going strong, everything still works. Most I ever spent on a car at $8k @ 25k miles.
Next vehicle was a 1992 F150 6cyl 5spd rear wheel drive, no rust.
Just have to take care of things and stay up on maintnance and be proactive. I didn't do as good a job taking care of the ranger and taurus as I do the buick and F150. But the mistakes I made with the ranger and taurus and things I learned along the way have made me better at keeping the buick and F150 in good condition.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hphp31416 "Near peer now looks like nation that is capable of inflicting loses upon US armed forces while defending itself"
I'm going to have to disagree. Any nation is capable of inflicting casualties on the US. Name a war where the US hasn't lost people and equipment.
I'd agree with you if you were a bit more discriminating in your criteria. Perhaps something like, a nation capable of sinking US warships in combat, or ability to shoot down 100+ US airplanes in a war, etc.
The closest near peer is China, and not becasue the yare any good, they simply have enough numbers to cause problems. But other nations like France, UK, Israel, South Korea, etc. could be troublesome in a very brief conflict due to their higher levels of tech and training, but they lack numbers to really be a challenge. Thankfully most such nations are allies of the US.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@defenestrated23 "a hellfire R9X could take engineering equipment (turbines, coils, etc) out of commission with limited collateral."
oh boy....no, a Hellfire missile CANNOT penetrate that much concrete. And even if it could, you'd compromise the integrity of the dam wall in doing so.
"The reality is replacement parts in a war zone are extremely hard to come by."
the place that built the turbines and its spares, is often not far from the dam itself in smaller countries. And NEVER underestimate the ability of desperate people to fix things, even if sub optimally, even in a warzone.
"Even in the default world, engineered systems rely on parts with long lead times."
only in places overrun with needless red tape and corruption. For the rest of us, we can build, and fix things so fast you're head would spin. I literally do it every single day at work as an engineer. I also did it a LOT in combat, even when we had no spare parts, didn't have proper tools, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Women: "patriarchy! they want me to cook, clean, like I'm a slave or something!"
Men: cooking, cleaning, clearing snow, mowing lawn, fixing house, fixing car, working hard all day to pay for the wife to stay home and raise the kids (or to pay for alimony and child support).
Single Men: cook for themselves, do their own dishes, do their own laundry, mow lawn, fix house, fix car, take out garbage, work a job, pay 1005 of all the bills, etc.
Single Women: this list could go all day listing the things they find to complain about and claim isn't fair to them.
Men can do Everything we ask women to do each day, Plus we also do all the tings we Don't ask women to do for us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justinstewart3248 when you factor in teh shorter lifespan of a EV before being thrown away, yes, ICE cars once again emit less.
Yes, tech will evolve over time, but 10yrs is not enough time to revamp energy grids, and solve all the tech hurdles and bring that tech to market, and build all the necessary supporting infrastructure. you're living a pipe dream. I'm living in teh world of reality and engineering. this stuff doesn't happen overnight. This stuff costs Lots of money, and requires manpower to build and maintain.
"We can’t stay on Dino fuels forever", yes we can, and we will. 100% fact. We'll also use EV, but we'll Never stop using CO2 emitting sources. You're incredibly naïve if you think we will eliminate them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Next you should make a list of all the countries the US invaded, specifically pointing out which ones we gave back peacefully...
Everyone claims we were/are an empire, but when you look how much territory we captured but never claimed, or even gave back later, is astonishing. (Mexico, Philippines, Italy, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama Canal, Cuba...) Not to mention countries we occupied with enough forces to conquer, but were there for other reasons (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Korea, England, Australia...).
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hitime2405 "You said you would never accept the Camel was the best fighter, it shot down more enemy aircraft than any other, that in itself makes it the best fighter of WW1, just because you don’t believe historical fact doesn’t make your argument right."
Nothing I said was factually incorrect. you're fixated on one factor that alone isn't enough. you have to take teh big picture into account. you're dogged refusal to face reality about what counts in warfare, proves you are relying solely on emotional bias and are not going to be swayed by any amount of facts.
In WW2, teh US was going to win WW2, 100% guaranteed, even if it only had the F4F, P-39, and P-40 at it's disposal for the rest of the war. Th US didn't need the F4U, F6F, P-47, P-51, P-38, etc. to win. It may have lost more men before the war was over, but it still would have won. Why is this? I doubt you know, as if you knew the answer, you'd understand why the Camel objectively sucked.
th fact you keep coming back here to comment 4-5x over a day, before I ever get a chance to read a single new comment from you, also tells me this issue is really messing with your head. That you are having an emotional breakdown over this, can't stop thinking about it. can't stop returning to reply again. problem is you have nothing but a single flawed argument that doesn't hold up and you keep repeating it like a broken record.
2
-
@hitime2405 "you are the one with the problem, I am not dissing any Allied aircraft for personal reasons, you are !!!!"
irrational emotional responses with no substance.
I have not dismissed the Camel for any reason other than facts-based reasons.
"You have a problem with the Camel, I’m pointing out that you are wrong, that’s the problem here."
I have no problem with the Camel, I'm just judging it objectively based upon the facts. You have insisted I am worn, but you have never once proven it with objective facts. To be objective, you must make an argument that anyone could agree with and see the same thing.
Notice how your latest comments include no facts whatsoever.
What's truly ironic is your original argument, and I quote you, "It’s unbelievable to me how people say that this Siemens-Schuckert DIV or the Fokker Dr.1 triplane / Fokker DVII were the best fighter planes in WW1, yet let us look at their published top speeds, 120mph, 110mph and 117mph respectively, now let’s look at the SE5a and Spad XIII, 138 mph !!!!! even the 1916 design that actually went to the front in 1916 the Sopwith Triplane had a top speed of 117 mph".
you bashed airplanes for being slow, yet the Camel has a top speed of only 113mph. so by your own argument the Camel cannot be the best, before even considering how dangerous it was to its pilots. Even before considering it was already being phased out of service by better and safer airplanes before the war even ended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hitime2405 exactly what I thought, you flew a plane, 40yrs ago. you have next to no experience. I am a CFII in helicopters and airplanes, and an Aerospace Engineer currently working on stuff for NASA.
10-20mph difference in WW1 aircraft is next to nothing. When in a dogfight, once you start maneuvering, energy retention, climb and turning performance is more important. A good climbing plane is a good turning plane. The SPAD XIII, Fokker DVII, Dr.1, and others were superior to the Sopwith Camel in climb and almost every other metric.
The Camel offsets its high kill count with high losses as well.
the F-15 is the king of the skies, not because it has over 100 victories, but also because it has never been defeated. Its kill/loss ratio is what matters.
The F6F has a high kill tally, but lots of losses too, dragging it's kill ratio down.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BridgeportIPA then explain how Russia is approaching 200k dead and 600k total casualties in just over 1yr of fighting, against a nation that was supposed to be a pushover, and explain why Russia is rolling out T-55 due to losing thousands of tanks and thousands more APC/IFV/etc. in just over a year?
In another 6 months Russia will have lost more people and armored vehicles than the US lost in ALL of WW2.
Between February 24 2022 and March of 2022, Russia had already lost more people, aircraft, and tanks, than the US has lost in every single conflict it has fought since Vietnam combined (Bosnia, Panama, Desert Storm, OIF, OEF, Syria, Grenada, Somalia, etc.).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I never viewed river crossings being that complex. As a Combat Engineer myself, we would just find a place to cross no one expected, and throw down a bridge and go over. My own company could literally self-support ourselves through a river crossing in probably 20min if we needed to and had the right bridging equipment (sometimes we did, sometimes not). Now, in different combat environments, choke points, enemy numbers and capabilities, etc., this could change. But in many cases a simple crossing isn't that hard. But if you need to build a larger bridge, that takes a bit more time and planning, and would need defense. But it's not likely we'd build the bridge under direct fire either, not with modern weapons and support. If the enemy was that close and fierce directly across the river, we'd probably just secure the river bank until the threat on the opposing side was pushed back with artillery, airpower, etc. But for anyone who's never built a Bailey bridge, they go up surprisingly fast even with just human power. we've put up Bailey bridges in less than 30min with enough manpower and almost no preplanning or practice. Very ingenious design.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
100% Wrong.
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
2
-
2
-
Correct!
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Men have fear of commitment?
Women refuse to commit to a man.
Women divorce rape men.
Women offer men nothing in a relationship. They don't do chores, pay bills, pull their weight, cook, care for the kids, earn their share, save money for retirement, live within their means, they withhold sex, etc.
Men are rational about the risks, and know they stand to gain nothing by getting married.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tedarcher9120 " F-111B was supposed to be used together with F4, with f-111 taking longer range missions. "
That I agree with.
"But with f-14 Navy wanted their cake and eat it too, they wanted it to do anything that f-4 could and anything that f-111 could and it ended up with nothing. "
Wrong, they ended up with a BEAST of a dogfighter and interceptor, and a Powerful missile that is still having its legacy felt today.
" It couldn't dogfight like f-4 "
100% wrong, the F-14 is stupid good compared to the F-4. F-4 literally doesn't stand a chance if the F-14 pilot has any clue how to fight.
" it couldn't do long range strikes or interceptions like f-111."
neither could the F-4. so what?
"Yes, f-111 was retired, five years later than f-14, "
False.
F-111 retired in 1998.
F-14 retired in 2006, 8yrs after the F-111
F-111 introduced into service in 1967.
F-14 Introduced to service in 1974, 7yrs later.
The F-14 served 32yrs.
The F-111 served 31yrs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Catg1222 except that you miss my point. Society is getting worse, not better, for teh first time.
crime is up over 300% in some cities, education is failing. We can't even hire good smart engineers anymore than can think for themselves. Maybe 10% of graduates have mechanical intuition, can think for themselves, can take initiative, etc. These younger generations have to be spoon fed everything. They lack discipline, work ethic, etc. Deadlines mean nothing to them. That is not progress.
the side effects of these changes will manifest over time, as we're seeing the failures of recent decades playing out.
Nations under constant threats of war now, economies failing, people attacking farmers, people calling for de-industrialization, spreading lies about science and the planet.... this is not progress. This is de-evolution. And people are/will die because of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ricardobeltranmonribot3182 But the F8F, Sea Fury, P-51, P-38, etc. were/are used as racing planes. People claim the P-47 was faster and such. But if that were true they'd have used them as air racers. Fact is, the P-47 sucked terribly below 15k ft.
A-36 was considered superior to the P-47 as a ground attacker. Faster and more maneuverable down low too.
Also, Mustangs were sometimes equipped with 4x cannons which are better than 8x .50cal.
But you can't compare a late war P-47 model to early war Planes. You need to compare them to other late war models, like the Ta-152, Spiteful, MB5, etc. Since the P-47N made as much contribution to the war as the P-80. You have to compare what was available in the period in question, not hypothetical scenarios about what would have happened had Germany held on for a few years longer.
The P-47N was only used in the Pacific, and P-47s sucked in the pacific due to their inadequate low altitude performance. The Mustangs did the job faster, easier, cheaper, with less maintenance, and for much lower cost. And Mustangs also required less training and were more comfortable to pilots on long missions.
2
-
@Beyonder8335 "I farm myself, CO2 levels are not giving you record yields lmao. Yields overall trend up because we just get better at farming over time."
This is ALSO true. but clearly you are not a scientist, and don't know plant biology. CO2 makes plants grow bigger, faster, and are more water efficient and drought resistant. This is known and proven science, and has been for decades.
" 2023 was a fairly severe drought year, worst since 2012. "
nice cherry pick. and the guy was claiming we had a drought THIS year, in 2024. You proved me right. But, since you're only considering recent years, from 2012 to 2023, yes, a 2023 drought would seem horrible to you. News Flash, history began prior to 2012,a nd we've had FAR worse droughts in the past than ANYTHING we've seen since 2012.
And where we farm, we didn't lose crop yields in 2023. Why? Because we did things right, at the right times. We planted at the right time, to let the plants grow past their critical period before the minor drought set in, and they helped shade the soil. and so the plants survived teh drought better. Anyone could have and should have done the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@luka1608 Russia sent their Best. T-90s, T-80s, latest air defense vehicles, MRAPs, etc. Ka-52, Mi-28, Su-25, Su-35, Su-30, Su-34 and lesser aircraft have all been shot down over Ukraine.
The ONLY better equipment they have is the Su-57 (and only less than 10 of those, with at least 3 being prototypes), and a handful of T-14 prototypes (5-10?). They sent in the Chechens, Spetznaz, Paratroopers, Air Assualt troops, and many other "elite" units, all were destroyed or repulsed.
Russia has even lost multiple warships and multiple smaller boats.
All the versions of Russian drones that were destroyed or captured (including their Predator equivalent the Orion) have been made with off-the-shelf components that anyone in America can buy at teh store to build RC airplanes with. Low cost, low quality, none of it made in Russia.
What else is there?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robbyowen9107 Most US pilots went into combat with only basic dogfight understanding, a few hundred hours of total flight time, and many not knowing aerodynamic concepts of stalls and spins. Even today low and high time pilots don't understand these concepts well overall. Heck, most pilots today (including CFIs and other professional pilots) can't explain to me how flaps work, why and when to use flaps, outside of the checklist procedures. I know because I've asked many (usually as a segway into having a conversation about stalling and performance of aircraft, etc.). I've talked to retired USAF jet fighter pilots, airline pilots, students, Private Pilots, CFIs, etc. You'd be surprised how little most of them know about many of these topics. And WW2 pilots had Far less training and experience, and tactics, performance, aerodynamics, and such wasn't nearly as well understood then compared to what we know now. We have benefit of hindsight, they did not.
2
-
@james-faulkner I had a job, and an MOS. but our equipment was all new experimental stuff.
No, our maintenance was awesome, But we also helped do the maintenance as well. I fixed a lot of stuff myself. And we had civilian maintenance, but they were largely worthless. The maintenance team was not an entire platoon though, more like 1 squad from headquarters platoon.
Our company maintained 3 combat platoons of vehicles, with about 7 vehicles each. and a few spare vehicles.
The anonymity isn't for my unit, but for me personally. Yes, it seems too good to be true, and that's why the story needs to be told.
No, I am not that old, i have many decades ahead of me. Not sure which war you are thinking I fought in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Withnail1969 sure energy plays a factor, but not THE factor.
When we manufacture things, the cost of energy is Never on the list. When we make sheet metal parts, it's about material cost, setup cost, and labor.
When fixing an airplane, it's about part cost, and labor.
When doing construction, its' about cost of materials, and labor (time).
When doing electrical work, it's about materials and labor.
when McDonalds decides to automate, it's due to labor cost.
Why does Tesla automate their car production? Labor cost. Takes more energy to make teh car with robots than it did with people. But the robots work night and day, don't take breaks, don't need healthcare and benefits, don't pay income taxes or retirement....
2
-
2
-
@f-86zoomer37 A free market cannot exist without laws and regulation. This is why laws about anti-trust, conspiracy, monopolies, price gouging and more exists. Capitalism Requires regulation in order to exist, otherwise we end up with the corporatist economic system we currently have where the rich keep buying up everything and controlling the markets and buying politicians to do their bidding. If you support this, then by all means, keep advocating for zero regulation.
But telephone, internet, sewage etc are utilities. Social media sites like Youtube, Twitter, facebook, etc, registered themselves as Platforms, not Publishers. So they need to follow the rules accordingly, or be held accountable for breaking them. But it seems you don't believe in the rule of law, and you think people should just be allowed to do as they please without consequences, like loot, arson, murder, steal, assault others, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TotalRookie_LV doesn't matter if the turret pops off. Many tanks in history were completely destroyed or cooked off without ever losing their turrets.
what matters is how Easy it is to kill a particular tank, such as the T-55. and given it age, it is vulnerable to pretty much ANYTHING you use against it.
RPG-7, AT-4, Carl Gustav, Recoilless Rifle, NLAW, Javelin, mines, artillery, suicide drones, you name it. Ukraine will make quick and easy work of these T-55. Who cares if the turrets pop off, we care that they get destroyed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TakNuke "to ground troops through CAS and have the ability to operate from rough fields as SU-17 had both swing wings for STOL and robust landing gear."
CAS ability is not determined by landing gear nor STOL capability.
The F-5, F-8, F-4 all achieved dominant kill ratios against Russian Migs, and when evaluated head to head scientifically in the US and in Russia in some cases, the US jets were found to be superior both by the US and Russian evaluators. But as it was, the US pilots were superior trained in the end. Not only that, but Western fighter pilot doctrine has always been superior to the Communist nations. Individual pilot initiative vs ground directed operations.
The F11F-1F is one of the greatest tragedies in fighter jet history, one of the single greatest missed opportunities. And teh XF8U-3 was no slouch either, and regarded as the better aircraft (competing against the F-4) in every way other than the 2-seat requirement. It was ridiculously fast too, even by today's standards. One of the fastest jet fighters ever built.
The USAF produced more aces in Vietnam than the USN. Olds is said to have scored 7 kills, but wouldn't take credit so he could stay in combat. Ritchie was the famous ace for the USAF, but multiple RIOs achieved ace status as well, with one getting 6 kills.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deadgheist Capitalism isn't the issue. Corporatism (a form of socialism) is the problem. Gov subsidies, bailouts, welfare, and laws that favor big business and that are anti-competition in nature are the true problem.
Yes, wages overall were depressed for decades, but this sudden spike in low end wages is driving automation and pricing unskilled workers out of jobs.
There are solutions to all of this, very easy solutions in fact, but the problem is that the true solutions aren't always the obvious one, and the knee jerk reactions are almost always the wrong solution and just make things worse. The real obstacle to implementing actual solutions though is a combination of citizen stupidity and ignorance of reality, combined with the Corporations and Politicians conspiring to benefit themselves. To change things you have to stop voting for career politicians, even if you like them, and you have to force politicians to stop acting in their own Personal best interests and act instead in the best interest of the nation as a whole. But power corrupts, and people become politicians and feel they can't change anything, and so succumb to the massive bribes corporations give them instead.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steveg2573 CRT rewrites history, and restores the policies of the past. CRT creates hierarchies, just like the British gov sought to do to colonial America. CRT preaches racism, just like Colonial America. CRT causes Very Real psychological damage to children, and to society as a whole. CRT condemns people from birth, even to those who are innocent, and makes it impossible to rid ones self of this assigned guilt, just like the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. You're so open minded you've become intolerant to anyone who disagrees with you. You've become so tolerant you support policies which Force and Coerce people into submitting to your system of beliefs, in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution on multiple counts. You believe in guilty until proven innocent, and don't support Due Process. Yes, awareness is lacking, in that goo between your ears you call a brain. Maybe you should study history some more so you can see how your policies lead to murder, genocide, and war. Maybe you would know that the policies you seem to support were used by the most vile and racist groups in human history, with a combined global body count in the last 200 years of well over 100million dead.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@oknevals that's what happens when you serve in the military for years, and fight in wars for years, and one of your specialties was knowing how to defeat armor, and study all things military (tactics, strategy logistics, equipment, weapons systems, history...) for multiple decades to get as good at it as possible. And then backing that up with engineering degrees, skills and experience. i don't know everything, but the applicable info one needs to understand here is stuff I could teach a to a child and they would understand it. The basics of warfare, fundamentals, first principles, are all one really needs to focus on right now. War is complex, until you understand it well enough, and then it suddenly becomes so stupidly simple.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ColeSpolaric I don't buy cars from dealerships, I don't buy new cars, and I definitely don't buy EVs, so no issue here.
People who buy products based upon teh warranty are suckers. Warranties are specifically designed to apply such that they almost never get used. People pay extra for a warranty the company designed their product to ensure wouldn't be necessary. a few people benefit from warranties, most do not.
It's better to be smart and know what you're paying for and why, with no warranty at all, and save the purchase cost and the cost of the warranty, and put that money towards the next purchase or repair instead. it's a FAR cheaper way to live. I have been doing it for decades, and track my spending, and can prove it works, and detail out how I do it.
I can afford a new car, but it's a total waste of money to do so. It's simple math and economics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the M2 barrel can be swapped in under 15sec. in my unit, we could swap a hot barrel, check headspace, and re-time the gun in under 15sec. backing off two click is high precision. low precision would mean not knowing how many to back it off by. two clicks allow for adjustment if a low precision fit is encountered. but the fact that two clicks almost always works speaks to the precision.
M2 can be moved by two people. I was all of 120lb my first combat deployment, and even i could carry the M2 with barrel installed by myself. I'd even mount and un-mount it in the turrets all by myself (getting it up into the vehicles, and up into the turret and mounted by myself). and then you have the second guy carry the tripod. you're not moving far nor fast though. but in reality, any .50cal needs a vehicle of some sort once you factor in sufficient ammo for an engagement.
We used WW2 M2 from B17 in combat, and they never failed us, no mater the conditions, no matter how dirty. the most reliable weapon i've used in teh Army.
M2 is the best and most reliable weapon I ever had, and my first choice in combat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@600k25 you didn't answer my question, and went off about something I wasn't talking about. But, seeing as you think southern Europeans created everything, I'm calling bullshit again. Greeks were a dominant influence on democracies like the US, and predated the Romans. Keep in mind the Greek empire included parts of Africa as well as the middle east, not just Europe (same for the Romans, which also included northern Europe). Algebra, gunpowder, Art of War, many philosophical ideas, religions, and many other societal ideas and other things absolutely did not come from Europe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@colincampbell767 Doesn't work that way. Every new spacecraft innovates in some way, otherwise we're not building something new, rather we are mass producing something that already exists.
I've done this in the military in combat, in aviation, in engineering, and even in space technology. We had a saying in the military, "adapt or die". I'll never stop innovating until the day I die. And I'll never work for a company that wont let me innovate or move the ball forward. I innovated in a record setting project for NASA, we built it in only 4 months and it exceeded all expectations and accomplished something NASA had tried and failed to do for many decades. The way my company designs things, we make things more durable and rugged, we always build in layers of redundancy, and we come in lower cost than just about anyone at the same time. Our products are durable as a Side Effect of trying to save costs. There is a far better way to design things and to advance technology faster, at lower cost, and greater safety margins. But it takes a kind of leadership most people can't understand.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hlynnkeith9334 "The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority time and again over Norway."
time and again? what does that even mean?
Also, you are wrong, the Allies continued to attack Norway throughout teh war, including some famous 8th Air Force bombing missions.
"The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority time and again over Poland. "
time and again? what does that even mean? either they did, or they didn't. you seem confused. Yes, by conquering Poland, not the same as achieving air superiority the way the US does. the US even dominates airspace it doesn't control on the ground. Poland and Norway were both occupied on the ground.
"time and again", you keep using that phrase and it's nonsense.
"The Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese Army achieved air superiority over the Philippines. "
wrong, they conquered Philippines, not the same. you're deeply confused.
"The Imperial Japanese Navy achieved air superiority over Oahu. "
literally never happened. something like 1 fighters took off that day, with about 7 pilots scoring kills, and the IJN took so many losses they called off the third wave of attacks.
"The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority time and again over Russia. "
literally never happened.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea have already been allied for decades. nothing new here.
Russia is a failed military state and weak economy.
China has too many dependencies in energy, food, and relies on copying technology.
North Korea is stuck in the 1960s and worthless.
Iran is belligerent, but has little to offer economically or militarily and depends on the others.
Pakistan is more complicated, but still not a strong military nor economy, and has complicated international dealings.
Of these, China has the only real economy, and that is mostly a falsely built and inflated one dependent on cheating and imports.
Russia has the best military gear, and we see how good that is, China is still trying to copy Russian tech.
None of these countries has well trained militaries, and most rule their people by fear and threats.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@enhancedutility266 you're saying that thinking Russia knows how to fight. They have never been that good at warfare, even prior to WW2. they never had good leadership, never had good equipment, never had forward thinking, etc. and they always fought defensive minded, and using volume attacks of men and material to overwhelm an enemy. they don't know how to do anything else. And they've never had a strong and wealthy economy to support the things they aspire to. and they lacked an electronics industry.
To give you a general sense of how bad their aircraft are, no one buys their civilian aircraft, and only poor nations and belligerent nations the Western powers refuse to sell too buy their military aircraft.
Russia built its A-50 AWACs 20yrs after the US already had theirs operational, and the A-50 had issues and was not comfortable for the crew. It took the Soviets 20yrs to reverse engineer the AIM9 and create their own properly functioning and operational equivalent. And Russia probably doesn't know how to build a new A-50now even if they wanted to. And even then likely lack the necessary electronics components.
Russia is, and never was, the threat people always believed.
2
-
2
-
curious that woke companies and people are so hell bent on FORCING their ideas on western societies, but they have No interest in doing the same in totalitarian, racist, sexist, oppressive, homophobic, intolerant, polluting, genocidal, slaver, societies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@svjuno I agree. But lets just go with what we have for a moment. Take the current reported deaths and subtract the difference between current and yearly average seasonal flu and pneumonia deaths. Now consider there are plenty of reports of murder victims (one i am personally aware of in MN for example), car accidents and heart attacks being listed as COVID deaths, not to mention those early on who werent even tested before/after they died, and many who had covid but in no way died from it. We know the current deaths are inflated, likely by tens of thousands. What would that do to the current reported death rate figures? Now, lets consider all those asymptomatic patients and other symptomatic cases that never got tested/detected and recovered just fine. We have no idea how many people have actually had this already. So lets assume at least 2x as many people have had it already (multiple random sample studies from around the globe suggest 20x higher is reasonable assumption, so i'm being extremely conservative here). What does that do to the death rate? if CDC was reporting 0.5% death rate 2 months ago, and we're seeing falling death rates, despite over counted deaths, and under reported cases, then it is safe to assume the actual death rate is much lower than the CDC reported in May. Doubling the number of reported cases alone (to account for undetected cases) would drop the death rate down to around 0.2%. And that's being conservative.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@川建国-h5r that's the best you got? a single invention from years ago? FYI, we now use smokeless powder, not gunpowder.
what about the threshing machine, steam power, nuclear power, gasoline engine, airplane, submarine, iron hull ships, transistor, electricity, printing press, rifles, tanks, cars, trains, automatic loom, spinning jenny, AC power, radio, compass, internet, telescope, telephone, light bulb, smartphone, helicopter, penicillin, radar, computers, sonar, microwave, GPS, MRI, X-ray, camera, calculus, space travel, and on and on and on.
China has contributed little to the world overall. and the few significant things they did happened hundreds or thousands of years ago.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@randomdude2832 when the pilot is already trained to do the task, they only have to learn the new switch positions. their reactions and procedures are already there. I know, as I've done it many times.
most people are capable. but yes, the inept and lazy or undisciplined individuals that don't pay attention fail. but they aren't fighter pilots either. fighter pilots are selected from the best individuals to ensure they are serious and capable people. But yes, my unit Excelled in combat with almost no training at all, as all our equipment was so new that no one even knew what it looked like, and our job was new so their were no formal tactics or procedures yet, so we had to just make it up as we went. Came away with 5 unit awards. People even thought we were some sort of special forces unit at times. It doesn't take superhumans, just average joes with good leadership, motivation, and discipline.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I used to just go along with the climate change narrative. Then one day a few years ago I came across two contradictory claims by the climate alarmist community. One of them couldn't be true. So I finally decided it was time to start my deep dive into climate change.
The very first things I decided to ask and Google was, "how does CO2 drive temperature?", so I started looking at the physics and chemistry of Carbon and Oxygen atoms, and Carbon Dioxide molecules, how much heat it could absorb, where that heat came from, etc.
Within 1 hour I had found the science that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature (we went from 200ppm to 400ppm with at most a 1C temp rise, nd to get another 3C temp rise wed have to get to 3200ppm of CO2), and that this had been known, repeatedly proven, and uncontested since at least the 1950s.
In a matter of hours I realized that both the contradictory statements were false, and i've been fighting against the climate change narrative ever since. Forest fires, Hurricanes, cold, heat, drought, floods, agriculture, wind turbines, EVs, solar power, nuclear energy, sea levels, global temp records, arctic sea ice, population, cow farts, etc. all of it. I can debate this for hours nonstop spitting scientific facts the whole time and using math to back it all up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fanta4897 no, it was not just a prototype. It was being taught o frontline soldiers decades after being a prototype. you don't give prototypes to trainees during peacetime to train on 1-2 decades after something was a prototype and still call it a prototype. The US army was capable of fielding it, but never did. the US doesn't use mines as they are defensive weapons and we've never fought a war in which such a mine was useful since its development. also, mines are widely frowned upon.
Yes, if you have a whole field covered in these that can start to stand out like a sore thumb as they are not buried and reasonably large. But one or two strategically placed can be effective. But they are defensive only. you place them when expecting an enemy advance on your position. but these mines are more expensive to, with lower probability of kill, as you have to be sure the enemy will approach it otherwise it's wasted.
Air power, artillery, drone strikes, AT missiles, etc. are more cost effective, and better for advancing. The US hornet mine has a few days to 2week self destruct to avoid littering lands with mines after a war. so if it never finds a target or is never retrieved, it is lost. Waste of money if it self destructs, and it's not cheap. Whereas something like a javelin, NLAW, etc can be used both offensively and defensively and has greater range from point of firing.
2
-
9:10 Ukraine is numerically not winning? how do you figure that? Have you seen Russia's losses? Men, ships, submarines, fighter jets, tanks, helicopters, missile stocks, etc.
In a war of attrition, Ukraine is doing amazingly well.
Russia is going to take more land? How? they have made numerous D-Day level attacks and been repeatedly repelled, and any minor gains they make, Ukraine takes back. Crimea is untenable for Russia for numerous reasons, and Ukraine can still get it back.
You talk like you have a clue, but you really don't understand warfare.
2
-
2
-
geometry is the underappreciated king of practical math. also,
3ft, 4ft, 5ft, no math required
....or.....
6ft, 8ft, 10ft
9ft, 12ft, 15ft
12ft, 16ft, 20ft
........
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The specialist aircraft historically keep winning over multirole.
How to Design a Legendary Multirole Aircraft:
1) Design an amazing air superiority fighter or other purpose-built design
2) see how that aircraft can be upgraded and/or adapted to fit other roles (recon, ground strike, Electronic warfare, SEAD...)
Case Examples: F4U, P-38, Mosquito, F-16, F-15E, F-14, A-7 (from F-8), F-18 Growler, C-130, Rafale, F-4, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
in the cold of winter where I live, you lose 40% reduction in range. And I have coworkers who own Teslas, VWs, Ford Lightning, Toyota Priuses, other EVs, and they all see this reduction.
So let's say if you had 240miles of range in summer, you'd only get 150mi in winter. It gets cold here. And where I live 150mi doesn't get you very far at all.
And that is assuming you were charged to 100%. Most EV owners I know only charge to 80%-85% most of the time. So take another 15% of range off that, leaving you with only 128mi range. Then on top of that, you don't want to risk running out of battery and being stranded, so now you want say an extra 20mi buffer, leaving you with only 108mi of effective real world range.
And none of that factors in things like heaters and window defrosters, so you don't freeze to death while driving, or pulling a load.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jmass4207 "But “we can defeat Ukraine despite NATO aid” surely is not."
that is way overblown. Ukraine has gotten a handful of HIMARS rocket artillery, a handful of tanks, some missiles, a patriot battery.....and Russia is still struggling to win after losing nearly 500k people and thousands of tanks, hundreds of jets, bombers, AWACs, cargo planes, helicopters, lost a large portion of its Black Sea Fleet...... Mostly to lesser russian gear, and cobbled together weapons.
If Ukraine actually got serious NATO support, the war would be even worse for Russia.
Most russian soldier prior to Ukraine got no more than 2yrs experience, and they had no real NCO personnel with decades of experience like the US. their Spetznaz get less training than an average US private in the infantry. Anyone trying to claim Russian military training is comparable in the slightest to the US is on drugs. I know you were not making that claim, quite the opposite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kryzzan7039 Russia has more people, but to get them to Ukraine you must draft them. and tehy don't want to fight.
Ukrainians have their entire population to draw from,a nd they want to fight, they want to defend their homes, their property, their freedom, their familites.
Russia has already lost teh bulk of their trained military and are not raining more.
Russia has expended teh bulk of their top military hardware already (missiles, tanks, aircraft, etc.), and their factories are not cranking out more.
Much of the famed Soviet Union military industry came out of Ukraine, not Russia.
Ukraine has already proven it has the superior wartime economy and industry. they've already been able to adapt and overcome, and Russia has failed to do the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@annmarieknapp "I don't see society teaching men to be better partners, but trying to force women to settle and accept such treatment. "
only becasue you're not looking. There are tons of books, youtube videos, lectures, and more dedicated to Nothing but teaching men how to be better.
And women are actively complaining about how good looking men are these days, how well put together they are, how successful they are, yet can't find no man.
Men have embraced their solitude and freedom from teh chains of women, and sought instead to better themselves. To be healthier, to work out more, to develop DIY skills, to be more manly, to be successful in their careers, etc.
Women are just mad they can no longer ride that gravy train.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
More Jews and others were exterminated than slaves brought to the US. And many slaves did gain freedom by one means or another. Some escaped, some bought their freedom, some we freed voluntarily by their owners, some earned it through military service in the Revolution, etc.
Then, in the 20th century, Communism has racked up a death toll of tens of millions, often estimated to be somewhere around 70million dead. Communists have caused more human tragedy in history than the slavers could ever could have. Only an estimated 10% of all African slaves brought from Africa went to North America, the other 90% were delivered to Central and South America. Why are no other American countries attacked for their slaver history? Why are Marxists off the hook for holding the top spot in human history for total people brutalized and murdered? Why is the slavery, genocide, and brutality in African history ignored by these people?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wavez4224 I'm passionate about it because all these people claiming to be smart and scientific can't get their facts straight, and can't see the importance of making common units easily referenced to a known standard of measure.
I get how metric works, I'm not an ignorant child. I use metric all the time. I do most unit conversions in relation to metric even. So how about you stay on topic and stop giving lessons no one asked for.
but other systems of measure are still used, especially if working on historical machines that predate all these standards. you still need to use other units. Not to mention that not everything in metric is base 10 (radians, degrees, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, etc.). And English uses base10 units all the time. 1.0", 0.1", 0.01", 0.001", tenths of a foot, tenths of a mile, hundredths of a mile, we even sometimes do time in tenths and hundredths of an hour, PSI vs KSI (pounds per square inch vs kilo pounds per square inch).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If in Beethoven's early days of learning music, or Picasso's early days learning art, before they were skilled an famous, they had been told their early crappy work was "so amazing!", "you're so skilled!", then they never would have strove to become better still. But in reality thy were likely told things like, "you'll never make it as an artist!", "you suck!", "this is pathetic!", and as a result they tried Harder, put the time and effort in to become better and better until one day they truly were hailed as being the best.
Hardship is Necessary. The BEST music tends to be written as a result of personal suffering (take Amy Lee for example). The best stories are filled with immense obstacles the characters must overcome (Lord of the Rings). War heroes are those who overcame near impossible odds, pushed through serious injury, or accomplished heroic feats of strength and courage, to accomplish victories the average person was not likely to achieve had they tried. It is only through hardship and strife that truly great feats are achieved.
If anyone could have made it to the moon, then nobody would have cared when Apollo 11 made it. If literally anyone can accomplish a thing, a given task, then there is Nothing special about pulling it off.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:20:25 men are looking at the statistics, anecdotes, but they are also observing what is going on around them for real. What is happening to their fathers, brothers, friends, themselves, etc. and they can see for themselves it's a disaster. I can count on one hand the number of men in my life who've not gone through at least one divorce. Over 90% of all the men i served with ended up divorced, and there were some horror stories among them. Divorce rate among pilots is ridiculously high, so much so they've studied it in the past (I'm also a professional pilot).
If I know the outcome, why would I do it? I'm not a gambler, I don't make bad bets, and I only bet if I know the deck is stacked in my favor. Marriage is a bad bet, a surefire way to lose everything I've worked hard to achieve in my life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
USMC K-MAX, RQ-7 Shadow, MQ-1, MQ-9, RQ-4 global hawk, RQ-11 Raven, RQ-170 Sentinel, RQ-20 Puma, RQ-16 T-Hawk, and more. All used operationally.
I personally saw or used or worked with the following in Iraq and Afghanistan: RQ-20 Puma, RQ-16 T-Hawk, RQ-11 Raven, K-MAX, RQ-7 Shadow, MQ-1, MQ-9, and a sentinel crashed and recovered by Iran when I was in Afghanistan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
2
-
2
-
@SkrixFox PMC, like PMCS Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services
" PMC stands for Professional Military Contractor. In other words, a mercenary or gun-for-hire. They are the equivalent to Wagner, Blackwater, Gazprom PMC, etc."
that's literally a mercenary, how do you not understand that?
"They call them "volunteers" and their pay is considered a donation."
100% false
Compensation is compensation, no matter what you call it. And gov's don't "donate" a person their pay, volunteer can donate their effort without pay though.
Also, mercenaries are outside the military chain of command, it's not just about pay. It's also about not wearing a uniform of a recognized combatant nation military.
this is why Foreign Legions are legal, as they are officially joining the military for which they are fighting, and wear their uniform, and take orders, and are in teh chain of command, and get paid as soldiers.
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I can make 2x 10inch pizzas for ~$2 each in only 25min (grabbing ingredients out of pantry to first bite). And they taste far better than restaurant pizza and is better than "gourmet" pizza dough. the dough recipe i have from my Mom requires only about 4 ingredients.
I can make a simple, large, juicy cheeseburger in less than 5min (grabbing ingredients to first bite) with as little as 3-4 ingredients, but i can add things like pickles, onions, mushrooms, lettuce, etc. at will. and for FAR cheaper than fast food burgers. Far larger, far tastier, far healthier, far cheaper. And they cost me no more than about $1.50 each (at current prices in 2024). I can make a burger in less time it takes to go through a drive thru.
I have multiple chili, and casserole recipes that are so cheap and easy to make that you could feed one adult for 30 days with these recipes on as little as $25/month (at current 2024 prices). I spend 20min making one recipe on average, and that dish will last me 7 days if I'm the only one eating it. 20min of cooking per week per dish, at $25/month is AMAZING! It's not hard.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rogerthat4545 Nixon actually tried to end the war shortly after taking office, as it was a campaign promise.
He had the Pentagon bring him a plan to end it (mind you the Pentagon had a plan to end the war in the first 6months of the war, but since it wasn't a declared war, Johnson wouldn't let them enact it). He was about to enact the Pentagon's plan, that required first a surge of troops to end it , followed by the draw down. But protestors marched on D.C. and he became worried about the public perception of starting a surge and knowing the public would neither understand nor care that the surge was only temporary in the short term to end the war in the long run. The plan was called off.
Once the US politicians finally decided to end it, the military was finally turned loose and and they ended it with about 2 weeks of fighting.
Keep in mind, the US never officially declared war, and so invading North Vietnam was deemed not an option. Johnson started the war to get elected, then it got out of control. The US military won every major battle and could have ended it very early had the original plan been accepted and used. But it was all politics. It was all for political gain, and the military had their hands tied.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rnt45t1 get involved in community groups, make new friends.
My thing is aviation, so getting involved with the EAA, and we also have a partnership with the Boy Scouts to create an aviation STEM program, and we have the Civil Air Patrol and cadets, etc. Maybe cars is more your thing, start going to car shows, races and events. Volunteer helping out as crew for someone else, etc. Another thing I've considered doing is engineering lectures and courses open to teh community, to help kids and adults with math, physics, electronics, and teaching them a variety of fun topics with an emphasis on hands-on learning, and making seemingly complex things like circuits, calculus, and aerodynamics simple and accessible to common people. I attend fly-ins, and am building an airplane, and help others build their airplanes.
Who knows all the connections you can create through such activities. Find things that interest you, and find out how to get involved in the community regarding those topics. Find existing groups, or create your own. But be willing to help others. Gotta give to receive. Focus on helping others and they'll be more willing to help you in return. Along the way you'll make new friends.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@specialman6004 But the P-39 started out very slightly better than the Zero in those areas, and improvements leading to the P-39Q (lighter, more horsepower, etc.), led to it improving a lot over the A6M later in the war. Also, US pilots even admitted judging the early P-39s overly harshly and unfairly. They were aggressive and wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor early on, and weren't patient enough or experienced enough yet to know how to use the P-39 effectively. US pilots fought too aggressively, when the P-39 and P-40 called for more patient tactics using altitude, speed/diving, superior numbers, and wingman tactics to defeat the more maneuverable Japanese fighters.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aleksazunjic9672 "Actually, German U-boat consumed lots of British and American resources, not the other way around. Thus Germans pursued it to the end."
drop in the bucket compared to Germany. US could afford those resources, Germany could not. Imagine how many tanks and aircraft could have been made with that, not to mention the thousands of personnel it would have freed up. The German Battleships largely accomplished nothing in the war anyways. and U-boats were being sunk so fast that the odds of surviving the war as a U-boat crewman were basically 0.
Germany could ill afford the oil and other raw material consumed. America had 6k ships by wars end, including 16 fleet carriers just in the invasion fleet for Japan alone. US built so much stuff in WW2, we're still using up the last of it in recent years. Weapons, engine parts, explosives, and more from WW2 are finally being consumed, even after much of it was scrapped post-war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@app1mxh So? what's your point? The 2A is about an armed MILITIA for defending against tyrannical gov. Did you also know bolt action rifles are infantry weapons? As are pump shotguns, as are revolvers, as are handguns, as are semiautomatic rifles, as are pens, as are boots, as are shovels. Name a firearm type that has never been an infantryman's weapon?
But you only defined AR15s and AK rifles as assault weapons. So your definition failed. Keep in mind, an M&P15 is Not an AR15, nor is an HK415 an AR15, nor is an LR308, etc. AR is a Brand, Armalite. No other rifle is an AR15 except those manufactured by Armalite.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rarelibra I am the one who is prepared, hence why i advocate for it.
In my life I've experienced earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards that knocked out power for days and shut down roads, flooding, wind storms, ice storms, sand storms, multiple wars, etc. Never once needed someone else to come save me.
You're not too bright are you, if you think a person advocating preparedness isn't prepared themselves?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@laszlokaestner5766 Yes, they have training, they are learning, they are adapting. but you simply cannot recreate US fighting style in only a decade, and without air support. Older military members are still entrenched in their ways, and it takes time for lessons to sink in, be applied across teh forces, etc.
Yes, Ukraine has demonstrated SOME combined arms skills, but not much. Compared to the US they are still a 3rd world military, they have a long way to go.
Yes, the Russians have improved faster than I expected. Fortunately it took them 750k dead and loss of nearly all their artillery and armor to start adapting. and even then, the Russians are only adapting slightly and on individual unit levels, not at teh organizational, training, and control levels, which is good for Ukraine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaptannuh5578 wow, how easily you are swayed by platitudes. Spoken like a true tyrant would. Declare any criticism "phobia", and brown nose up to anyone who praises you.
Seems Turks can't take criticism well, and are eager to accept unwarranted praise.
" Turkey will be a regional pillar of power"
I've asked how this is, or will be, so, but have not received an answer. Like India, one cannot become a regional power without taking a side, forever playing both sides of the fence. Nor does Turkey have the wealth to build up any true power projection.
Having legit criticism of baseless claims and undeserved showering of praise is not a "phobia". Phobias are "irrational fears". There is nothing phobic about questioning childish claims. And your inability to take true criticism and self-reflect only serves to validate my claims that Turkey will never be innovative enough on their own, nor become a regional power.
How people behave and react to resistance, say a lot about them, and thus far collectively in the comments, the Turks are showing a very pathetic and childish mindset overall.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CycleWerkz good breakdown, but these are all things I'm already familiar with.
"Congratulations on your entry into Physics. Enjoy the journey" don't make assumptions, not wise. Everything else is great, until you go around acting like people have no clue. I'm a Mechanical Engineer, thermodynamics, heat transfer, chemistry, physics, etc. are all part of the job. I design cooling systems, including dealing with radiation cooling, and hold patents for cooling systems. I'm not a rookie. I'm just not a climate scientist. But I'm well versed in science. I put off doing a climate specific deep dive until the contradictions finally provided my inciting moment.
1
-
1
-
@CycleWerkz "I am not here to win people over. There is nothing to gain by doing so. " then why the long response?
I am not a climate scientist, nor a chemist, as I stated, and for teh average person, half of what you said will just go in one ear and out the other, most wont even bother to read what you wrote. You're not comprehending the audience and missing the whole point.
I was not, am not, trying to write a research paper or technical thesis in the youtube comments, as this is not the place for that. You try to prove how smart you are, by proving how little you understand the intentions here, and by taking this whole thing Very personally. Like this following comment for example.
"I must conclude that you have a very loose definition of a deep dive analysis. So either your education credential claims are false, or your deep dive claim is false, or both. "
You have no basis upon which to make such an absurd hypothesis. I provided nowhere near enough context for you to draw this conclusion, and the fact these are teh ONLY conclusions you could devise is pathetic. This really proves a lack of creative thinking, logical reasoning, and problem solving on your part.
But don't let me stop you from digging a deeper hole.
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
As for fire support, what is the max barrel elevation and indirect fire range of a T-55? Now ask yourself, what is the range of precision Ukrainian artillery? How much fuel does a T-55 need compared to towed artillery? How accurate is the T-55 as artillery? What artillery targeting systems does teh T-55 come equipped with?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt: "Men, improve yourselves, do better."
Matt: "It's ok for 90% of women to be fat, lazy, worthless, and to not contribute anything nor have to better themselves."
Hey Matt, remind me of all the passages in your Bible that describe female behavior, and how women are supposed to submit to their husbands, and not sleep around, not nag, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sometimes it's better spending more for the better product. Buy once, cry once. Other times, the cheap product is so cheap, you can buy it so many times over when they break or wear out before you can justify buying the expensive version, that you can never actually justify buying the more expensive option. I tend to do cost/benefit analysis on things like tools and expensive items, to see if it's better in the end going for the cheap version (good enough, not all cheap things are that bad, will last for how little i expect to use it, etc) or for the expensive version (only slightly more, but lasts way longer, easier and faster to use, cheaper in the long run, etc).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonschneider5913 Jamming =/= hacking
Jamming is easy. But hacking requires software access. There is no wireless software access to a simple drone. And almost none of the drones in Ukraine are controlled with an AI of any kind, and having an AI computer doesn't magically make something more hackable that has no wireless software access. You cannot hack a basic RC vehicle, as their is nothing to hack, nothing able to be reprogrammed.
"its a back and forth like with every other piece of tech in war..."
yes, and no. but you clearly have a child's understanding of war. I'm an actual combat vet who tested prototype weapons and technology in combat and utilized drones and other "scifi" tech you still don't even know the US military possesses., Mechanical and Aerospace engineer, professional pilot, and been in the RC hobby since I was 3yrs old.
There are stages of technology for RC vehicles. the first ones were literally "mechanical". the next level of evolution was more electronic, but not programable, contained no software. These levels of drones and RC vehicles make great STEM projects. Next level is getting into things like Arduino DIY remote control. Again, you can't simply wirelessly hack an arduino and reprogram it on-the-fly, if you even know how each particular set of code on each individual drone is programmed.
You clearly lack comprehension of how technology works. Hollywood is BS nonsense. Reality doesn't work like they show in the movies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
17:38 recoilless rifles were PROLIFIC in OEF. The Taliban used them daily to attack our armored vehicles and to shell our outposts. The US used them in Vietnam as well, and the Somalis had them in the Blackhawk Down incident.
The US has the Carl Gustav now as well. Recoilless weapons are not some ancient archaic weapon anymore than the tank is, or the 1911 is, or the M2 is, or the helicopter is, or the drone is, or the shotgun is, or the submarine is, or the aircraft carrier is. All of these weapons have been used in combat since at least WW1 or WW2, but are all still produced new and used today as well.
Don't forget the AT-4, LAW, bazooka, Panzerschreck, and RPG are all part of the recoilless family of weapons too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt: "Men, improve yourselves, do better."
Matt: "It's ok for 90% of women to be fat, lazy, worthless, and to not contribute anything nor have to better themselves."
Hey Matt, remind me of all the passages in your Bible that describe female behavior, and how women are supposed to submit to their husbands, and not sleep around, not nag, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It has nothing to do with access. it's about RISK.
I have everything i desire in life and on a good career track. I am Not willing to risk it all for What? What do women have to offer in exchange for the risk I have to take with her?
High divorce rates, false accusations of domestic abuse, lifetime alimony, lose my retirement earnings, lose my house, lose other property of value to me that I worked hard to acquire, and worse. I already do All of my own chores, pay All of my own bills, do All of my own cooking, volunteer to teach kids math/engineering/history and more, etc.
What does a woman bring to the equation aside from astronomical risk?
1
-
curious that woke companies and people are so hell bent on FORCING their ideas on western societies, but they have No interest in doing the same in totalitarian, racist, sexist, oppressive, homophobic, intolerant, polluting, genocidal, slaver, societies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Huskie you don't need a monthly subscription to own/use a cellphone nor a computer.
Computers don't require the internet to work, and cellphones work over wireless as well. Years ago when I was deployed to Afghanistan, a guy was using his touch screen iPod to call home over the internet. He used it to get online and access and internet phone service, and the iPod had a microphone in it. People owned computers for decades before the internet became a normal thing, I lived in those days and learned on and used computers before internet was available to everyone (and still do).
I use my cellphone solely on wifi daily as I dont have cell reception where I work.
Also, free wifi is everywhere these days.
You buy the device, free and clear, and use it as you see fit. if you choose to buy internet or cell service, you're free to do so, or not, at your own discretion.
When I buy a car, I own the car and everything in it and physically connected to it (like heated seats).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amywalsh2001 if you need a college to show you the way, you'll forever struggle. Modern college is the problem, not the cure.
Truth is easy to find, even in the "misinformation" as you like to call it.
Misinformation is political speech for anything that doesn't agree with your personal agenda.
To seek truth, you must Test ideas against what they claim. people pose hypothesis as their "truths", and you test them, objectively, against evidence that would prove that hypothesis true. If it holds up, you can assume for now, that that truth is true. but know that with time you may encounter further information that then proves it false, and visa versa. The only truth is a hypothesis backed up by repeatable objective evidence. College not required. College if for fools who can't think for themselves and need to be told what to think. I spent 17yrsin academia, and it has descended into a cesspool of lies and propaganda, and politically motivated agendas. Colleges are rife with people who are decidedly incapable if discerning truth. Not all, but most.
1
-
@amywalsh2001 college, university, same thing.
Over ten years ago? I've been working in academia for almost the past 20yrs. Have 4 degrees myself, and taught a lot of people.
Yes, factually, and objectively false information, is false. It is only "misinformation" if used for political purposes.
Yes, people have been falsifying data through omission. It's not that the data is wrong, but their interpretation is knowingly wrong, and they do it for political reasons. Thus making it misinformation. Many people lie about temperatures and climate to push their green energy agenda. Others lie about the COVID death rates and vaccine to get ridiculously rich and to lord over others. Others lie about gun deaths and crime to push illegal legislation to ban something that is not even an issue at all.
None of these things stands up to objective scientific scrutiny. And you don't need a degree in any such related topics to figure this out. Self-study, self-learning, is far better than any college education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ace1000ks I have patents they can look up, Industry Awards I can point to, and other skills and accomplishments I can showcase if needed. So I can prove my capabilities with other methods. And I got my job through such methods. When I start my own business, I will not value a degree the way you do in hiring. I hire based on results, can the person get results, regardless of education. I've been offered jobs as a lead engineer in numerous countries and states, and for some pretty prestigious companies too. I once also had a lawyer try to hire me on the spot after only a 2hr conversation.
Not everyone will have that though, but neither is a degree in engineering as important as you want to think it is. It may be a way to prove a degree of understanding, but given my college classmates' performances (or rather, lack thereof), I'm not in the least bit impressed. Farm kids with no college make better engineers than college educated city kids with no life experience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@omnomnom5359 No, we defeated the Spanish and took the Philippines from them, then allowed them self governance and promised them their independence and followed through. A colonial power would have taken control and kept control.
We also gave back Japan, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and many more countries we could have colonized or kept, but didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i work in the office, and many of my coworkers need to do so as well. I'm an engineer. we design stuff, then build it, test it, fix it, troubleshoot it, redesign it, etc. Tons of work to be done at the site. But many are trying to work remotely anyway. Problem is they are less productive from home, and when they aren't around to help take care of stuff, the rest of us who did come in have to do their work in addition to our own.
Some jobs can be done remotely, but not all. Engineering can be tough, and lots of people aren't cut out for it. But it's not something you can do from your couch. And I dont even live nor work in a big city. Myself and many others live within 5-15min of work. Myself and many have even walked or biked to work.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drno3391 copy of the US Hornet mine. Never encountered one of the Russian ones. never handled one, but have some experience with the US Hornet mine. but I have some ideas on how you might evade one.
they are in Ukraine, we know this, but I have yet to hear of a single successful deployment. But, lets assume it works. It cannot distinguish friend from foe, and since russia and ukraine both use russian equipment especially...the likelihood of friendly fire is high.
but I have a way to push through an area filled with these mines. I'd use a modified russian tank to do it. I'd have the mechanics/operators modify accordingly.
Once the path is clear, you're free to move through.
But I have a habit of attacking in ways the enemy doesn't suspect, and so the mines likely wouldn't end up in my path. And these types of mines don't work well in all environments either, as they are easy to spot sitting on the surface. And obstacles can get in the way. traditional mines are far more effective overall, and far cheaper and more reliable (less complex, fewer failure modes).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@normannseils3936 False, like it or not, religion gives most people purpose in life. Modern society has proven that.
Not all of us need religion, but most do.
" If he is not talking about the spiritual concept of god, which needs to be clarified, the whole concept of a god from different religions is nonsense anyways."
he doesn't need to clarify anything. stop whining.
"Calling it god is just making yourself small and irresponsible to your own fate."
So? most people are incapable of taking responsibility for their own lives these days. hence woke idiots running teh western nations.
"How is bashing religion pushing a religion into someone anyways?"
You're trying to tell him he's wrong and an idiot, you're trying to push atheism on him.
" Disgusted is offended in my books."
Well, then you're an uneducated idiot.
"I’m disgusted by people claiming a god is responsible for their wellbeing. Is that wrong? "
You can think whatever you like, but you should live and let live, otherwise you're going to eventually run into karma.
"And as a matter of fact I’m enjoying bashing someone’s religion, if it’s displayed in this way. He can just keeping for himself. And if he can’t, I can’t as well. Eye for an eye."
you truly are a spoiled little brat. he didn't ask you to respond. you didn't have to. you chose to. if you want to bash people, fine, but then don't deny it when you get called out. and don't cry about it when we bash you right back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Homemakers are not "unpaid". The money they save the family in childcare costs, food bill, education costs, and other overlooked benefits (a good homemaker can actually boost their spouse's social status, netting them better pay and promotions for example), psychological support, etc, has real value. It's not a paycheck type of job, but the value provided to the family is very real. Their pay is reflected in the money saved, and in the overall improved quality of life. Things you can't buy with money, homemakers provide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
500 tanks sent back for repairs over more than 20yrs. Doesn't really tell you much at all. If you can REPAIR a tank and is worth repairing, well, I guess it survived overall, didn't it? Russia's lost tanks in Ukraine are not repairable at all.
Repairs could include things like wear and tear from years of prolonged use, rollovers and other accidents, upgrades, damage that isn't field repairable, cracks developing in the armor, etc., not just battle damage.
We had one tank in Iraq taken out when an insurgent got a grenade inside a tank with a cracked turret hatch. The tank was intact and repairable, but the crew was no so well off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Astra2 No, it's clearly too hard for YOU to comprehend.
A) mix all your garbage, garbage company sorts it at their facility to separate refuse from recyclables. and further separates recyclables by material (plastic, paper, metal, glass, etc.)
B) sort all your garbage, garbage company sorts it at their facility to separate refuse from recyclables. and further separates recyclables by material (plastic, paper, metal, glass, etc.)
End result, nothing changed other than you wasting time and energy, everyone making 2x as many fossil fuel trash cans, and 2x as many trucks driving around every day picking up the garbage and recycling separately.
My way is BETTER for the environment than your way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@משה-ב1ט "They said it wouldn't work, but we built it: Iron Dome."
WHO said it wouldn't work? It's just a SAM system. nothing special.
"As it happens, I AM a veteran. And if there's one thing I know is that war's face is everchanging. What was impractical yesterday becomes practical today. What is impractical today, may well be practical tomorrow. "
that's not what I asked. I asked your combat experience, and combat experience using prototype weapons, specifically directed energy weapons. So, basically you answered indirecytl,. you have no such experience.
"We know that superconducting cables would be very useful if we could make them work, so therefore we will eventually find a way."
except that the cost vs gain is negative. the experts in teh field disagree with you and state clearly that the minimal gains would not be worth the cost and limitations imposed by a superconductor technology. And dealing with electronics cooling realities daily myself, I agree with them.
Technology has limits.
"Human genius is unlimited. "
it is limited by the laws of physics and math.
our IMAGINATION is infinite, our technological capabilities is Limited.
"The ones who forget that end up buried, whether by the newfangled Maxim gun or by the newfangled airplane, or by the FPV drone, or by whatever comes next."
False. Everyone dies and eventually regardless. Directed energy weapons are not a prerequisite for victory. clearly you know nothing about military history.
1
-
@משה-ב1ט "The point keeps sailing right over your head, I see. "
Not at all. im grounded in reality, you're full of fantasy idealism about technology.
" If everyone keeps listening to you, we know which one it will be. Luckily, not everyone listens to you."
People who listen to me innovate far more and faster than people like you.
"A Tamir interceptor missile costs $20,000 at its absolute cheapest. An Iron Beam shot costs $0.25. Meantime, a rusty generic grad rocket costs around a hundred bucks, while a Quassam hacked together out of household trash, free UNRWA-provided groceries and scavenged sewer pipe will set you back around $50."
and none of it uses expensive superconductors that can't tollerate engery pulsing.
"Directed energy weapons are ABSOLUTELY the key to victory."
Wunderwaffen are not keys to victory, just ask Japan with their super battleships and supercarriers, and the Nazis with their myriad fo weapons that failed.
You know literally nothing about warfare if you think wars are won and lost by such technology. Not one war in history so far has been won by such a weapon. Also, directed energy weapons are DEFENSIVE weapons. You cannot win a war on defense only.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johntowers1213 "but a guy in an office back at HQ does? "
maybe, if he has years fo drone experience. Just depends. but not ever expert works in HQ either.
"the Ukrainians didn't start using and refining drones from a top down procurement structure they were put into action first by on the ground troops that saw a weak point and exploited it with the tools they had available..."
yes, and that was nothing new. The US used them for 20yrears in OIF/OEF, the Syrians used quads, as did the war in Armenia and Azerbaijan.
"Soldiers are pretty good at the sniff test when it comes to weapons as a rule..less so the further away you get from the front line."
Yes, and I was one of those frontline soldiers that tested such prototype equipment in combat for years, and I knew my equipment inside and out. I'm now a mechanical and aerospace engineer, and professional Airplane and Helicopter pilot, and grew up using RC cars and airplanes. Few guys I served with were smart enough to understand the engineering fo a drone, smart enough to develop high level tactics, know how to employ and integrate them at a strategic level, etc. Most soldiers are Not that smart. Only a select few of us are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bizjetfixr8352 Wrong. P-39 was a front line fighter on the Eastern Front, a MAJOR frontline theater, until the end. But clearly you think the Russians don't count as a major theater of operations.
P-40 fought on the front lines until the end across teh globe.
F4F was in all the major battles until the end, as all the escort carriers relied upon them until the very last days, in support of every major action. The US never operated FM-2s either, they operated late model F4F with great success too.
This isn't about "production", stop trying to change the argument. This has NOTHING to do with what was claimed in the video, nor what I posted in my comment.
"P-40 - Out of production, used to harass bypassed Island garrisons"
not everything was bypassed and ignored, battles occurred, were occurring. you don't have to be part of the main thrust to be "frontline". Do you also consider the battles in Sicily and Italy to not count as frontline combat as well?
you love cherry picking to suite your narrative. try being logically consistent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shelbyseelbach9568 You responded to the original comment only ONCE. The rest was you getting upset with me for trying to answer your question.
"LOL. If your say so. Certainly not how his comment reads." So if the comment was not satisfactory to you, nor was mine and others' explanations, then why did you comment? What answer were you hoping to get?
"I don't know what he meant to say, I only know what he actually said. Everything else is pure speculation." Exactly, which is why others commented.
" I wasnt asking for answers, he was trying to convey information. He either did so clearly or he didn't. If i was just going to guess the information he wanted to convey, there would be no need for him to speak at all. " You pretty clearly dismissed the comment here, and very rudely disregarded the commenter you were supposedly seeking clarification from. You plainly admit, after asking the question, that you didn't actually want a response either, so why ask if you don't want an answer? That's rather rude in and of itself.
And once again, you resort to continual baseless arguments such as insults, sexism, name calling, avoiding the questions, dismissing arguments, and downright lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
actually, for teh right person with the right mindset, many of these skills can be learned much more quickly as a result of simply Living life. I have done a surprising number of things James Bond has done in this film (as you were going through and listing many them) and most of them I never practiced much before or since. I had a good working understanding, lessons learned as a kid playing outdoors and such, and was thrust into a situation and I just had to figure it out on the fly using what I already knew and had practiced unintentionally all throughout my life.
I have flown planes and helicopters (14 licenses), but I have a natural affinity for it and was able to fly and hover successfully my first time out. I've driven tanks in the military/combat (keep in mind Bond is portrayed as former SAS), done some basic parkour by learning to clear obstacles and trust my instincts in the military (gotta let go and just commit to completing the move, and trust your body to know what to do). Lying and bluffing (for things like gambling) are things you picked up as kids growing up. I also love sailboats. I have almost never worked out in my life, most of it was because I was ordered to do so. People in my family get and stay fit by Working. The job/s makes you tough. Combat also gave me a Buddhist mindset (change what you can, accept what you can't).
With the right mindset, background experiences, and basic skillsets, you can do as Bond does more than people want to beleive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Men working around the house: mowing lawn, shoveling driveway, hanging drywall, framing walls, take out the trash, get the mail, fixing the car...after working an 8-12hr day doing something mentally and/or physically taxing. Pays all the bills, provides insurance, security...
Women working around the house: sweep/mop, put clothes in laundry machines, put dishes in dishwasher, cook, wipe down things, take care of the kids from time to time. no other job to do. Can make money just filming themselves doing these things and putting them online.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Unwoken_European " I said that women don't like to be cheated but pick the guys who have the giant red flag of looking like the classic Chad cheater."
exactly, they like being cheated on, otherwise they wouldn't pick cheaters. Women are dumb, and hypocrites (claim one thing, do another). Actions are what matters, not words.
A person can claim to be a Medical Doctor, but if they lack any sort of training, qualifications, or experience of any kind to back up that claim, then they are not a Medical Doctor, and they are a liar. Same is true of women claiming they don't like cheaters, as they continue choosing and preferring cheaters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ottovonbismarck2443 Wrong, cheapest bidder is not always true, and in WW2 it wasn't the case. In WW2 is was largely and issue of capacity, same as Germany. The company that designed the aircraft, didn't have capacity to deliver the number needed themselves to fulfill the gov orders. so the gov forced them to allow others to manufacture the difference.
Gov doesn't always own the rights or blueprints to a design, Case example: F-22. Gov has learned from that and has changed the requirements of the NGAD contract accordingly. But, in wartime, the gov can do things it can't do in peacetime (at least for the US, each country has its own quirks).
One factory did produce at less than capacity in WW2 in the US, Allison. They were capable of producing even more engines than they did, but there were vested interests that didn't want the Allison developed or used more than it was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@berenicemackeprang2229 That's all fine, but expecting to be OWED something is selfish too. And expecting more than you give in return is also selfish.
Selfishness is avoided through selfless acts, not by others imposing their demands upon you.
What true selflessness looks like:
Parents tell their children not to worry, that they'll take care of themselves as best they can and not be a burden.
Children respond by offering to help take care of them anyways, of their own choosing.
Parents respond by offering to help in anyway they can to make up for the kindness. Helping with the grandkids, helping around the home any way they can, etc.
This is how it used to be. No demands, everyone acting selflessly of their own volition. And when people are treated with respect and kindness, rather than selfish demands and narcissism, people are more willing to help. You have to convince people it's in their best interests to help, not force them against their will like an evil dictator. If one chooses not to help, then they can expect no such reciprocation in turn from those they refused to care about.
Many parents are as equally responsible, if not More so, for the state of affairs in teh world today. Many abusive narcissistic parents out there, resulting in more people growing up not knowing what it is like to have loving and caring family life. And so they do what they know, which is selfishness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@generalrendar7290 Yes, they can put up a symmetrical fight, for a little while. But if the SU were to take on Russia, at the start of the Ukraine war, head to head, the US would have curb stomped Russia within a month.
China is a little harder, but not much. Opening moves are to secure the island blockade of China, sink any and all Chinese warships as fast as possible with submarines and air power while keeping bulk of US primary naval assets east of Philippines, and missile strikes on Chinese harbors, command and control, airbases, major supply lines, manufacturing, power plants to critical military facilities, etc. Just pound them from the air for a few weeks nonstop. Then play the long game of espionage, fostering revolt, blockade, and starve them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I definitely hold some post modernist views, regarding losing things that are of value like interpersonal face-to-face communication, writing skills, DIY handyman skills, community.... etc. But prior to this video, I didn't actually know what post modernism is/was.
And we Can Objectively prove that some of these ideas are valid. Writing by hand for example does improve intelligence of those who use it to take notes in school vs those who exclusively type, for example. Those who learn math with a slide rule and doing their work by hand are better at math than those doing whatever passes for math education these days, objectively.
I will not say I am a post modernist, nor that i agree with their entire ideology, but i do agree with some ideas and aspects, but only those which can be, or have been, objectively proven to matter. Nor do I agree with Forcing people. Just because I believe certain things, and just because science has objectively proven some ideas to be valid, doesn't mean people don't have the right to choose for themselves if they care or not. I will try to explain these ideas to others, and encourage them to take advantage of them for their own benefit if they feel it will be helpful to them, but I will never force it on anyone.
Post modernism, as I see it, does not have to be anti-science, just reminding people to DO science, and to not automatically assume everything new is automatically Better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derknusperhase_ivi losing a pension, their retirement they worked for, that the women did not, is theft. if you condone theft, they you have issues. if you condone a world fo lawlessness and rewarding bad behavior, giving what one person earned to another person who didn't earn it, you're the reason society is going to collapse.
Men get bitter taste because they were fully committed to the marriage, had no intention of ending it, gave her everything she asked, and the women bailed for no good reason other than they wanted Chad's c0ck.
men have a right to defend what is rightfully theirs, and protect it from gold digging women who did nothing to deserve all his assets and leaving him destitute in old age.
when evil people like you tear down trust in society, destroy the justice system, reward bad behavior, and condone theft of a person's life work, you don't deserve to live in a better world. you don't deserve access to a man's assets.
if a woman marries a man in his 50s, with assets and retirement, etc, she had NO part in that and deserves Nothing. this is what men are protecting. they are protecting themselves against slavery and legalized criminal theft. women steal more from men than actual thieves would.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rusty6172 nope, we have documented proof. Obama's own climate advisor was on a National Geographic TV show in teh 1970s advocating the US and USSR nuke the polar ice caps to melt the ice and stave off an ice age. We have doom predictions in newspapers going all the way back to teh dawn of the Industrial revolution and the use of steam/coal power. We have decades of doom predictions by "climate scientists" and alarmists about Fiji being underwater, about famines, about ice ages, about extreme weather, no more snow, etc. and they have never come true in over 200yrs of trying to predict it. None of Greta's nor Al Gore's predictions have come true, nor have any climate model predictions come to pass as they've all vastly overestimated.
" MIT's models predicted the world would end in 16 years so you should still be open ears if your reasoning goes the way you say"
wow, that is a stupid statement. So they are demonstrably untrustworthy and wrong, but you see that as confirming evidence they are right and that you should listen to them anyways? I have a bridge I want to sell you, let me know if you're interested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anaclararodas4833 "Filmmaking related: Like why some movies are so widely loved (be it narrative , cinematography, acting, or all that) and what they share in common even if they're completely different genres. Like lotr, star wars (not counting Disney's or do idk), classic disney or other animated movies, etc. That'd be interesting."
it's becasue those stories are built around timeless truths. truths that transcend eras, cultures, etc. Thy are not full of fads, period specific morals and ideals, or outright lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johncahill3644 My Buick Lesabre cost me $8k with 25k miles on it, It's now 20yrs old, still gets 44mpg, are known to last to 350k miles per engine (and you can install a brand new engine for a few thousand). Very assy to work on, very low maintenance, very reliable.
Many of my coworkers own Teslas, Ford Lightnings, VW EVs, Priuses, and more. I'll still never own one, and neither do most of my coworkers.
FYI, we're all engineers, mostly Mechanical and Electrical Engineers. And yet over 90% of us do not own EVs, nor will we buy one. And our job makes us one of the top consumers of electricity in the world, as well as our state. And we even have EV chargers in the parking lot at work.
Yet most people still aren't buying electric vehicles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
have you seen the modern floating floor options? they just click together, no nails or glue or anything. just cut to length, click together, done. Anyone can do it because it's childishly easy.
The real question is can she do framing, drywall, roofing, concrete, siding reframe windows and doors, replace and rerun electrical, hang cabinets, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArtSpirit9 To be a superpower, one must be able to project their power and influence globally. Russia, objectively, cannot do this. Russia has little political economic, or military influence beyond anything but border nations.
Their economy is a joke, their military is a joke, and they cannot project power more than a few miles from their borders. No one is even buying their weapons anymore (jets, tanks, ships...).
Russia is objectively not a superpower, and has not been one for many decades now.
Only two nations today can lay claim to the title of superpower, and that is the US and China. And even china cannot project military power beyond her borders either. But they have built up economic and political influence in many nations around the globe.
Russia brought in and did what it did, thinking their show of force on the opening days would bluff/scare Ukraine into surrender. it didn't work. Then Russia started shelling civilian homes, urban areas, running over civilians with tanks, shooting civilians in bread lines, and other things. Even Russian soldiers in the opening days who tried to protect Ukrainian civilians from slaughter by their fellow Russians were shot.
Never mind Russia using thermobaric weapons and targeting schools, churches, hospitals and other structures protected under international law called the Geneva convention (which Russia has agreed to abide by).
1
-
@ArtSpirit9 Yes, the western influence on the markets is pretty big huh? Russia didn't do that, the western powers did.
Sanctions have never stopped a nation from trading. But look how many Have stopped.
"You have very strange information about reality." baseless comment, insults are a logical fallacy and invalidates your argument.
"Continuing to read further your message, I am more and more convinced that you have no idea about reality, which is very sad. Forgive me, but what you write .. It's like you were kept in an information blackout." says the person that doesn't know what a superpower is. more insults, the last resort of people with no argument.
"The US should be very pleased that they managed to raise a generation of young vassals with a completely brainless head."
Completely irrelevant to the argument, changing the subject. Another logical fallacy. But yes, the US is awash with morons these days, as are most western liberally minded nations. The greatest evils are the result of the best intentions.
"This is sad, because it was they who became the reason that Ukraine will soon simply cease to exist in the form in which it was received after gaining independence, until 2014, when it lost it and became a puppet of the United States." more baseless nonsense. Ukraine didn't invade Russia, and the US didn't force Putin to do anything, least of all invade a sovereign nation. You keep trying to change the subject to avoid the argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justinstewart3248 " I too, was stuck on ICE cars, but once you get it, there’s turning back. " you misunderstand, I once was all in on EVs, until I looked closer into the engineering and mathematical realities. That's when I lost my naive rose colored glasses about EVs. If you want EVs to dominate, then we have to go nuclear, we have a crap ton of infrastructure to build, and we need huge tech breakthroughs in battery tech. But in my region of the world, Hydrogen EVs are the real answer, not battery EVs. And hydrogen is more likely the answer for aviation too, but aviation has far more hurdles. people have made many EV aircraft, few have actually been useful so far. Many attempts have been made and failed. And it will never work for large aircraft.
"I miss my manuals. Really I do. But they aren’t coming back." not true, people will continue to have racecars and sports cars, and classic cars. Manual transmissions are an entirely separate issue from EV and ICE.
1
-
1
-
when single, men are shunned by society, even by friends and family. they don't want you around. The married women don't want their married men being around you and see how you live and how well off you are. I've experienced my own sisters leaving me out of family stuff, and not inviting me, and my friends distance themselves most likely at the behest of their wives, and my stepmom tried to keep me from spending time with my father, but I wasn't putting up with that and she seems to understand I don't care what she wants in that regard.
Society hates single men and discriminates against them, even when we're good looking and making good money and want a family if we could find someone.
And then add onto that that everyone today is selfish and doesn't think about others expecting nothing in return. If we all cared more about one another without expectations, we'd all get along better.
And you need friends who disagree with you. If two people agree on Everything, one of them isn't needed. You need people around you in your life to disagree with, to challenge each other, to keep each other in check, etc.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bruhbutwhytho "Red states get a ot much more in taxes than they put in and depend on federal government a lot, especially in the south." you're looking at the wrong things, and drawing the wrong conclusions. What applies in my area of the US is universal across the US. We are not in a crisis as we are discussing, and so "gov aid" aspects have no bearing on the fundamentals of how to survive after the crisis begins, as that wont be available. People will take what they can get so long as they can get it. but the moment that changes, their behavior also changes. Theft legalized in CA? overnight theft skyrockets. Homelessness decriminalized in CA? overnight they became the hub for homelessness. Give free money to everyone? suddenly everyone is applying for "free money".
"you just said that I didn't know what I was talking about" becasue you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
"Also when I said that NYC could unite I meant society might not collapse, " if a civil war between rural and cities broke out, the scenario under consideration, the cities CANNOT survive, period.
Yes, city goers fleeing to the rural areas full of people who hate them will result in chaos during such a civil war. the rural people would be shooting many of the fleeing city goers. leaving the city goers stuck between getting shot, starving, or being assaulted by criminal elements within the city pillaging to survive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
think what the US military was using in the past.
1990s: Iron sights
2000s: basic red dot optics, bulky by today's standards, low battery life
2010s: starting to see thermal optics, widespread use of laser designators, red dots smaller and longer battery life, pistols with red dots, etc.
2020s: auto targeting and range finding variable power optics, auto off, battery measured in years.
2030s: range finder will get more compact/integrated, things will get lighter and smaller, more seamless thermal imaging integration, recoil controlled round counter.
edit: finished typing the above exactly as he mentioned that the XM-157 is working to integrate thermal imaging.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hitime2405 The camel was capable in terms of maneuver, but it was not an all-around good fighter, and was already being replaced by the Snipe by war's end. But the SE5a had a stellar record, and served for years after the war in multiple nations (not terribly long of course, given pace of change, but longer than most WW1 aircraft).
Many pilots, especially the Germans, prioritized maneuverability over speed. Back then, the formal techniques of dogfighting still hadn't been established, and many aircraft were so closely matched that maneuver was the key. But as aircraft evolved and speeds increased, pilots started to figure out Boom and Zoom tactics, and more nuance to fighting styles. But most of this wasn't formalized by military pilots until the 1920s and 1930s. And maneuver continued to be prioritized over speed in fighter design until the Hawker Hart came along, and then it suddenly became all about speed (until the modern missile age post-Desert Storm).
And look at the P-39 vs Zero. The P-39 was noticeably faster, but the Zero was far more maneuverable. Either could win in a dogfight if they fought their fight (but the P-39 did achieve the favorable kill ratio over the Zero).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hitime2405 "and the job description for a fighter aircraft is shooting down enemy aircraft, the Camel did it more than any other fighter, making it the best fighter, "
case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
You clearly don't understand warfare.
In war, you need to kill more of the enemy than you lose. The Camel killed more friendlies that it shot down. 100 German airplanes shot down =/= 100 dead German pilots. But 100 dead Camel pilots does equal 100 dead camel pilots.
More Camel pilots died, than German aircraft shot down. Now consider that not all those German pilots died, and it gets even worse.
If the UK relied upon Camels in the manner they performed for the entire war, Germany would have won through attrition. As for every 100 German aircraft shot down, lets say 80 Germans would die, while 120 UK Camel pilots would die. That is a TERRIBLE airplane. Consider how many top aces flew the SE5a by comparison. Consider how many pilots died merely flying the SE5a (not nearly as many). Consider that the SE5a wasn't replaced in service as the Camel was, and even lasted in service post-WW1.
A sniper that only kills one enemy soldier before getting killed himself, is worthless as a sniper.
The USA and USN also used the SE5a.
Th SE5a was objectively superior, and preferred by top aces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
@hitime2405 "you couldn’t even comprehend the title of the video properly"
oh, but I can. You clearly can't read. If you could read, and read the first few of my comments in this thread, you would actually understand. But reading is hard these days, and people admitting they are wrong is another.
And yes, I have set world records and world firsts in outer space working for NASA. It's actually pretty cool and cutting edge work i get to do. But it requires science, facts, and objectivity to succeed. Opinions like yours won't get you to Luna or Mars, hard data and science will.
This also how I succeeded in combat when others failed. I observed the enemy's tactics, researched and studied anything related to what we were doing, and formulated tactics which we tried. and each mission we reviewed what happened, what worked, what didn't, and adjusted our tactics accordingly. Until finally were were so successful the enemy stopped fighting us and went after other units. We even captured intel off a dead insurgent's journal where he was venting about how they couldn't defeat us as we were always steps ahead of them. and how they couldn't figure out our tactics.
When you actually use objective reality, facts, and science, you can achieve great things. But doing what you do, you will never succeed against someone like me. You will lose 100% of the time. The only way to beat me, is with facts, science, math, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When I was in Iraq in 2007, the MRAP vehicles were maintained by civilian contractors. One day, after taking multiple hits, we were low on vehicles and didn't have enough in working order to complete our mission. We weren't allowed to work on the vehicles, and the contractors were taking too long and wouldn't work faster. We broke into their connexes of parts (in broad daylight, we made sure they saw us), took all the parts we needed, dragged vehicles to our motor pool and fixed a bunch of vehicles in mere hours. We fixed these vehicles in hours, that took the contractors days/weeks. We were pissed, armed, and in a warzone. We completed the mission. As far as I'm concerned, what those contractors did, or rather failed to do, and their attempts to stop us fixing our equipment in a time of war on the battlefield, was treason. Contractors don't belong on the battlefield.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobsakamanos4469 "The LAST thing anyone should do is to argue based on the greg videos. He refuses to acknowledge or correct mistakes, omissions or untruths."
fair point, as I've called him out before many times using his own source materials and he threatened to block me for it.
But he does a good job overall. but the key is to look at his sources more than his personal claims, assumptions, or opinions.
My sources are the same as his, but I've also been able to talk to people who have and still are working on the merlin and Allison engines, and they all swear by the allison for numerous reasons not in the books. I've also talked with authors of some of the books people cite.
Detonation was not an engine issue. mostly carb, turbo, and pilot skill related to engine mixture control were primary issues. the other allison aircraft largely did not suffer these problems due to different mixture controls, no turbo, etc. And Allisons remain the preferred engine of restorations today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DefinitelyNotEmma F-15E, F-15EX, F-35, F-16, F/A-18, EA-18G, AC-130, KC-130J gunships with hellfires, AH-64, AH-1, AH-6, A-29, OV-10, OA-1K Sky Warde, A-10, etc.
1
-
Voter fraud, impeachment, election tampering and lies to steal the Presidency (Executive Branch)
Court packing to steal the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch)
Adding states, voter fraud, and election tampering to steal Congress (Legislative branch)
They control public education and the colleges, and oppose school choice
They control the MSM and the narrative
They are pushing for welfare programs and "free" socialized healthcare
They control Hollywood and use it to spread propaganda
They control social media and use it to censor and silence opposition
They promote violence and support groups like BLM and Antifa
They suppress and oppose free speech
They believe in mob justice, and courts of public opinion.
They support "guilty until proven innocent"
They oppose the 2nd Amendment
They don't support Due Process
They oppose freedom of religion
They oppose 2 parent families
They supposedly hate white, old, rich, men (but keep voting for them)
They promote diversity at all costs, solely for the sake of diversity (except when it comes to individuality and differences of opinion)
They support redistribution of wealth
They are racist
They deny conservatives equal right to protest, while they riot
They try to use impeachment and other tricks to try to overthrow the duly elected sitting President of the United States many times over.
..........
Seems like a full blown communist revolution seeking to overthrow the US government and the US Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamhennings8579 "It's not 'overnight' anymore, after 1.5 years"
that's what the phrase "overnight" means in context of Ukraine. They went from having a army just like RUssia, but with less technology, to being handed western weapons and gear "overnight". they went fron not having it one day, to having it the other. And after all this time, they only just now figured out how to use them against mines, something the US has been doing for multiple decades now. Takes time to learn these things when you never had them to use before.
"Besides, who do you think may have come up with the concept of matting the thermal technology with the drones ... the Ukranians ... maybe ? "
wow you are dumb. US has used thermals on drones for longer than I have been alive.
US civilians have used thermally equipped drones for decades.
Where do you think Ukraine got their thermals? from western-made civilian drone models. And from US supplied M2 Bradleys and such. That's where they got their thermals from. Ukraine invented NOTHING.
Do you honestly believe Ukraine invented putting thermals on a police helicopter? or putting thermals on a MQ-1 Predator Drone?
"The Ruzzkis are always playing catch-up with the innovative Ukranians."
you finally got something right.
"All's well bro, we're both rootin' for the same side."
yes were are, but facts still matter, regardless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In years past I used to enjoy reading science magazines, now I haven't read but maybe a handful of articles in recent years. I think this is due to a number of factors.
1) I know more about science than I used to and can recognize BS or bad articles, or I just already know the topic the article is about.
2) better writers are retiring and being replaced by worse writers. lots of bot written content, gimmicks, sensationalism, click bait, some writers who don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about, etc.
3) articles are no pushing agendas, and they keep writing articles about the same stuff over and over again rather than discussing all the new stuff. but this requires understanding and awareness of new developments.
4) lack of objectivity, failure to adhere to the core fundamentals of the scientific method. (sample size, placebo, data, double blinds, sample diversity, complicating factors, controlling for variables, etc.)
5) etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US doesn't have to simplify since we have the 2A and US citizens can just bring their own gear. We did it in OIF and OEF. We brought our own gear and modified our M16/M4 rifles heavily, and just returned them to issued state before turning them back in. Most guys I fought overseas with were better armed/equipped at home than in the Army.
We swapped grips, handguards, mags, triggers, selectors, mag releases, bolt catches, buttstocks, slings, sling mounts, optics, bipods, lights, and more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@jacktattis Name a speed record held by the Spitfire. I can name multiple P-51 ultimate speed records, including the current record holder.
Spitfires did prove they could fly high, but that's compared to the D model, I have little data on H model high altitude performance. So that's debatable. But the Spitfire only achieved that in tests, and it was never used in combat, nor was it much higher than a P-51.
The Spitfire was maneuverable, but not as good overall as teh Mustang. Speed is more important than maneuverability.
You can cherry pick a spitfire model all you want, but teh P-51, from the P-51A, B, D, H, A-36, F-6, etc. were all rock solid performers and tough for any model of spitfire to beat. Yet you have to cherry pick models of the spirfire, of which most late models were wholly different aircraft by the end. The only mustang that changed radically from the As was teh H.
4x 20mm was found to be equivalent to 6x .50cal in real testing.
But the early model Mustangs started out with 4x 20mm including in RAF service. Ultimately standardizing on the 6x .50cal, after trying a wide range fo armament combinations. Your ignorance of the mustang is starting to show. Even the RAF pilots LOVED the MkI, MkIa, MkII, etc.
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Revegineer the X-43 had a mere 10 seconds of fuel. not enough to do much of consequence. And you can't dodge well while going fast, as your turn rate is terrible. you could maybe give it a burst of speed just before the missile impacts. but that will only work once or twice. after that you're out of fuel.
"Form what I understand hypersonic, in terms of military use, is a missile that is initially launched in arc to the target, with the ability to travel a Mach 5. "
no, hypersonic applies ONLY to Mach 5+ speeds. it has Nothing to do with trajectory nor flight path. it's a speed category, nothing more. but once your launch booster and any internal fuel is expended, you start slowing down, and you're well below Mach 5, miles before reaching the target, due to thicker air near the surface. the drag is very high down low. Some modern jet fighters can't even go supersonic at sea level. A jet that can go mach 2-2.5 might only be able to manage mach 1.3 at sea level. the air is just too thick and the drag too high.
so if you're below mach 5 miles from the target, and coming it from 50kft let's say, teh target warship will detect it coming tens of miles out and engage. And many conventional missiles can easily exceed mach 3, yet the ship's defenses can engage them. And other existing subsonic cruise missiles already have the ability to dodge defenses as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
men and women aren't held to a different standard in terms of sex, it's just that it simply doesn't Work for women to behave like men sexually. Women can do as they please, but their actions have consequences. This is an issue of reality, biology, and science, not of feelings. Some men will marry and date a promiscuous woman, most don't want to for very real and legit reasons, that is their right.
And it's not all a one way street. Men are constantly held to a different standard than women in terms of sex (false rape accusations, assumption all men are pedophiles or kidnappers...), dating (men expected to foot the bill, do all the work), marriage (men expected to propose, men assumed to be abusers), divorce (men assumed guilty even when not), earnings (women expect men to earn more so they can complain about fake wage gaps), social status (stay at home dads), military service (draft), etc.
Women who talk about "equality" and social standards who aren't also supportive of men's rights issues are dishonest hypocrites and liars. At this point women cannot claim ignorance of men's rights issues either, they are either against men, supportive of men, or willfully ignorant of the issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexanderbarkman7832 wow, you think wikipedia trumps the real thing? I knew you didn't know anything.
"that's M433, not M344." make up your mind. So which round exactly are you wanting to use as you example, EXACTLY?
"Nlaw and Javelin doesn't even have front cones. They are plastic and the Nlaw in top attack doesn't even strike the target it't ota.."
wow you are stupid. AT4, RPG, Recoilless detonate on impact, side attack. NLAW can too, but NLAW and Javelin are for top attack, firing from a standoff height above, just like an RPG would if it detonated against standoff armor instead of getting crushed by the bar armor. You're only further proving my point here. Have you ever fired any of these weapons before? Javelin and the like work more like a Hornet mine or the US cluster munition.
But keep trying, it's fun watching idiots dig themselves holes.
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PvtEd "#3 says 'provide for the common defense'. "
you just proved me right and you wrong.
But, let's be clear. Th US Constitution is a Specific Example of gov. It was not the first nor only gov. No matter the form of gov, the primary FUNCTION of an gov is protecting the nation and its people from threat.
You have to make an argument that includes EVERY gov, not merely the US.
"Any current references to a leaky border are simply someone's interpretation of the method of providing for the common defence."
and what do you Think "providing for the common defense" means? You complain a lot, but you sur never offer any valid arguments or explanations for the crazy views you hold.
"So there is no single primary function."
You must be an anarchist. If there is no primary function, according to you, then why have a gov at all? why do we need gov at all?
"It can be interpreted that the sum of all of these individual functions are to create a framework Is within which capitalism can operate securely. However, again that is simply somebody's interpretation."
word salad nonsense. As much as I love Capitalism, it is far from the only form of gov that exists, and so your make beleive definition claims most govs on earth, now and in the past, don't exist, since they are not capitalist.
"So maybe we're kind of both right."
No, you're just wrong, and you've provided no arguments nor proof that your ideas are true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
healthcare index:
it's not just cost, it's unhealthy sedentary lifestyles. Lazy, eat too much, eat the wrong stuff, bad shape, taking all sorts of drugs, obese, etc. and that also drives up healthcare costs. plus unnecessary healthcare procedures.
Lack of family and community results in low mental health, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MattyEngland "but then watching a couple of ads shouldn't be a problem either."
wrong. ads are often longer than the videos themselves, poorly timed, loud, and often times (as others have pointed out) borderline softcore porn.
It's a complete waste of time to watch useless ads that don't pertain to me and wont convince me to buy anything. You even admit yourself that sitting through ads is a waste of your time as well. You pay for it, I don't have to.
"Your argument is pretty much like saying that you should be able to take what you want from the supermarket without paying,"
no, you are a complete moron. I even explained it to you. Youtube is convenient. I can get my info from tons of other sources, and do. When youtube stops being free and convenient to me, which it has always been, even before adblockers, I will simply stop using it at all.
"Nothing is free in this world, YouTube content included."
not true. you are really proving your ignorance of reality.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@discover3024 you're such a Russian troll.
yet, Su-35, Su-30, Su-27 are getting slaughtered in the skids over Ukraine. Can't even achieve air dominance over inferior Mig29s.
The F-15 is undefeated in actual combat, just like many claim F-22 kills in training, but once you learn the details of the "fight" it's clear it's nonsense.
Yes, F-14, F-16, and F-22 have beaten the F-15 in training too. But that comes down to the pilot.
But we can point to F-15 success against all manner of russian fighters, and yet cannot do the same for russian fighters. Russian pilots are as bad or worse trained than 3rd world pilots. look how many russian pilots crashed or were shot down in 2022 alone, and now they have to scramble to train new pilots. Inferior aircraft, inferior training, inferior weapons, inferior avionics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@jimdavis8391 Wrong.
2 things,
1) Close Air Support (CAS) - coordinated attacks with ground forces or ships in contact with the enemy.
2) Interdiction - striking railways, trains, supply convoys (trucks or ships), depots, etc behind enemy lines)
the US helped develop things such as dive bombing. The Luftwaffe and their Blitzkrieg warfare model in Spain, Poland, France, and Russia is the basis of modern CAS. The Luftwaffe had the Ju-87, Hs129, anti-tank equipped FW190s, etc. But the Russians seemed to value CAS the most of anyone. But the US and UK definitely both excelled at CAS. The US with P-47 and P-38 in Italy, southern Europe, and Northern Europe, as well as the south pacific using rockets and bombs. Modified B-25 in the South Pacific. P-40 in the Pacific and Mediterranean. F4U was one of the best fighter bombers of WW2 (4-5k bomb/rocket/cannon load from a carrier deck) and arguably the best dive bomber of WW2. The P-51/A-36 was used to bomb and strafe many ground targets. The US used the Mosquitos as well. A-24 Banshee/SBD. A-1 Skyraider, Martin Mauler (both late to the party though). A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader. And many more US examples.
US was the best at interdiction and CAS overall in WW2.
Russians were good at CAS.
UK was good at CAS and Interdiction.
Germans were famous for CAS.
Italy and Japan sucked at CAS.
Italy, Japan, Germany, and Russia all sucked at interdiction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt: "Men, improve yourselves, do better."
Matt: "It's ok for 90% of women to be fat, lazy, worthless, and to not contribute anything nor have to better themselves."
Hey Matt, remind me of all the passages in your Bible that describe female behavior, and how women are supposed to submit to their husbands, and not sleep around, not nag, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Countries attacked by Russia: Finland multiple times, Poland, Georgia, Ukraine 2x, Afghanistan, Chechnya, all the nations it absorbed in WW2, Japan...
How many nations has the US invaded, and KEPT?
If the US were to behave as Russia and keep everything it captures, then France, Germany, Japan, Philippines, most of the pacific, New Guinea, Cuba, Mexico, South Korea, South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Italy, and a number of other nations would belong to the US today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nathaniel-r8l nope. I propose changing many rules of society back. Undo the changes post-1970 like no fault divorce, unrestricted abortions (bring back consequences, but still allow multiple reasons a person can still get an abortion, but not simply to fix a stupid mistake and avoid responsibility), re-establish men as the head of the household (with exceptions), re-establish meritocracy, end gov welfare programs and bring back private charity as the dominant form of aid, end the department of education and restore authority to the teachers and fire all unnecessary school administrators and have the school funds follow the student to teh school they attend. and much more. things like that. remove gov control and restore individual freedom and restore individual responsibility and consequences. restore the rule of law. get rid of profiting from divorce, eliminate income based child support, eliminate mother bias in divorce, abolish slavery (alimony), implement mandatory paternity tests, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Voter fraud, impeachment, election tampering and lies to steal the Presidency (Executive Branch)
Court packing to steal the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch)
Adding states, voter fraud, and election tampering to steal Congress (Legislative branch)
They control public education and the colleges, and oppose school choice
They control the MSM and the narrative
They are pushing for welfare programs and "free" socialized healthcare
They control Hollywood and use it to spread propaganda
They control social media and use it to censor and silence opposition
They promote violence and support groups like BLM and Antifa
They suppress and oppose free speech
They believe in mob justice, and courts of public opinion.
They support "guilty until proven innocent"
They oppose the 2nd Amendment
They don't support Due Process
They oppose freedom of religion
They oppose 2 parent families
They supposedly hate white, old, rich, men (but keep voting for them)
They promote diversity at all costs, solely for the sake of diversity (except when it comes to individuality and differences of opinion)
They support redistribution of wealth
They are racist
They deny conservatives equal right to protest, while they riot
They try to use impeachment and other tricks to try to overthrow the duly elected sitting President of the United States many times over.
..........
Seems like a full blown communist revolution seeking to overthrow the US government and the US Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@javelinXH992 no, I just don't care to. you know how to find the answers you seek, so just do it. stop whining. I could if I wanted to. But I'm deep into researching other topics in intricate detail right now instead. I researched renewable energy, climate change, and EV nonsense for years, then grew tired of it due to all the people who just didn't care about the truth. I warned people about EV, the grid, wind turnbine recycling, climate lies, and more for years now. I've moved on to other new exciting topics to dive into. There wasn't much left for me to learn in those other topics to keep me interested anymore. I learned what I needed to and the crazies couldn't ever prove me wrong.
yes, I'm being rude, becasue people like you are rude and I respond in kind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Guns only, lightweight, super maneuverable, unarmored aircraft were already proven obsolete in WW2 with the Japanese designs. And the Japanese designs were built to a doctrine that was already obsolete in the 1930s.
the fact they saw no value in missiles, shows how ignorant they were. Not to mention how important range has been in a design since WW2 (Zero, P-51, B-21, F-35, extended range F-16/F-18/F-15, etc.). In fact, Sparrow missiles scored a large portion of air to air victories in vietnam, as well as Sidewinders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leonardmiyata482 Yup :) But it also used rockets, and could carry multiple smaller bombs, single larger bombs, etc. Had some decent flexibility for a fighter regarding loadout. I find the F4U to be the best all around fighter of WW2. Land/Carrier plane, fighter, ground striker, fast, maneuverable enough, tough, good range, served well after WW2 was over... Ta 152, P-51, Mosquito, A-26, are some others I admire greatly as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baddriversofthenorcalarea500 "at 80% efficiency." "So what? Its still cheaper and more efficient than gas. Get some solar panels."
So now you expect people to buy overpriced cars, and also buy tens of thousands of dollars of solar energy (by the way, solar doesn't work in my region, too far north, near perpetual cloud cover year round). But I know you're ignorant on reality. To have a chance of even powering my house, I'd have to cover every single square inch of my property with solar panels (not just the house but the driveway, yard, garden, etc. I know because I've already sized and priced systems).
Also, people have driven Teslas in my region and evaluated cost. It was cheaper for me to drive my car with 44mpg than to charge a tesla for the same trip, and I saved hours of time not having to wait to charge.
How do you charge in the middle of nowhere on a camping trip? What about towing capacity? You live in a fantasy world living in fear of fake boogeymen. CO2 is not going to end the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Women: make 17% less money overall than men
Women: spend 70% of ALL income earned in the US by EVERY citizen of the US.....
and women complain about working for free? free labor? what are they doing for men exactly that is free to the men? Only Chads are getting women for free.
So, lets work this math out a bit,
Man: earns $100
Woman: earns $87
Total: $187
Woman spends 70%, or $131 of the total, on things like clothes, eating out, shoes, jewelry, hair, etc.
Man gets to spend only $56, and most of that will be for bills like utilities, rent/mortgage, gas, insurance, etc.
So if woman only earned $87, but got to spend $131, then she is the one getting men's free labor. She gets to spend 150% of her income, and he only gets to spend 56% of his income.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tedarcher9120 wrong. the USN had the F-4 interceptor the whole time.
"Second, it was stupendously expensive to buy and more expensive to maintain. More expensive than f-22. "
but it was stupid good too. so the cost is justified. teh early purchase cost was high becasue it was a technological marvel fro its time. We've benefited a LOT from what we learned from teh F-14, making the cost worth it. But the maintenance costs are no joke and the reason it is pretty much the only 4th gen US fighter fromthe 1970s and 1980s retired thus far, while F-15, F-16, A-10, and F-18 all got life extension programs.
"Third, Navy lied and f-14 wasn't even a fighter and didn't have any multirole capability until the 1990s."
it was a fighter in every sense of the word, and would be a dominant fighter even today.
" F-111 could dogfight and was more robust,"
no, it could not dogfight, it was a pig. it couldn't win a fight with ANY contemporary fighters of its day.
"US Navy could have had a functioning aircraft already in 1960s"
They did, F-8, F-4, F11F-1F, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarahrobertson634 "Ha!! I teach wilderness survival to women so that we don't have to put up with your kind being in charge."
you're not very smart.
Explain, how has your "wilderness survival" changed the dependence women have on men? Are those women now working in mining, construction, welding, sewage, plumbing, farming, etc? How does teaching them a few skills they'll never use for real make a difference? When the time comes when society requires wilderness survival skills, those women will be looking for the nearest strong man in order to survive.
give ONE example of how your wilderness class for women has changed ANYTHING?
My kind would be in charge because we're men of ACTION. We're the ones who actually work, and get things done, and make the hard choices for the betterment of Everyone as a whole not just ourselves or a select minority of society. You and the other women have nothing without men.
half of the women in Iceland went on strike, and no one even knew. didn't even make the news. life went on without them, and productivity in companies actually increases when the women are gone.
Feminist have done more to destroy society than anyone else in the past 70yrs. the path of destruction they are leaving n their wake will be a lesson for future generations. A reminder that we should have listened to our ancestors who warned us many times over for thousands of years what happens when you let women be in charge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Women constantly claim to be smart and better than men. Yet the shear number of woman constantly displaying an utter lack of awareness and understanding boggles the mind.
And on top of that, women never stop complaining about men objectifying them, yet ALL they do is objectify themselves and sell their bodies and sex for wealth, status, and consumerism trophies.
These modern women don't care about their children, their family, about society as a whole, about creating anything, working for anything, earning anything. Modern women have no empathy, self respect, dignity, elegance, restraint, responsibility, etc.
Modern women are narcissists, passive aggressive, cruel, crude, and destructive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Red Pill is simply about knowing the truth. It's a-political, not left nor right, it just is.
Marriage is dead, or are statistics too hard for you to comprehend?
Divorce rate is over 60%, according to divorce lawyers and gov statistics. Gov tracks all marriages and divorces.
Divorce rate among Christians is over 40%.
Divorce rate among bread wining women is over 90%.
80% of ALL divorce is initiated by women, mostly no-fault divorce.
Divorce rate among 2nd, 3rd, etc. marriages is higher than the average.
Most people married today, will be divorced in teh near future.
I would love to get married, but can't trust a woman. Can't find one worth a darn either, even if I decided to risk it.
You are arguing from "survivor bias", and you're too biased to see the truth.
Over 90% of all the guys I served with in the Military got divorced. Almost everyone I'm related to has been divorced, if not married 2-4 times. No one my age or younger shares my values nor goals in life.
Have you checked the birth rates lately?
Just because you disagree, and are emotionally invested, doesn't mean you are right.
We know how important marriage and family is, but teh courts ARE BIASED against men, that is cold hard FACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gort8203 "Of course it took time to form up into large formations, and that involved circling the field at lower altitude where the jets would suck down a lot more fuel than the pistons of the P-47. "
even if they did circle, they have the fuel onboard to give them the range stated, same as the piston fighters. you're grasping at straws here.
"That's not grasping at straws, that's considering real world escort operations instead of thinking like a simple 4-ship sortie. I don't need to fish for anything. Have a nice day in the perfect world your airplanes inhabit."
It's 100% wat you're doing. I've been researching this intensely for the past 2yrs. I now have accumulated 91 physical books on teh P-51, about 60 books on the P-47, tens more on the P-40, P-38, A6M, K-43, Me109, etc. and have been debating range issues and escort fighter operations for over 1yr now, to the point I've started writing a book on the topic, loaded with sources, charts, calculations, etc. All from primary sources, mission reports, etc. I'm also a professional Airplane and Helicopter pilot, and an Aerospace Engineer. I have tens of digital copies of flight manuals, service manuals, mission reports, flight test reports and flight test data from WW2.
What sources do you have? You couldn't even look up specs on the P-80. Cite a source for your baseless strawman, as I probably have it and can verify your claims.
1
-
@gort8203 "You don't think there is a difference in fuel consumption between a P-80 and P-47 at low altitude. Then you think the range figures of the airplanes include fuel for circling."
The range is for whatever they want to use it for. Yes, ranges vary depending upon power settings and altitude.
When a P-47 has an effective combat radius of 450mi, and the P-80 has an effective combat radius of 410mi, if they both circle to form up, which they often didn't as it was wasteful and unnecessary (Formation takeoffs in quick succession and joining up on the climb out), then they BOTH experience a comparable range reduction. You can't apply one criteria to one plane, but not to the other.
According to the P-80 flight manual performance charts, the 825mi range is for 10k ft cruise. But when they go up to 30k ft, such as long range bomber escort, the range increased to 1375mi (680mi radius), which exceeds the P-47D capabilities.
"Goodbye, I'm done here."
Probably for the best. Stick to things you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rosnoseros The P-80 first flew in early January 1944. The P-80 was superior to the Me-262 in every way, and served into the early 1990s with the US (as the T-33).
P-80 had superior speed, range, climb rate, service ceiling, turn rate, acceleration, etc.
And the He280 was the first ever jet fighter in history.
DeHavilland Vampire first flew in 1943, and the Gloster Meteor first flew in spring 1944. And both of those planes served until well after WW2. the Soviets tried to copy the Me262 with the Su-9 and it failed miserably. Japan tried copying the Me262 with the Nakajima Nikka, with performance unknown.
And in 1947, only 3yrs later, 2yrs after ww2, the US broke the sound barrier with the BellX-1 and with the F-86. And the F-100 first flew a mere 6yrs later in 1953.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Freba9 Quote from where?
And what is the total energy loss of electricity when you factor in the manufactuirng and energy production and infrastructure of the electrical generation and transmission? We're already over 6% just for the last leg. We haven't factored in production, how that energy is produced, how it's maintained and transported over larger distances, etc.
You did it for gas/diesel (assumping that quote is accurate), now do the same for electricity.
To generate enough electricity to charge enough EVs for everyone, you're going to need a MASSIVE increase in the number of Coal, oil, and gas fired power plants, much like what China is doing. And don't forget to include infrastructure damage and fire emissions when EVs burn and take out roads, bridges, buildings, entire parking lots, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
F4U was designed and built in the 1930s, replaced the F6F, and later also replaced the F8F. Yet, the F6F gets all the glory. Also, the F4U-5 and F2G was a better fighter overall than the F8F.
F4U-5/F2G could carry 4,000lb bomb/rocket load, could use radar, cannons or machine guns, plenty of external fuel, longer range, good climb, high speed, and was a great dive bomber and fighter. The F8F was a one-trick-pony, with very short range, and G-limited to 6-7Gs in dogfights. Suitable only for fleet defense. Since the US was on the Offensive in WW2 and Korea, not teh Defense, the F8F had no place. And the F4U could do everything the F8F could and more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wildcoyote34 yes, in most areas of the US we can fly very low, just not in wilderness areas without permission, and around homes, people, cities, etc. we generally have to stay about 500-2000ft, with exceptions.
Civilian airliners don't fly that low unless in controlled airspace or taking off and landing smaller airports.
Military can fly where ever they want at any altitude they want. Mission applicable. I encounter them while flying below 2000ft rather often.
Helicopters overall follow all the same rules as airplanes, with differences for weather, equipment, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i don't expect you to have an agenda, I expect you to follow the logical science.
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temps. We don't have historical global temp data required to make the claims they make. ALL of the climate models keep overestimating actual temps. NASA and NOAA are unscientifically manipulating the temp data to show warming, the raw data and historical data does not show this, and NASA/NOAA do not explain how they're making these temp "corrections" nor why.Also, modern reported temp data is subject to Heat Island effect, and many temps are then "reported" not by actual stations, but by interpolation from those heat island stations. Rural stations and satellite data shows no warming to be concerned with. In 2019 the IPCC published a paper admitting that even if all of the Paris climate targets had been magically achieved by all nations, it would only reduce temps by 0.1C by the year 2100, showing just how little effect humans are having. Higher CO2 is regreening the planet faster than any/all human efforts in history, according to a NASA paper using their satellite data. CO2 improves plant growth and makes plants more water efficient, thus enabling them to grow in drought/desert regions again, and sequestering CO2 once again.
follow the science, not politicians and "scientists" with agendas. You may not have an agenda, but the people you blindly trust DO have an agenda.
1
-
As a Mechanical Engineer, we were taught in school about units of torque, and the professors said the same thing as Chris. Only to then open numerous official references and textbooks that specifically and repeatedly used "foot pounds" and ft-lb, or ftlb, or lb-ft, or lbft. It was a total crap shoot of inconsistency and hypocrisy. Thing is, it doesn't matter in the least bit. Due to the commutative property of multiplication, order is 100% irrelevant. Multiplying, ft x lb, or, lb x ft, makes NO DIFFERENCE!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emberfist8347 No goalposts were moved. you claimed the "definition" to not be arbitrary, now you must prove it. You used terms in your defintiion that are also equally subjective and arbitrary.
"I got the definition from the literal mechanical definition of Assault Rifle starting with the original Sturmgewher which fired a 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge."
so, what is that definition, word for word, and what dictionary can I find it in?
" If you don’t know what a full power rifle round is you need to watch the video again as Ian explains."
because there is no such thing, and no such objective nonarbitrary definition exists, otherwise you could cite it.
"If you can’t figure out if a round is a pistol round, you need to really to start doing more research as it is self-explanatory."
"it is what it is", is not a valid argument nor a valid definition.
So, you have failed to provide a citable source for your definitions, and you have more importantly failed to provide a valid nonarbitrary definition for any of the critical criteria you cling to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV "Gen-X grew up with pirated games we had to figure out without manuals... Great skill development..."
Ah, so you admit it wasn't "playing video games", but rather building things, pirating things, reprogramming things....
"Plus, the games helped us develop fast interface skills with the mouse etc...."
Ah, so you admit it was Building things, designing things, improving things, not playing games itself....
"Gen-Z has console AAA games and smartphones with touchscreen trash interfaces - they don't have a chance..... :D"
Ah, so you admit that it's TINKERING and building things that made the difference, not playing video games, otherwise GenZ would be superior.
"The premise is that old school games got us into IT, nobody mentioned engineers or being better at anything.... :)"
No, building, tinkering, designing better solutions, etc. got you into IT, not playing video games.
So far you haven't refuted a single thing I've said. In fact, you're making my argument for me with tons of case examples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RibshackTV "Intuition is just that... You don't learn intuition"
false. you are not born with mechanical intuition. it is learned. you do things enough until you gain a working undersatnding of what does/doesn't work, that is where intuition comes from.
"by gaming you get exposure (in a fun way) which makes things like circuitry, electricity, operating systems, PCBs & software manipulation easier."
False. playing video games teaches you none fo those things.
Working on circuits, programming things, building things, troubleshooting things, etc. is how you learned those skills. Playing games taught you none of that. Your desire to play games, led you to do those things, so that you could then play games. but none of that was learned while PLAYING games. it was your INTEREST in games that led you to learn the other things. but you weren't soldering circuits or programming an operating system while playing video games.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CaptainFrankay you're free to think what you want. and you're free to ignore me, but since you think my opinion warrants your attention....
Yes, this is a convoluted scenario. It's like a child who plays a game and keeps changing the rules every time they're about to lose. when you have to state a list of conditions as long as your arm just to setup the ridiculous hypothetical and explain to everyone the rules of the scenario, including making wild assumptions that make no logical sense.... Yeah, not going for that.
Now, had the hypothetical stuck to, "what if Nazi Germany had managed to develop the Eurofighter Typhoon and air-to-air missiles in WW2 in x-numbers, would it have mattered?". that I could go along with. It assumes the Nazi commanders are clearly in control, know how to employ the jets, are relying on existing fuel reserves, have ability to work on the jets (though manufacturing quantities can be debated in the scenario), etc. One statement and it's far more clear what is going on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
internships are not the same as job experience. I have worked with hundreds of college interns as an engineer. there is a difference between having a few month internship where companies hand-hold the kids and try to impress them, vs a job where you have to earn it and work hard without pampering. The Interns aren't here long enough to truly learn skills I need them to have. And most lack real-world experience with any sort of job, any sort of bill-paying realities, etc. I'm actually a trained and professional instructor as well, and have been offered jobs as an engineering professor many times. I can teach kids/interns what they need to know to be successful. but a 4month internship isn't nearly enough time to count as "work experience". They lack time to see projects through and understand the processes, etc. Once in a while things go well and they get to see something through, do their internship at teh right time in our product development cycles (which can last Years).
Gov and OSHA have basically criminalized 14+yr old teens getting jobs. That is the real work experience and internship I want to see. Those are real jobs with real schedules, real responsibilities, etc. But kids don't have those jobs as teens anymore, partially due to laziness, partially due to gov restriction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
that's a good question, and a topic that's too big for the comments.
One thing to keep in mind is that too much regulation is what creates loopholes. For every regulation you pass, likely 1-2 loopholes were created. and then you'll think you need 1-2 more regulations to close those loopholes, which only creates 2-4 new loopholes. etc.
So regulation needs to be short, concise, and well thought out to target exactly what you want, and nothing more, while being word such that it can't be worked around. this is possible to do, but it takes effort.
Also keep in mind, no set of laws will ever be perfect or cover every situation, and you have to learn to accept that and be ok with it. chasing the rabbit down the hole of trying to cover every conceivable possibility is the problem. it leads to never ending regulation that only stamps out small businesses who don't have the means to manage hundreds of thousands of regulations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnshepherd9676 "Kurita's force was the main force, not the Northern force which was just the bait to draw Halsey away. "
when did I claim the Northern force was the main force? learn to read.
The US wanted to destroy ALL of the IJN, not just part of it. decoy or not. And Halsey was convinced by his carrier pilot's reports that the center force had been soundly defeated and retreating. So in a way it was the carrier's fault, by failing to defeat Kurita's force and falsely reporting more success than was achieved, that the battleships were taken north.
"He destroyed the Northern Force without the battleships."
No, he did not. he sunk a few ships, that is all, the rest of the force escaped. "His cruisers finished off the light carrier Chiyoda at around 17:00, and at 20:59 his ships sank the destroyer Hatsuzuki after a very stubborn fight."
he only managed to sink 2 more ships after the air attacks and the rest of northern force escaped.
The Northern force consisted of:
1 CV (Zuikaku (S))
3 CVL (Zuiho (S), Chitose (S), Chiyoda (S))
2 BB (Ise*, Hyuga*)
3 CL (Isuzu, Tama (S), Oyoda)
8 DD (Hatsuzuki (S), Akitsuki (S), Wakatsuki, Shimotsuki, Maki, Sugi, Kuwa, Kiri)
Of these, Zuikaku, Chitose, Zuiho, Chiyoda, Akizuki, and Hatsuzuki were sunk. All the battleships, most of the cruisers, and most of the destroyers survived.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aqua Fyre Convergent Evolution is the term we use in engineering. Multiple engineers designing for the same set of goals, given a certain state of technologies, materials, understanding of aerodynamics, etc available at the time, tend to result in similar solutions to the same problem. Hundreds, even thousands, of airplanes were designed around the world in the 1930s and 1940s. It is inevitable that some would share similar solutions. But the Zero was revolutionary when it was designed and first made operational, and no one can prove, with actual evidence, that the design was in any way copied from any other specific aircraft other than superficially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sauliluolajan-mikkola620 and here you show precisely how subjective the definition is, and how it really takes some more qualifiers.
Nothing in the definition excludes rimfire ammo. There is no objective legal definition of an "intermediate" cartridge.
If an AR10 is chambered in .338, is it still intermediate? And would a select fire AR10 then be legal to own without restriction? Is a select fire 10/22 legal to own without restriction?
The M1 Carbine is in every way an "assault rifle" according to those in gov. keep in mind that the M1, M1A, M14, Mini-14, Mini-30, etc. can all be made select fire, as they are all of the same platform, made from the same DNA. So, would it be legal to make a select fire M1 Carbine? According to you the M1 Carbine with select fire is not an "assault rifle", so it should be perfectly legal to own, make, or buy without restriction. Since what is in question here is the Legal definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@defeqel6537 so, you plan to fire all your engineers doing programming, CAD design, Matlab computations and simulation, FA, CFD, designrs making drawings, building BOMs, doing ECOs, ordering parts, getting and doing quotes, excel data analysis, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeremydable2468 " If you can afford an ICE you can better afford an EV because they no longer cost more to buy, new or second hand. They have been cheaper to run for a long time. And they will last far longer and be 95% recyclable."
so untrue.
Cost to buy is out of reach for most people.
The used prices and replacing worn batteries cost as much as new.
The short rang makes them impractical for many people.
Electric prices are on the rise. My ICE car gets good enough mileage that I've beat Tesla owners on price per mile of energy before.
There is not enough grid energy>
EVs still require maintenance, they are not magical objects. Ball joints, tie rods, shocks, struts, wipers/fluid, oil, coolant, lights, tires wear faster due to weight, brakes, wheel balancing and rotation, wheel bearings, batteries, electronics, pumps, filters, etc.
EVs (Lithium, Cobalt, etc.) are far less recyclable than ICE (steel/aluminum mostly, copper, oil is recycled too). Presently, much of EVs aren't being recycled at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cideltacommand7169 "cage detonates heat"
Yes
"heat goes through a lot of space armor,"
Wrong. Look closer. that "armor" is just tin or sheet metal, paper thin to a HEAT round. And the cage has more empty space than thin/soft metal wire. Tin is a very soft metal too.
"THEN hits actual Armour with possible era"
most Russian ERA has been found to be fake. But even still, ERA doesn't cover the entire tank, nor from every angle (especially from above).
the HEAT round will form go through the cage/space armor like it's not even there, then penetrate the hull. You do know that modern HEAT AT weapons attack from a distance, right? NLAW, Javelin, Cluster munitions, and more all fire their HEAT projectile from MANY feet away, further away from the hull than the cage is, and it will punch clean through the tank.
Again, I've faced these weapons in actual combat, and trained in their use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt: "Men, improve yourselves, do better."
Matt: "It's ok for 90% of women to be fat, lazy, worthless, and to not contribute anything nor have to better themselves."
Hey Matt, remind me of all the passages in your Bible that describe female behavior, and how women are supposed to submit to their husbands, and not sleep around, not nag, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deadgheist "Nobody really gets anywhere from just blaming someone else and calling it a day" tell the women that
"Also the lack of equal pay or respect for people in female dominated fields to begin with is absolutely contributing to that problem among other things." that's not it at all. Jobs pay what they are worth, and people gravitate to the jobs that they prefer.
You're looking in all the wrong places for answers. It's people like you with your false notions that go us in this mess.
The core problems are bias towards women, gov welfare, lack of support for men/boys, divorce court laws, child custody laws, alimony, "war on poverty", "war on drugs", and more. Everything went off the rails starting in the 1970s. Look long, deep, and hard at what changed in teh 1970s and since and you'll find your answers.
1
-
@evacookie2194 "began the movement for gender equality", but it's gone FAR beyond equality and is now all about supremacy.
"We are not to blame for men's issues", you are if you caused them.
"we are not trying to steal any rights from anyone", yet took men's children from them, took away a man's authority over his children, stripped men of any perks they had in society for being "disposable", endlessly attack men and tear down men's spaces and prevent anyone from forming men's advocacy programs or men's help centers. Women today raise 73% of the US prison population. Children raised by feminist single moms also comprise the greatest rates of depression, teen pregnancies, etc. They've eviscerated men in colleges. They attack boys for having energy and put them on drugs and physically/chemically castrate them to turn them into trans girls.
You do know what a feminist's Kryptonite is, right? Accountability, and you're proving it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
it's perfectly normal for men to blame women.
Most men never did ANYTHING wrong regarding the genders. Most men alive today were never in a position in society to affect women in any meaningful way. But men are being punished, and have been getting punished for longer than they've been alive. Men have been getting mistreated and abused their entire lives, without just cause, without fair trials, without due process, etc.
And those men WILL blame women, and rightfully so. 99% of women will Never lift a finger to fix nor change any of the problems we see today. they'll talk about it, they'll whine about it, but they will never take Action to fix it. They will stand by and wait for men to fix everything They broke.
And we've got hard evidence, that as things have gotten worse in society, as things have gone over the cliff, teh women have begun voting even MORE in favor of running us off the cliff than ever before in history. Women are the destroyers of nations.
Adam and Eve
Pandora's Box
Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle
Samson and Delilah
etc...
How many times have we been warned by our ancestors? How many times have we been warned by EVERY culture and religion in history?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smurphettem9042 the fetus is wholly dependent upon the host for survival. It takes resources from the host to survive, and complications from pregnancy can cause death.
You cannot go up to a person and put a gun to their head and force them to donate organs or bodily resources to another human being to survive. You can't take blood, organs, marrow, etc. without consent. Yet you claim you can go up to another human being and put a gun to their head and Force them to give up bodily and monetary resources to support the life of another without their consent?
Now, if a person willfully had sex and got pregnant due to carelessness and bad judgement, that's one thing. they entered into that knowing the risks and fully capable of taking responsibility.
But when rape is involved, or the mother is at risk of death, and other misc. exceptions occur, (particularly where the pregnancy occurred without consent) they have every right to end the threat to their life and to their existence. In such situations the fetus can represent a mortal or psychological harm.
If you tried to take an organ or other bodily resources from me without my consent, I'd do whatever was necessary to end the threat you represent to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yup, I come home, build my airplane, fix my truck, work on my house, read, relax, do chores, mind my own business, work on misc projects, go flying.... just minding my own business.
1
-
@lynnetagell9035 That's crazy. They claim to wait for a vaccine. But even then vaccines are typically only ~30% effective as well. So even if everyone got a vaccine, only about 30% of the population would be protected. Many places are already reaching herd immunity, the death rate is proving to be about as low as a seasonal flu, most people don't even have symptoms, and the hospitals (in the US at least) have never been overwhelmed. Meanwhile these Marxists have taken over our school system, colleges, unions, media, and politics and they use that power to create more Marxists. In the US some schools performance has dropped below levels in third world countries, and yet the teachers unions still demand more money (tax payer dollars which they use to fund the democratic party with), while private charter schools are getting top results on half the money in the same cities. There is so much stuff like this going on all at the same time that they have done slowly over years. They've hijacked our kids through school, the narrative through media, and the law through politics, to usher in their Utopian hell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pritongbabou The best example I have at the moment is Eddie Woo, here on Youtube or his other outlets. But the methods I use are not typically found in any books, classes, or videos. Eddie Woo is the closest example. A lot of my methods I arrived at independently while training to be an instructor, and through independent study and exploration of topics like math, to satisfy my own curiosity. Eventually I'd have epiphanies and figure out how to put them to use helping others learn better. But I study Philosophy, Psychology, Math, Physics, Engineering, Economics, Education, theories of evolution, study of the mind and consciousness and AI.... and much more. Mine is a cross-disciplinary approach to teaching. But the students don't see that, they just get the result of putting all that into use.
1
-
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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grahvis yes, they could mail in vote, on the CONDITION they meet one of the Qualifying exceptions. you're grasping here and arguing over trivialities.
You gave a Single example, of a person, any person, without "transportation". You do know that people can get a ride, all they have to do is ask? There are entire groups that offer free rides for just this purpose. Even local govs sometimes have side ride services they offer for free. There is no excuse for why you can't get to the polls. Or, you can just accept that you wont get to vote. Many people chose not to vote every single year of their own free will. But if they have no transport, how do they also go places to take care of bills, buy things, etc.?
If my grandparents can get around, then anyone can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm only 2min in and as a combat vet who is passionate about tactics, strategy, logistics and history, (and developed multiple successful tactics which I was able to test and prove in combat) I can already come up with tons of counter arguments about what may have actually happened. And I HIGHLY doubt they lied about the battle. Now, it's normal for stories details to be lost in translation or in retelling, and people didn't have cameras to record and recall details accurately, and stories often are embellished a bit and such. But even factoring all that in, the core elements tend to remain true. I've experienced first hand in combat multiple units after a battle recounting events the way they claimed it happened, and then I'd stitch together all the common threads of each story to figure out what had really happened.
Now, I'm not an expert on this battle, and so I'd need more details of what was claimed about the battle to form a proper opinion. but these lead to questions I need answers to, and cast doubt upon your assertions, unless they are answered in a manner that addresses those issues sufficiently.
I don't care about media depictions nor academia opinions. I want the historical accounts and details. Media and academia tend to get things wrong more than right, especially these days. They lack the experiences and fail to view things in context, resulting in false conclusions, especially when sufficient recorded detail is not available about what really happened.
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanherrmann6301 .308 is intermediate. Compare it to 7mm, .30-06, .300, .338, .416, .50cal, etc. and prove me wrong, fi you can.
10/22 can be select fire and .22lr is a rifle round of the same size as .223 and has been used by military forces.
" You even mentioned the M1A which is the semi-auto only, civilian version of the M14."
you're such an idiot. Did you know the AR15 is the semi-auto only version of teh M16, yet can be made select fire with ease none the less? But according to you the M14 isn't an assault rifle, as .308 isn't intermediate, according to you.
Not ONE person in the comments of this video has been able to prove me wrong with their childish understanding of defintions, law, and firearms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IllustriousUnknown416 useless? Then why did Russian pilots suffer such horrifically high losses? and Why did German pilots rack up such high kill tallies on the Eastern Front? Germans made easy work of the Russian made planes, including the IL-2. If you can't climb you can't control the fight.
The Yaks were inferior down low to the P-51A, A-36, Typhoon, and others. Even the Hurricanes made easy work of the Stukas in 1940, when the still Yak-9 couldn't do it in 1945. Even the Russians used the P-39Q longer than they used the Yak-9.
People criticized the P-40 due to its inferior climb performance against the A6M, it's lack of range, etc. (and the P-40 was not even as bad as people try to claim). But the Me109 was much the same as the Zero. It had superior maneuverability and climb performance to the Yak-9, and the Yak-9 suffered high losses accordingly. And unlike the Yak-9, the Me109 had cannons that worked well. Heck, even Stuka pilots were able to score aerial victories against Russian planes. And just like the Yak-9, the P-40 could out maneuver an Me109 at low altitude. And the Russians liked and used the P-40 a lot as well. But they still suffered high losses, while the Germans enjoyed high kill tallies.
You say a lot, but none of it is worth much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GB-zi6qr "I refute everything you've said."
your refusal to face facts refutes nothing. You provide zero valid evidence to the contrary.
" By your original comment and this latest one you're just agitating to create an argument"
yes, I'm creating an argument, one which I can defend, and you cannot defeat. That is what court cases and science are/is. They are arguments. And for an argument to win, it must be logically consistent, valid, and objective, the so called defintion is none of those things.
I am teaching people how to win the argument that assault rifles are BS and made up concepts, which can be defeated in court, and which do not serve the purpose they are purported to be for. What even is the point of having a legal definition and distinction for "assault rifles"? Why even bother? What purpose is served other that to strip people of their 2A freedoms?
"You've intentionally misstated the subject matter of the video just to start an argument."
in what way? Quote me where I did that, if you can. I think you're just a sore loser.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AbelMcTalisker Nor with they invent flaps, stealth, jet engines, leading edge slats, fly by wire, tailwheel landing gear..... so what? That in no way invalidates their accomplishments. The "stick" has nothing to do with control. You can do it many ways, as they proved. However, the Wrights DID use a stick for control, just not the exact same config we've standardized on today. And most modern planes use a yoke anyways (a Curtiss invention). The fact that in 1910, 7yrs after the first flight, Europeans still couldn't match the Wright's design says a lot about what they achieved in 1903. While Europeans were still trying to get off the ground, the Wrights were already flying a plane with greater control, longer range, and capable of basic aerobatics and barnstorming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jameseverett4976 No, you misunderstand. We need to use their tactics against them. It's all they understand. And you can't let up on them, don't let them continue until they answer your question. Shut down their lies as aggressively as they shut down the truth. Hold their feet to the fire. We are Not stooping to their level. We are using intelligence to outsmart them, to outmaneuver them.
If they claim something like "Gender pay gap!!", we respond with "gender sentencing gap?", and make them answer. Do as Crowder does and make them share their sources of information with you, and then actually read their sources and question them on it when their "source" is an opinion piece, or lacks any objective facts. Use their logic against them, make their brains explode. But do it nicely. And when they are stumped, you find common ground with them and then proceed to shift into explaining the real facts (you'll rarely get this fare with any of them though).
We have to be smart bout finding ways to make Them prove themselves false. Make Them prove their own ideas inconsistent. i know this is hard, which is why we crowd source responses to their favorite attacks and responses. Share responses and have everyone just keep using them when they bring up their crap arguments. It's not perfect, but it's better than being intimidated into silence. They are the loud minority, you are the silent majority. Make them realize that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadScientistofAmber you don't need trust in a debate. you just need facts and logic.
if the other person is using logical fallacies, then call them out for it, stop whining about "good faith" BS nonsense. You scream "bad faith" because you don't know what facts and logical fallacies are, and you don't know the rules of debate.
"of "this other person is already wrong, and I'm here to prove it", or coming in "wanting to win", potentially using dishonest or fallacious tactics."
those are called logical fallacies.
"Essentially, it's something that's so rare these days we don't even recognise it anymore"
False! I have engaged in, and see others engage in, proper logical debates all the time. Just because you and others don't know how to do it, doesn't mean nobody does.
You need to learn what the rules of debate are (very similar to the scientific method).
You need to learn what a logical fallacy is, and the many types of logical fallacies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Voter fraud, impeachment, election tampering and lies to steal the Presidency (Executive Branch)
Court packing to steal the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch)
Adding states, voter fraud, and election tampering to steal Congress (Legislative branch)
They control public education and the colleges, and oppose school choice
They control the MSM and the narrative
They are pushing for welfare programs and "free" socialized healthcare
They control Hollywood and use it to spread propaganda
They control social media and use it to censor and silence opposition
They promote violence and support groups like BLM and Antifa
They suppress and oppose free speech
They believe in mob justice, and courts of public opinion.
They support "guilty until proven innocent"
They oppose the 2nd Amendment
They don't support Due Process
They oppose freedom of religion
They oppose 2 parent families
They supposedly hate white, old, rich, men (but keep voting for them)
They promote diversity at all costs, solely for the sake of diversity (except when it comes to individuality and differences of opinion)
They support redistribution of wealth
They are racist
They deny conservatives equal right to protest, while they riot
They try to use impeachment and other tricks to try to overthrow the duly elected sitting President of the United States many times over.
..........
Seems like a full blown communist revolution seeking to overthrow the US government and the US Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spencerchristie4000 war =/= elk hunting.
spoken like someone who knows nothing about warfare.
in war both sides know where the strategic and tactical objectives are. they know where we are, where we're going, and we know what they are forced to defend if they don't want to lose. We know where they are, and they know what we want. sometimes speed is more important that stealth.
When ground is too rough for 4+ wheeled vehicles, motorcycles are better. When the terrain elevation is too high for helicopters, motorcycles are better, and you can deploy them out of helicopters as well, unlike most other vehicles.
Motorcycles also allow for dispersal of your personnel to make it harder to deal with, as they can attack from multiple angles simultaneously, and staggering them also disperses the noise signatures so that the sound is coming from all around them.
Motorcycles are superior for flanking maneuvers. Motorcycles allow you to operate off beaten paths and make it harder for them to anticipate your path of approach, thus difficult to place obstacles, ambushes, mines, etc.
Lots of ways to use motorcycles that other solutions can't do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Naval warfare has already been using drones for decades
UAV: TDR-1 (ww2), FIDO (WW2), Fritz-X (WW2), anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, etc.
Unmanned naval drones: torpedoes (WW1), Homing torpedoes (WW2) submarines (US already has many such as ORCA, Manta, etc.), surface ships (US has many such as port protection, gunboats, sub hunting ship, etc.)
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sergeychmelev5270 SBD, A-36A, Ju-87, Typhoon/Tempest, P-47, P-39, P-40, Hurricane, F4U, Mosquito, FW190, P-38, A-1, etc.
IL-2 top speed was 250mph, service ceiling was 16k ft, rate of climb was 1000fpm, lacked maneuverability, was vulnerable from below (Hartmann's favorite way of shooting them down).
Many post-WW2 civilian airplanes perform better than this, and on far less HP too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pyronuke4768 yes, the early losses were about 1:1, but that was because they never even bothered to tell the pilots how the AIM9 and AIM7 even worked. It was not an aircraft issue, it was a pilot/training issue. and once that was resolved, the F-4 was kicking butt.
and no, the US did NOT have air superiority over Vietnam at any point during the war.
"The 31 is to the 25 what the Super Hornet is to the Legacy Hornet. "
yes.
Mig25 sucked
Mig31 still sucks
"In everything except maneuverability the MiG-31 was roughly the equivalent of the F-14A."
Meaning it wasn't as good as the F-14.
"it would smoke an F-4 in BVR long before it got to the merge."
you cannot guarantee that. US pilots are smarter and operate in teams. Also, US radar is superior. And there are multiple ways to dodge missiles, especially when BVR. How many missiles can the Mig31 carry? Only have to wait for them to run out.
"The reason it doesn't have the KD ratio of the Phantom II is because the Soviet Union didn't stick around long enough to put it to good use and the Russian Federation that replaced them are utterly incompetent."
same excuse why every Soviet/Russian fighter today sucks and has been shot down a ton. Mig29, Su-27, Su-3, Su-30, Su-35, Su-31, Su-25, etc. Even Su-57 have been destroyed in combat already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@larryrich2288 "Today’s women have no idea how good they have it."
Agreed
I grew up living in places without running water. Had an outhouse, had to carry water for a bath or cleaning. Used a wash basin (I still have everything needed to wash clothes by hand in my basement if ever needed).
Grew up helping on the farm. Back when cars didn't have power windows, power locks, antilock brakes, or air conditioning. before cellphones, computers, internet, etc.
And even I had it FAR better and easier than my parents or grandparents had it.
As an engineer, I study the history of technology, both to better understand how to do my job and understand the core/fundamental aspects of being an engineer, but also to figure out better ways of doing things. Sometimes and old solution is the right solution for a new problem. Older solutions tend to be simpler, more durable, and more reliable too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@helgeschneider9069 "how much do you need to spend for your childs to visit a famous university?"
what is the actual question?
Kids visit colleges all the time for free. it doesn't cost anything to visit.
If you meant ATTEND, well, depedns upon the school, scholarships, grants, etc. And no, i am not funding my kid's college. no one funded mine or my siblings. we all worked hard to get scholarships, grants, GI Bill, etc. or worked jobs to pay for it ourselves. otherwise, go get a trade job, start a business etc. if you can't figure out how to afford it, then you don't need to attend.
seems ironic a person who struggles with basic communication is questioning me on college education. I have 4 degrees, all paid for myself debt free. i paid cash, earned grants and scholarships, and served many years in the military to get my education. my siblings did similar and worked multiple jobs during college to pay for theirs. When i graduated High School, if you didn't finish in the top 30% of your class, people wouldn't even talk to you about attending college as you weren't smart enough and/or hard working enough to attend.
1
-
@helgeschneider9069 "sorry, can not be, as the usa healtcare is the most ineffective in the world."
that's propaganda. Yes, if you participate int eh insurance cartel, then it is expensive. but if you pay cash and go around the criminal cartel, then it's cheap. I've been doing this for decades in the US without ever using health insurance.
"if you need to have a surgery, a birth.....you need to pay much, much more extra! in germany we pay nothing extra! "
why? why pay more? says who? you have no clue what you're talking about. I live here, you don't. STFU.
"tell me, how much do you need to pay, if your son stay in hospital for 4 month. "
why is your son int eh hospital for 4months? totally arbitrary out of context BS scenario that never happens over here. stupid question
"he stayed there over the end of year......you know, what this means in regard on your annual deductibile........"
WTF is even the question here? Deductible? Are you stupid? When you pay CASH there is no "deductible". it doesn't apply. you're spewing incoherent nonsense. The propaganda has scrambled your brains.
"so how much would you pay for 4 month hospital including three times (round about three weeks) intensive care?"
why are you always spending 4months in hospitals? WTF stupid crap re you germans doing over there? Never spent more than a few hours in a hospital for anything. you also clearly know nothing about how things like ER work over here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on global temperatures. this means that for every additional 1C of warming it can cause, it requires a doubling of total PPM. Let's say in going from 200ppm to 400ppm, global average temperatures increased by 1C. to get to 2C, another 1C higher, you'd need 800ppm. To get to 3C warming, you'd need to get to 1600ppm. to get to 4C warming, you'd need to get to 3200ppm. Plants grow well in 1200ppm, which is why greenhouses pump in CO2 to those levels. Humans in a confined space, such as a classroom, lecture hall, or workplace office.... can get the local air up to 800ppm just from breathing and talking.
3200ppm just to get 4C rise, which would have little impact.... The data shows the Roman era was 10C warmer than now, and the population was far lower and coal/oil/natural gas weren't in common usage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigredgunnut 10/22 can be had with select fire.
AR10 are also available select fire. Are you claiming the FAL, SCAR, and more are not assault rifles?
"An AR10 is no more an assault rifle than an old magazine fed Enfield 303."
proving the definition in this video is arbitrary, invalid, and subjective. it's not a valid defintion as it cannot be objectively and consistently applied. the fact you think a .308 is a large caliber is laughable.
"to be an "Assault Rifle" it MUST be select fire."
and AR10s are select fire, as are 10/22. not all of them, but nor are most AR15 select fire either but you count them. M2 is select fire as well. M249 is NOT select fire, so I guess those are legal, huh? Is a STEN gun legal too, since they aren't select fire?
the fact you tried to reduce the defintion to a SINGLE variable, select fire, and then try to claim AR10 select fire rifles aren't assault rifles due to their intermediate caliber size, proves me right and you wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
SBRs, Braces, silencers, are in widespread common usage, and therefore cannot be regulated by the ATF.
SBRs, Silencers, SBSs, etc. have military application and thus cannot be regulated by the ATF.
The $200 tax is a Poll Tax on a Constitutional Right and thus illegal.
The Federal gov cannot create a firearms registry.
Braces make pistols LESS concealable. Knives are also concealable, deadly, legal, and used in a great many murders.
A long barrel silences a rifle as does a silencer. A bow and arrow is even quieter, and it's also legal to put silencers on them.
Legal to own an air rifle silencer.
A victimless crime is not a crime.
Braces are still legal to own, buy, and sell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't disagree with the questions about generations.
5th gen is generally stealth capability, and advanced avionics/sensors.
6th gen is stealth, optionally manned.
But I'd argue my own definitions.
1st gen jets are from WW2 (Meteor, Me262, P-80...), and peaking with the likes of the F-86, Mig17, A-4, etc. They are subsonic early fighters.
2nd gen would be mach 1 capable, after burning engines. Radar and Missile capable. F-4, Mig21, F-100, etc.
3rd gen would be energy maneuverability multirole fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mig29, Su-27, etc.).
4th gen would be stealth capable, super cruising, etc.
There are of course execptions to these, and those could be described as their lowest most applicable category. Electric Lighnting was supercruise, but not 4th gen. F-4 was multirole, but not 3rd gen. Mig17 was afterburning, but not 2nd gen, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reckless Abandon Consensus is not science.
You know how many scientists wrote in opposition to Einstein when he first proposed his theories? A lot. They were wrong.
Sciences is about repeatable results, not majority vote opinion.
Your previous comment contained nothing of value and was more about insults. nothing to refute.
"Why are there far more atmospheric physicists who agree that increase in CO2 warms the atmosphere, and how many do not? " Name names? I want a list of names. I want to know what their area of expertise is. CO2 does warm the atmosphere, but logarithmically, thus having diminishing effect the more is added. The experiment to prove it has been done hundreds of times in the past 100yrs. That is science, repeatable results by countless studies and experiments.
"By the way, I am an atmospheric physicist, who knows the science, but am not convinced simply cutting emissions is the way to solve the problem. Cutting emissions lowers the Gibbs Free Energy available to create new technology and will end in a technological collapse. By using the low entropy fossil fuels we can create faster economic growth and greater technological growth to get to alternatives like Thorium and Fusion that much faster." bunch of word salad that explains nothing, proves nothing, and actually avoids the issue.
If you actually know anything about the atmosphere, you'd know that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I tend to feel imaginary numbers results from bad assumptions. There are many things I can think of about certain aspects of math, not just imaginary numbers, that is logically inconsistent.
Historically, theories used to lead with logic, and follow with the math. Only very recently has the dynamic bean changed, and no math leads logic, and we run into constant paradoxes and walls, even when following the logic first doesn't agree with the math-centric solutions. Problem with math is you can make it do a lot of things that just aren't so. This means we can come up with near infinite theories based solely on math, but only one can be right. Logic first, then math. When math goes first, we get nowhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logitech4873 When I was growing up, only the rich and upper class had Air Conditioning, either in their cars or their homes.
People SLOWLY added air conditioners over time, it was also not Forced nor gov mandated. People added them if and when they could afford it, and there was no resistance to building new power plants back then either. It took Decades for AC to become so commonplace. And AC units consume FAR less energy than an EV does, ridiculously less. So adding grid energy for low power AC units spread out over many decades was no issue.
the Politicians and woke anti-science crowd are the ones passing legislation demanding conversion to EVs by 2030. Yet they are also against Hybrids, against Hydrogen, and against nuclear power plants. When gov started doing this, electrical and other engineers ran the math ans started trying to tell the gov that it's physically impossible to scale up teh grid to support that many EVs in less than 30yrs, and that we lacked the mining, processing and manufacturing to build that many EVs, and that was without any consideration for how many applications which EVs still cannot do the job of an ICE at all.
I am an engineer, and other engineers and scientists have been trying to get the idiots to do simple math and know that they can't simply FORCE this into existence. reality doesn't work like that. Utopia is a children's fantasy and will Never happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I lived for 4yrs in AZ on $15k/yr, comfortably. And my yearly expenses were only $9k-$11k/yr.
Now I make GOOD money, and my annual expenses are now only $23k/yr. And that is with me owning property, 2 airplanes, a car, etc. Not all of that expense is NECESSARY! I could sell my airplanes and save Thousands per year in fuel, oil, maintenance, hangar, insurance, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamcrawford7621 the left (socialism, Communism, marxism, modern leftist progressives), do not support individual rights. They are all about centralized power, controlled economies, telling people what they can and cannot do and when, engaging in censorship, etc.
The right is about the individual and freedom of the economy through capitalism, letting people and markets decide, and live and let live.
1
-
1
-
@colincampbell767 We do separate R&D that doesn't go directly into products, along with production level innovations.
But NASA isn't maintaining the edge, SpaceX is. So all that cost is wasted. Just because a program is in place that allows for failure, doesn't mean it will work. Like it or not, How it is executed matters.
Yes, some things fail. The innovation in teh military is figuring out how to make do, how to make things work even when you have nothing to fix it with. We kept out tanks running by stuffing gum wrappers into the fuse holders. I fixed a brake line leak in Afghanistan with electrical tape while on a combat patrol. I figured out how to continue driving a truck despite the axle no longer being bolted to the suspension. Found out a way to get a truck to shift into high gear when no one else could get it to work (and we'd tried and failed to figure out what was wrong with it). We jerry rigged so many things to keep them working that sometimes I'm amazed things worked at all. Some of my most brilliant MacGyver moments in my life were in combat. I jerry rig stuff at work on the fly all the time too. Guess what, NASA engineers jerry rigged everything in the Apollo/Mercury/Gemini era too. Sometimes deadlines and deliverables are so tight you don't have much choice.
Doesn't stop us from innovating with each new product line. If we aren't innovating, if our products aren't innovative and pushing boundaries, then we aren't in the lead, someone else is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aldopedroso6212 Prior to Hiroshima, the US pilots were shooting up everything that moved. they were running out of things to shoot at and started strafing power plants, fishing boats, etc.
Tell me how many ships the US lost to suicide boats n WW2....even the Japanese lacked confidence in the idea. The Kamikazes were being dealt with by this point. to prove it, on the day Japan surrendered, disgruntled Japanese pilots conducted kamikaze raids and all were shot down with no hits. Most never even got close to a target.
How many midget subs were used successfully in WW2 by the Japanese, not counting Pearl Harbor? They had a whole mess of them in Alaska, to no avail.
the video doesn't give proper context, like how many of these things weren't in Japan proper, and not in a position to affect an invasion in any manner. No ship left in Japan home islands was combat capable when Hiroshima was bombed, and their air power was all but ineffective by that point, with B-29 raids operating with near impunity. How many B-29 of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki raids were attacked by fighters? and they weren't even escorted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottmanley It is still an aircraft, same as the F-35 and AV-8B are aircraft. Look it up. In the FAA it's called "powered lift", and you can get a license for it.
Also, my Cessna doesn't use the atmosphere for propulsion either (assuming I'm not gliding). But it is still an aircraft.
Powered flight, is powered flight.
Here is the ACTUAL definition of an aircraft: "an airplane, helicopter, or other machine capable of flight."
Here is the LEGAL definition of an aircraft: "The term "aircraft" means a civil, military, or public contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or travel in the air."
notice that atmosphere, atmospheric lift, and atmospheric propulsion are not part of the definitions?
Here is the definition of flight: "the action or process of flying through the air."
Now that you're flying airplanes, you should get more familiar with the definitions, terminology, legalities, and such of aviation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kathyat70 wrong. Communities also raise kids.
Schools and teachers.
Extracurricular activities.
Family support.
Daycare, babysitting.
WIC, Welfare, and other assistance programs that parents use.
etc.
Any time a child interreacts with another human other than its parents and siblings, that child is being raised and influenced, good or bad, by the community at large.
In the past, when I was a child, the community, including your neighbors, had a FAR larger impact on raising children. People helped each other out a lot more. People were friendlier, people did more themselves rather than paying others, people pooled their resources better as a group than they do now, and things cost less as a result.
Many children in the past even raised themselves, raised each other, were almost feral. They relied upon the community far more, and turned into successful adults as a result.
The community provides role models, mentors, and more to children.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
Fire support? what is the max barrel elevation and indirect fire range of a T-55? Now ask yourself, what is the range of precision Ukrainian artillery? How much fuel does a T-55 need compared to towed artillery? How accurate is the T-55 as artillery? What artillery targeting systems does teh T-55 come equipped with?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KillianDuncan I've owned 4 vehicles in my life so far, and I still own 2 of them.
1) free, got it from my sister after she totaled it, spent maybe $600 in maintenance and drove it for years. Sold it for $300 after driving it for 6yrs.
2) $2k, maybe $2k maintenance (mostly tires and suspension). Blew head gasket at 285k miles, regret not putting a crate motor in it.
3) $8k from dealership with only 25k miles on it and still under 50k mile warranty. spent maybe $2000 in maintenance (mostly tires, and I replaced all 4 shocks/struts which were $600 in parts), still driving it, 140k miles, Everything still works. I've had multiple people approach me in parking lots asking to buy it.
4) $7k with 160k miles, manual 1990s truck, no rust, plan to make this an "immortal vehicle". replace and repair anything and everything if necessary. New or refurbished engine if/when needed, patch panels and repaint to fix any future rust, etc. Spent nothing on it in maintenance yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SethAtSNK I get Germany and Japan allying, but why would the Soviets join the Axis and attack the US because of Pearl Harbor?
And yes, while Soviets were "enemies of my enemy", they were the worst enemy of them all (Germany, Japan, Italy, and Soviet Union). Let them fight each other, but as many on both the axis and allied sides said late in the war, after defeating Germany, we never should have stopped.
Russia killed more people in the end, had gulags, purges, conquered half of Europe as Nazi Germany intended to do, took and kept land in China that everyone got mad at Japan about, but was ok with Russia taking for some reason. Russia to this day is still doing things Nazi Germany once did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaimalino528 nobody here said the Philippines owes the US anything, except you.
The point was about colonialism, claiming 40+ years when that isn't completely accurate.
Philippines wanted their independence, we gave it to them. Don't complain when you get what you wanted.
Japan was a defeated nation, unconditionally surrendered itself to the US. the US could have kept all of Japan and made it a state if it wanted. It had won total control over all of japan. But the US chose to follow Abraham Lincoln's example and rebuild Germany and Japan, and work on a path to reconciliation rather than decimation. That involved forgiving many wrongs, rebuilding their countries so people could move on with their lives, and putting those countries on a path to being stable and non-hostile to other nations.
Philippines were conquered by Spain, and the US inherited that by defeating Spain. Philippines wanted freedom, we granted it. Japan conquered Philippines, US liberated them. What more was the US supposed to do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FoxxyCZ but that's not always the case. Many math problems have more than one possible answer. Solving triangles, square roots, quantum physics, Pythagorean theorem, chaos theory and 3+ body problems, and much more have somewhere between 2-infinite solutions.
And there are Many different ways to solve almost every math problem correctly. If you stick to the basics and follow the basic rules, in general, yes, math is very regimented and rules based, but not nearly as much as you think. But if you never move past that level of understanding, you'll never truly master math nor get good at its range of real-world applications. In engineering for example, figuring out the range of acceptable variations of everything is really what you're trying to do, not solve exact equations.
But yes, if something is a Proven Fact, then one person disagreeing could be seen as obstructionist. but it might also be that they are simply still learning and don't know all teh information needed to understand why they are wrong. We have to give people the chance to learn. And many times in history, when humans thought they had something figured out, only to find out later it was all wrong, had to accept that what they once thought was proven fact, was in fact not a Fact at all. And if we never have people challenging such notions, we'd never discover the truth. it all depends upon what they are disagreeing with, and why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have a family homemade pizza recipe. I can literally get home from work, preheat the oven, grab ingredients from the pantry, mix and kneed the dough, and bake the pizza, in the EXACT SAME TIME it would take me to grab a frozen pizza out of the oven, and cook it. I've even cooked my own sausage for the toppings in that time too.
And the homemade pizza tastes SOOOO much better, and is FAR cheaper. It's higher quality pizza than the fanciest brand of frozen pizza at a typical grocery store, and you can put whatever you want on it.
From getting home to eating, same time as frozen pizza, no more than 15min total. And if cooking for one I can do 1-2 pizzas at teh same time that could last me almost a week. and it tastes so good cold or reheated too.
I think I've made a pizza for around $2 or less and is an adequate meal for 4 healthy adults, and with different toppings could have been less. and even less if the ingredients came from my garden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulbantick8266 American made, American designed airplane, American improved engine, close enough. And the original Mustang used an American engine, and North American wanted to develop a 2-stage supercharger for the Allison. And had they done that, the Allison would have curb stomped the Merlin at altitude, and also improved the P-51's range still further over the merlin, while flying faster and higher due to being lighter and lower drag profile than the Merlin engine. It was just a matter of money, time, and desire to do it. The allison had already proven capable of doing this at altitude in the P-38 with turbocharging. The P-51A was faster down low than teh Merlin mustangs, and would have been even more so faster at higher altitudes. It would be interesting for someone to do this in the modern day with a P-51A restoration, for research purposes.
1
-
@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
-
@paulbantick8266 "No Rolls-Royce engine, no P51 of any merit much over the P40. "
this is 100% wrong.
the P-51A was a Massively superior aircraft to the P-40, one of the best fighters of the war in fact. And NA intended to put a 2 stage supercharger on the Allison for the Mustang.
The Allison was higher HP, more fuel efficient, 200lb lighter, more aerodynamic (lower drag), more reliable, tougher, cheaper, easier to produce and maintain....
The Allison Mustangs are also Faster then Merlin Mustangs at low altitude. And with a proper forced induction system the Allison is easily superior to the Merlin at altitude as well.
"whereas Roll-Royce were manufacturing different iterations for various aircraft types of different tasks. "
Packard developed multiple versions of the Merlin as well.
"And if the British hadn't put in an order for a specified fighter aircraft, the P51 would not have been built. Or if it was, there would have been no urgency for the North American to produce the aircraft much before 1942."
the only true statement you made.
1
-
@jacktattis Nice try at logical fallacies practice.
The Packard was used in the MUSTANG. do try to keep up. your stupidity is showing.
Packard improved the Merlin for manufacturing and mass production, quality of parts, etc. They refined some internal flow paths. US machining was superior to the British and Germany in WW2, and everyone knew it. British commented on it many times. The Germans used US-made machine tools in their factories.
A lighter aircraft with a lighter wing loading and the "same" engine will reach a higher altitude. Spitfires are famously light. A Packard is functionally identical, and thus could equally propel a spitfire so high, so don't play stupid.
The ONLY thing the Allison lacked in WW2 was a 2-stage supercharger. It had superior HP, lighter weight, better fuel economy, lower drag, more reliable, easier to build and maintain, and it's crankshaft bearings were famous for bringing back aircraft despite being heavily damaged, etc. Merlins were famously finicky and tempermental.
Allisons in P-38 produced far more HP at 25k ft than any Merlin ever could.
cope harder.
1
-
1
-
@paulbantick8266 The British wanted P-40. NAA offered a clean sheet design of unspecified specs that would be better than the P-40. No British input.
All early P-51 delivered to teh RAF were Allison powered. MkI, MkIa, F-6a, etc.
The A-36 with Allison engine was far and away superior to the P-47 in ground attack. In fact the RAF exclusively used the Allison mustangs for recon and ground attack fora full 12months in Europe prior to the first P-47 combat sortie ever. And in the first 18months of RAF service, doing recon and ground attack, only 8 Mustangs were lost to enemy action. The P-51 with allison was superior in speed, dive, maneuverability, dive bombing accuracy, etc. to the P-47, and carried the same weight of ordnance as the P-47 in proportion to the aircraft's weight. P-51s used Napalm, 500lb bombs, 20mm cannons, .30cal, .50cal, and 57mm cannons, as well as rockets, and even delivered supplies using drop tanks. A-36 pilots preferred the A-36 over the P-47 and said the A-36 was more likely to bring them back alive than a P-47.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wickedcabinboy Try one who is recommended, and see how it goes. If they are not working out for you, try talking to them about it. If that doesn't fix it, then find another instructor.
Not everyone works the best with every other person. One person and their CFI might work great together, but you might not mesh so well with that same CFI as they did, and that's ok. It's not necessarily that the CFI is bad, just that some personalities and styles work better or some people than others.
If your CFI does anything that concerns you, ask another pilot if that is normal, safe, etc. If they say yes, then trust your CFI knows what they are doing. If not, bring it up with the CFI and if they refuse to stop doing that, then seek another CFI.
You don't have to start over when you change CFIs, but they will need to evaluate your progress for themselves so they might make you do a few extra flights to evaluate you in what you've already learned. They have to evaluate you to sign you off to take a Checkride.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mister_Underhill "If you cant charge at home, dont buy an ev." this i agree with.
The problem is that battery EVs simply do not and fit the bill for all people or all applications (airplanes, semis, hauling, towing, long distances....). I drive a lot, and a long ways, so they don't work for me. Also, I refuse to spend that much money on a car, and since battery EVs have no practical used market, i couldn't get one even if I wanted one.
I think hydrogen fuel cell EVs, once the tech investment starts to match battery investment, will be the ticket for applications like mine. Despite the lack of investment though, fuel cell EVs still are competitive. Biggest factor is lack of infrastructure, just like battery EVs lacked a few years ago. But many technical hurdles of manufacturing and transporting hydrogen have been overcome. They have range and can refill to 100% in 5min or less. They are also lighter and better suited to semis, aircraft, long range, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was rooting for Wagner, because Russians fighting Russians takes pressure off Ukraine.
In a way the present situation is better than Wagner winning. Wagner was arguably Russia's most elite forces. They have now been dishonored, disbanded, broken up, dissolved, absorbed into regular army units, and will no longer fight as effectively and not has as good of leadership. The best Russian unit just got taken out of the war. This is a win for Ukraine.
And, it proves how inept the Russian regular armed forces are, how weak Putin is, and sows doubt in the future of teh Russian state as a whole. We are on step closer to the nation state of "Russia" as we know it today, ceasing to exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Websters 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.
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 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
100% Wrong.
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoeOvercoat "again with the ‘might makes right’ argument."
no, that's international waters. You can do stuff in international waters, but so can other people, like the people who own the drone you would be falsely laying claim to. You can steal from them, and thy can choose to kill you right back if they like. If you manage to kill them instead, well, so be it. But there will likely be consequences for acts of piracy and murder if you're acting alone.
I said to just assume it's operating, and leave it alone, unless you don't mind starting something. If you wish to lay claim to marked US military hardware on the high seas, go right ahead. Just don't scream when you get killed. If you are a nation of particular stature, you may get away with it, otherwise, best not to poke the bear.
if you find it adrift and clearly disabled or damaged, you might be able to get away with it.
but don't play stupid where stealing from the US military is concerned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RubyRhod No, SMR is being used to describe a specific type of scaled down reactor that uses the latest technologies. They are all meltdown-proof, secure, use little radioactive material, fit in approximately the size of a 40ft connex or smaller. etc.
This category of reactors is the future, as much as nuclear naysayers deny it. It is the only viable large scale solution. Solar and wind have all sorts of issues, and SMR nuclear can be used to convert existing coal and natural gas power plants, bring more decentralized power to more targeted areas, etc.
They are safe, can be mass produced, don't take years to make, and can be installed anywhere, and can run on existing piles of radioactive waste, thus reducing the already miniscule stockpiles of waste we've created even more.
I'd volunteer to have one installed in my backyard to power my community if they would let me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ProudSalafi " The heck is wife gonna do? Why did I marry her ? "
exactly the right questions. That's why I'm not married. No women out there that share my values.
Women today have no understanding of their role in society, in the family, what their strengths are, nor how to us them. they have become lazy and worthless.
Men have slowly, unintentionally, replaced women with dishwashers, microwaves, washing machines, roomba, and more.
If women think they were oppressed or work hard as stay at home moms, they need to spend some time in Switzerland and witness the truth. Women have it easy.
"I am doing my job as a man and she needs to hers that is how a healthy relationship is built."
couldn't agree more
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sebclot9478 "kid"?
Where do you get the idea you're in a position to lecture anyone?
Insults and "appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. By using such fallacies instead of arguing on merits of your ideas and the documented facts, you are admitting defeat. Such is the rules of scientific debate.
I could cite my laundry list of qualifications and credentials, but that doesn't make me right either. Only the facts and logic of my argument can win. But in addition to my extensive experiences, achievements, knowledge, and skills in these topics, i have an exhaustive library of source material on a short list of aircraft, chief among them is the P-51. Name a book specifically about the Mustang and i probably own a copy. And i have been debating this aircraft specifically with many top experts. Pilots who've flown the aircraft, first-hand accounts. Engineering data. Mechanics who've worked professionally on both the Allison and Merlin engines. Talked with authors of some of the most prominent books on the topic, and much more. I've been researching and debating WW2 fighter aircraft for many years now in excruciating detail.
But again, my credentials and past research alone doesn't make me right. My arguments being logically consistent and backed up by facts and evidence is what makes my arguments scientifically valid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobjoned3398
Yes, the A-36 was a stop gap fighter, but it 100% was intended for combat and they were all used in combat till the last plane could no longer fly.
The US invented dive bombing, not the Germans, but it worked, as the SBD showed. The A-36 became the best dive bomber of WW2,a nd the only one allowed to do danger close dive bombing in support of troops in contact. The Second best dive bomber of WW2 was the F4U Corsair.
The dive brakes were NEVER wired shut, this is a lie that has been refuted by Multiple experienced A-36 combat veterans. they specifically address this lie, and they flatly refute it with prejudice. Read any first hand accounts of A-36 pilots. Even Robert S. Johnson flew the A-36 at one point and had high praise for it. Many A-36 pilots Preferred the A-36 to the P-47 for ground attack, and resisted giving up their A-36 till they literally ran out of airplanes.
Even the Germans that test flew the P-47 said it was a sluggish dog below 20k ft, and that they could never get one to go over 310mph at lower altitudes. Read the first hand accounts of the Germans who test flew captured allied aircraft. They didn't much care for the P-47, but they did agree it performed much better above 20k ft and dove well. But a dog at low altitude. Even a P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft, and was equally as tough an airframe as the P-47.
Ever notice how no P-47s raced at Reno after the war?
1
-
1
-
i put my info into all the versions of "Female Delusion Calculator", including a Feminist version that called theirs the "Male Delusion Calculator" (that proved men are not delusional though), and competing against guys ages 18-85, earning my income or higher, even competing against married men.....I list as a top 0.3-0.5% male in the US. I'm well inside the top 1% of men in the US. And yet I am NOT that wealthy at all (most of my coworkers make more than I do). And what I make/have is still lower than what most modern women seem to expect from an "average" man. I own used vehicles that are all over 20yrs old. Own a small old house that's nothing special and could use a ton of remodeling. etc. Oh, and I'm undesirable by women, for whatever reasons. Mostly I don't tolerate childish behavior, feminism, I know how to say no, I put my foot down and wont budge on certain things, they can't pull their nonsense on me (I was raised by women, had only sisters, 3:1 women to men in my family, I know all their tricks), I wont waste money frivolously, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Weak men can't handle us or our kids: I'd like to know more about what happened to their father.
We don't need to be saved: but are desperate for a man to take care of them.
Games, Games, Games: yes, women are very good at word games. mixed signals. projection much?
We can't be swept off our feet: so why should we bother trying?
Our kids will always come first: exactly, so what's in it for me?
We aren't looking for a daddy: then what ARE you looking for? If you're so independent and don't need us for anything, why are you desperate for a man?
Our tolerance for bullshit is extinct: as you shovel it (bullshit) at us by the truckload.
We don't put out: ...............................men, due to evolution and instinct, are driven to procreate. Don't get mad if you deny them one of their primary functions as a member of the human species and expect them to not have an issue with that. Also, if your body is a temple, why do you take such bad care of it and gain so much weight and such?
Our children are not baggage: well, actually, yes they are. Just look how much they impact the relationship from your own statements.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Point defense weapons can't work as well in times of peace as in times of war. Could you imagine automated systems firing at every ship and aircraft that passed within range? They have to periodically be switched off, or standby, or need human intervention to fire to ensure peacetime incidents don't occur. This makes them less effective. This also means that in peacetime, a smart person could ambush an unsuspecting ship effectively. But in wartime, expecting an attack, with systems on and ready, they would work better. There are many factors at play here, surely more than i can think of, but as usual everyone oversimplifies everything and tries to make everything black and white. Heck, sometimes things just break after years of use, and it just happens to be at the most inopportune time
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elKarlo The West knows exactly how to breach the Russian defenses, just becasue we fought in OIF/OEF for 20yrs, doesn't mean we have forgot everything else in the meantime. I fought in both OIF and OEF and can easily penetrate Russian lines. I was taught to fight the Russians in Europe before I ever fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Some things about warfare never change, regardless of the type of enemy you face. A major aspect of Iraq was dealing with mines, boobytraps, etc. In Afghanistan there were tons of leftover Russian minefields to clear as well. Skills and knowledge that translates well to Ukraine.
You're learning the wrong lessons from Ukraine, because you think the US and others can't do better. In reality, the US anticipated everything happening in Ukraine decades ago. The return of trench warfare due to drones and precision weapons was anticipated. The Pentagon released a whole study on it. US has been using camera-guided Kamikaze drones in actual combat successfully since WW2.
The war in Ukraine is the fight most guys I served with in combat dreamed of fighting. A standup fight. We'd go on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan and get frustrated when the enemy wouldn't attack us, because we wanted to fight. We were professional soldiers, volunteers, we went to fight. And we continued studying all aspects of warfare even during/between/before/after deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
US could penetrate Russian lines with ease.
1
-
@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
-
@checkdestroy well, like it or not, ALL countries have to do that. US had to produce results in WW2 to keep public support and continue to be able to fund the war. People were tired of it by 1944. If you study military history enough, eventually you'll see even ancient wars were managed this way. without public support for the war, to send people and to spend money and to raise funds, you can't fight a war. And if Ukraine wants to win and continue to get handed our taxpaying dollars, we need to know they can actually win.
"The US needs to give Ukraine what they want and then stfu."
no, that's not how it works. If Ukraine thinks they can just demand/expect things, then I dare them to try invade the US and MAKE us. I support the Ukrainians, and want them to win, but with that attitude I'd be obliged to refuse to help as a matter of principle and duty. The moment you tell Americans what to do, you're done. You can ask nicely, and convince us to help, but if you DEMAND it, I will be forced to retract my support. I don't tolerate threats, I don't negotiate with terrorists and criminals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashleyjohansson230 And are any of the locked down areas not experiencing a spike in cases right now? what about mask mandates? Did any of this stop or slow the spread? no. Why? because an economic lockdown, quarantining, the healthy, and masks don't stop the spread. This has all been known for decades. Millions of Americans die every year due to flu, pneumonia, diabetes, cancer, falls... 125k a year die just from medical malpractice. 600k per year from cancer. Life goes on. All a vaccine is is an alternative method for achieving herd immunity. But exposure of low-risk individuals in a controlled manner (through voluntary participation of course) is equally effective. Cases aren't of concern, deaths are, and the death rate is overcounted as well. Doesn't mean we ignore it, but we shouldn't live in fear either.
They say it's temporary, but what are the conditions under which the lockdown will be ended? no one seems to know. This is why modern wars never have "victory". The conditions of victory are never defined, and thus we can never know when it is over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jintsuubest9331 "Literally every literature, testing institute, actual shooting, whatnot shows 556 lacks in penetration."
You need to get out more if you think the 5.56 lacks penetration.
I cite military experience only when people who have none cite other vets to try to shut me up. I've been in combat, I've trained many soldiers on multiple weapons, and I've seen military issue body armor of multiple types (plates, helmets, etc) penetrated by 5.56 for real. Not hypothetical, not some study.
I do not defy physics. I am an engineer as well as a combat vet, and have actually done the math on some of these issues in teh past for people who were clueless and had no understanding of the nuances of science. In one circumstance armor will stop a round, in another it will not. You have to understand more than black and white concepts of armor and physics.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tukeen Right there with you. I share a lot of these sentiments. Smaller schools, community driven. teach kids the skills needed to be successful as adults (math, reading, writing, science, history, gov, economics, finances, DIY repair of things like cars and houses, gardening/farming, life skills, entrepreneurship...).
I have a whole idea on how to reduce teh total number of laws gov at all levels can pass. when you have so many laws on the books that even a team of lawyers can't make heads or tales of them, then we have a serious problem. It's literally impossible for any one person to know and understand every law that applies to them at any given place and time in their lives and that is unacceptable. We have too many laws for the sake of control/power as well as politicians thinking that's what their job is (to pass new laws). but it's not their job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shenchen5667 Why use an 8cyl when you can get more from a 4cyl?
It comes down to weight per HP. more weight is bad, especially for aircraft.
look at Formula 1, they use 4cyl, not 6 or 8.
If you have terrible engines, then you lack sufficient power to achieve your performance goals, then you are forced to add an engine to make up for the power deficit. But had they only needed 2 engines, they could have gotten more space for fuel and payload, lower cost, less maintenance, and more range and payload weight.
If I have an engine that gives 30,000kg of thrust, and you have an engine that gives 20,000kg of thrust, then I can do with 2 of my engines what it will take you 3 of yours to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hao-fp9mt the F-18 was already as stealthy as teh Su-57, and they made an even more stealthy version taht nobody bought.
The F-15 was redesigned into the silent eagle, and was much more stealthy with significant changes, but again nobody bought it. These were export aircraft, as the US already had the F-22 and F-35, but most countries hadn't valued 5th gen aircraft just yet. but now stealth is becoming critical.
and existing F-16 have had stealth features applied like RAM paint, gold canopies and more. they aren't stealth in the traditional sense, but it reduced their RCS significantly.
you 100% can tweak an existing aircrafts exterior shape to become more stealthy. And a big part of stealth is things like RAM, materials, seams, and canopies.
You have yet to explain to me what you Think makes an aircraft stealthy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hao-fp9mt "Why do engineers bother designing entirely new aircrafts?"
Because they learn new things, and requirements change, technology improves.
But, we also keep old aircraft in service too such as the U-2 (changed dramatically over the decades), C-130, B-52 (completely rebuilding them now), F-16, F-15, F-18 (complete redesign), P-51A D and H models were dramatic redesigns of eachother, Me109s changed a lot, the Spitfire was redesigned numerous times. Su-27 family has been redesigned over and over again. Hawker's entire line of 1930s-WW2 piston fighters evolved from the Hart bomber, redesigning it each time. UH-1 helicopters, AH-1 helicopters, OH-6/MD500 Helicopters, Jet Ranger Helicopters, etc.
In fact, most of the most successful aircraft in history were completely redesigned over and over again for decades, rather than designing all new.
And many were redesigned slightly, specifically to make them more stealthy, such as the F-15, F-18, UH-60, etc.
What shapes make an airplane stealthy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@flarvin8945 The US didn't pull out because the "insurgency" won, they pulled out because we never should have been there to begin with. You are right, military might alone doesn't win a fight like this, but it is winnable, quite easily in fact (I have personal combat experience in this same sort of fight, and I am accomplished at it).
Afghanistan was the same issue, lack of political commitment. In the military we all knew how to win, but try convincing those in charge to let us do what needed to be done (and it's not what you think).
Actually, Vietnam would have gone Far Better for the US had we invaded all of Vietnam. Also, Vietnam was a Major transitionary time period for the US military. So comparing the Vietnam military to the US in Afghanistan is not an apples to apples comparison either.
But you have no actions by China to support your claims. Vietnam was not the same circumstances as Korea. Different time, different war, different politics, different global situation. And while China is willing to throw away lives in combat, the Chinese military lost far more men in Korea than they are willing to admit. Doing the same thing in Vietnam would have ended in even higher casualties for china. You don't anticipate a different behavior because you lack understanding. Things are never so simple as they seem at these scales.
1
-
@flarvin8945 Yes, many in the military don't get it, most fail to see the bigger picture. But the reason I disagree with you is because you are the one failing to see the Even larger picture. There is far more that was going on during the 1960s and 1970s than what you are trying to Massively oversimplify it down to. You should take your own advice. Take a Far deeper dive into this period of history, but look at everything. Look at Vietnam, China, Russia, US, other conflicts leading up to this one. History of how the US got involved. It is not Korea. Just because they did it once, why would they react the Exact same way again? And on top of that we know for a fact (hindsight, people who were there) that China was not going to invade. It was not like Korea where they were just saying it. There is more to consider here than your overly simplistic repetition of school textbook talking points. Look at the political environment, the economic environment, the technological environment...
Actually the effective area needing to be controlled would have been smaller had the US gone north. The Insurgency would have been Far weaker had the US gone north. You clearly don't have a military mind.
1
-
1
-
@flarvin8945 Yes, China commits troops when it feels threatened, like how India recently kicked their butts on the border. If the modern PLA can't handle India, they'd have had no chance against the US in the past. Why didn't China commit troops to Afghanistan? They share borders. Keep in mind Russia and China were fighting during the Vietnam conflict as well.
No, I'm not oversimplifying things, I make that statement because I understand how an Occupation of the north would have changed the Entire dynamic of the war, and clearly you don't have the knowledge to understand that yet. For a Basic idea, think of France vs Germany in WW1, and then think of France vs Germany in WW2. Study guerilla wars, then study conventional wars like Korea, WW2, etc. Study the Art of War, learn about Logistics and strategy. But Also learn how agriculture, economics, global politics, and other non-battlefield factors impact the progression of a war. It's a start, but even after studying all that, you may still not understand why I'd rather fight in Vietnam while occupying the entire country vs only half (if I had to fight that war).
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iMost067 I'm dismissive of T-55, because looking at how fast the T-90, T-80, T-72, T-64, T-62...were dispensed with, how long do you honestly expect the T-55 to last. Also, it is a simple known FACT that T-55 armor is inferior to the likes of T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90, let's stop playing dumb here.
What this means is that literally ANY modern Anti-Tank weapon system can take out a T-55 with ease. RPG-7, NLAW, Carl Gustav, AT-4, Recoilless rifles, Artillery, basic Antitank mines, simple explosive, certain suicide drones, etc.
And once teh T-55s are all used up, what exactly does Russia intend to send next? They've already burned through their T-62 stocks, and that lasted what, 6-8months? So another 6months before the T-55s are all gone?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamashbless7904 the allison mustangs were extremely sccessful in WW2. RAF suffered only 8 losses doing ground attack and recon. A-36 had a stellar unmatched record in combat and was loved by it's pilots almost to the point of court martial. The pilots felt and stated explicitly that the P-51 with allison was more likely to bring them home from a CAS mission than a P-47.
At altitudes below 15k ft, nothing could catch a mustang. the RAF proved this countless times in WW2 doing low level ground attack and recon, by just running away from german fighters. P-51A were the first allied fighters of WW2 to do combat sorties over Germany, and were doing low level recon over Berlin 12months before the P-47 flew its first ever combat sortie.
At low altitude the P-51A is faster than a P-51D, lower drag due to the engine having a smaller frontal profile than the Merlin, the allison is 300lb lighter, more fuel efficient than a merlin, higher HP than a merlin, more reliable than a merlin, fewer parts than a merlin, easier to maintain and repair than a merlin, etc.
1
-
@jacktattis "You forgot the proviso The Allison ran out of puff above 22000 ft"
I didn't forget it. The Merlin also ran out too.
P-40F had a Merlin engine , and still sucked above 15k ft. Why? it had a single stage supercharger like the Allisons.
The P-51 Merlin had a 2 stage supercharger.
But the P-38 with Turbocharged Allisons, outperformed the 2 stage Merlins at higher altitudes by a LARGE margin. This is why the P-38 was never equipped with Merlins, as it would have significantly hampered the performance of the P-38.
The point of all this is, that when compared apples to apples, A merlin with a proper 2 stage supercharger is inferior to an Allison with an equivalent 2 stage supercharger at ALL altitudes. And a turbocharged Allison is equally superior to the Merlin.
Had the Allison equipped Mustangs been given a 2 stage supercharger, they would have flown even faster, even higher, and even further than the Merlin Mustangs. This is because the Allison engine was smaller and lower drag, smaller frontal profile. The Allison was also 300lb lighter than the Merlin. The Allison also put out hundreds of HP more than the Merlins in comparable conditions. The Allison was also a more fuel efficient engine that was tougher, more reliable, and easier for mechanics to work on and maintain.
But for low altitude work, the Allison was superior regardless of forced induction system.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktattis you ask for verifyable sources, while providing none yourself. you're claims are nothing but baseless opinions, and you declare other people's comments false with no supporting facts to prove you right.
" Do you think R/R would give anyone more Merlins after the US purloined 18000 Packards and never paid a cent."
US paid hansomely for licensing. Also, Lend Lease? The fact Europe/Russia is not under Nazi rule today....yeah, US more than paid for them in material and blood.
"I think the British Government were getting fed up with the US by 1944"
maybe so. but kind of hard to argue with results. British bomber command was wrong and accomplished little. British aircraft design produced a LOT of duds, and few stellar examples. US tried to convince the Brits to make the Spitfire into a long range fighter but they refused. British lost their naval might in WW2, british needed the US for supplies, aircraft, etc. We had to save them in the pacific, North Africa, etc. US took everything the British created and made it even better.... Yeah, people don't like getting showed up. Doesn't make teh US wrong and the British right though. You're trying for a Red Herring here.
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@McRocket Laser is a laser, it doesn't know which branch of service it's employed in.
They have tested airborne lasers. Not put into production, but working airborne lasers. At the current rate of technological progress and size reduction, if you project that forward, they will become production units very soon. Given that the Army is able to install production units on a Stryker, and others have been tested on Humvees and such, it is getting into the range of being able to be mounted on a fighter already. And those lasers have been tested against rockets, drones, artillery, and so the anti-SAM, and anti-Air-to-air role is perfect for these lasers as well. The tech has been developed, and continues to shrink. It has been repeatedly tested, and is now being pushed into production in other roles. It's a mere matter of time now. Lots of development in laser tech right now. New tech always progresses slowly at first. But we're past that phase of evolution with lasers now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
yes, because "Doctor" is an educational term, not medical.
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lidiagizaw3828 wow, you think that counts? In what way did those female nurses, obviously excluding the many male nurses as they aren't who I'm asking about, do anything to further men's rights, to change divorce laws, to change marriage laws, to change custody laws, etc.? Do list examples.
last I checked nurses were pushing COVID vax on people, and firing anyone who dissented, engaging in religious discrimination, helping perform genital mutilation of children, etc.
Do nurses help men get DNA tests after child birth?
nurses aren't helping to change society for the better. they are just performing a job for pay, like anyone else.
You're free to try again, but only if you provide a Name of a woman, and details as to what she did to help change society for the better regarding men's situation today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThereIsNoOtherHandleLikeMine According to US contract laws, you cannot enter into a one-sided contract. You can, but it will not hold up in court as valid if you violate it.
Also, according to SCOTUS affirmation, you cannot sign away your rights, even willingly.
Also, nothing in US contract law gives HOAs or other private entities lawmaking authority. They have no Legislative, Executive, nor Judicial authority. Only the gov can enforce fines, garnish wages, etc. and then even only after due process of the law in which they prove you guilty of a crime.
you clearly have no grasp on US laws. Still waiting for a valid citation from the US Constitution that grants private citizens the authority to impose fines on other citizens, or that gives private citizens authority to deny other citizens their Constitutional freedoms.
try again tyrant Karen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Farm boys make the best engineers.
They have to work with hydraulics, electrical, engines, pumps, fans, chains, pulleys, structures, wood, metal, welding, gears, levers, linkages and mechanisms, durability considerations, reparability/serviceability considerations, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zezenkop412 I know well how fast the weapons industry evolves. I've been part of it in more ways than one.
At the current pace of tech development in general, civilian as well as military, certain technology is becoming obsolete more rapidly than in the past.
Russian front line fighter jets Are already hopelessly obsolete against Western fighters like the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, F-35, F-22, latest versions of the F-16, F-15EX, F-18, etc.
Countries buy obsolete gear becasue they'd rather have something than nothing and either can't afford better, or aren't allowed to purchase better due to sanctions.
Russia has lost many times more military aircraft in ukraine than it produces every year. And their production is all but halted due to sanctions. So until they are able to restart production, they can't replace losses. Then, it will take years to rebuild their own losses before they can afford to resume large exports. And that is just for existing tech. By then the jets will be so old and obsolete as the west brings online 6th gen aircraft and other supporting technologies, missiles, and capabilities. Russia's military arms industry may not even survive the fallout of the Ukraine conflict as many nations are already getting rid of what remaining soviet hardware they had/have left.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you compare the "break even point" of an EV vs ICE, and factor in end to end emissions (Mining, manufacturing, driving, recycling/disposal), and then show what happens when an ICE vehicle that lasts 20-30yrs is compared to an EV owner replacing their EV every 6-7yrs (or even 10yrs), which is what studies are showing is happening. Those EVs have multiple break even periods, and higher emissions due to mining, manufacturing, and recycling. EVs turn cars into consumerism items, and in no other industry would this be considered "green" or "sustainable. EVs are very expensive too, and with no viable used car market, which is how most people come to own vehicles.
Sustainability is all about building long lasting, reliable, repairable items. Build it once to last. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Key here being REUSE. Nobody will refresh EVs when their batteries go bad due to cost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@p_serdiuk Quite possible, but never say never.
But that's not the point. Most nations aren't facing wars with the US, they are facing wars with neighbors who lack any sort of stealth capability. And the F-16 is a great multirole dogfighter that can do it all. Air supremacy, SEAD, DEAD, anti-ship, CAS, anti-tank, interdiction, etc. All while being able to defeat literally almost any air threat.
There are no F-22s in the skies over Ukraine (at least that we know of, and at least none Ukraine has to fight).
But if an F-16 managed to close with an F-22 somehow (and it is entirely possible), it could score a kill.
Imagine the embarrassment if Ukraine managed to shoot down a Su57 with an F-16?
1
-
@p_serdiuk "It would be exceptionally hard for an F-16 to close in on an F-22 that has AWACS support without being detected first, and that's a huge hurdle."
I don't disagree at all, but it is still possible.
Surprise attack, using terrain masking, managing to pretend to be civil airplane, attacking in overwhelming numbers with speed, preventing F-22/s from handling them all at the same time, etc. Also, the US military has technology that even they claim is a "stealth equalizer", making it possible for an F-16 to detect and fire on an F-22 from over 100mi away. And thus basically making it back into a normal 4th gen fight.
For every new offensive weapon, a defense is invented. And for every new defense, a new offensive capability is developed. the wheel never stops turning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Women: make 17% less money overall than men
Women: spend 70% of ALL income earned in the US by EVERY citizen of the US.....
and women complain about working for free? free labor? what are they doing for men exactly that is free to the men? Only Chads are getting women for free.
So, lets work this math out a bit,
Man: earns $100
Woman: earns $87
Total: $187
Woman spends 70%, or $131 of the total, on things like clothes, eating out, shoes, jewelry, hair, etc.
Man gets to spend only $56, and most of that will be for bills like utilities, rent/mortgage, gas, insurance, etc.
So if woman only earned $87, but got to spend $131, then she is the one getting men's free labor. She gets to spend 150% of her income, and he only gets to spend 56% of his income.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikesutherland2464 to tell people to stop paying attention to her, and to hear what other crap they are pushing through Congress. I clicked due to "federalize police", not because of AOC.
But people are simple minded, and can't fathom I clicked for any reason other than AOC. Too many people have black and white minds, only think in non complex ideas such as "on" or "off". They are incapable of handling any sort of grey area and complexity in an issue.
Think of it like this. A person present 15 different ideas in a video. Upon watching I find I agree with 6 of the points, disagreed with 3 of the points, and the remaining 6 points I'm on the fence. Of those 6 questionable ideas (to me), if they were tweaked slightly one way or another, then I would either completely agree or disagree with those ideas as well, depending upon how each of the 6 ideas was tweaked.
Grey area, learn to understand it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sergiomomesso1590 you've clearly never seen Afghans fight........I have.
When making contact with Taliban, we'd hunker down and return fire, and assault the ambush or push through.
The Afghans wouldn't even take cover, trusting in Allah to keep them "safe" and proceed to pull the trigger and spin in circles on full auto, not even aiming nor knowing what they were shooting at. we hated working with them. They were more likely to shoot us than the enemy.
Drones aren't the issue. Americans with shotguns would decimate drones, since clay and bird shooting is commonplace, and would become even more commonly practiced. Even Ukraine soldiers are able to shoot down drones with rifles, including scoped sniper rifles. It's a skills issue, not a general issue. North Korean troops are the issue here, not the drones nor the guns.
also, the US uses extensively jammers. including man portable. so what applies to one, doesn't apply to all. the russians don't have the same issues as the North Koreans either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheArmourersBench then what are you so angry about? You covered your bases, so why are you arguing with me about it if you agree?
The fact is, most people think any military AR-10 is an "M110", seen people do that and say that for many years, including those in the military. Many people don't know the difference, and many people will watch random videos from Ukraine and make the same mistakes. If you're going to add disclaimers, you should put them at teh Beginning of videos, not at the end, as many people don't watch that far. I seen some aviation videos recently where they did the same thing, setup a whole video including teh title as generic advice, only to disclaimer the entire video as applying to one very narrow and specific use case that most people don't care about, and then wondered why everyone was countering them in the comments.
1
-
@TheArmourersBench "I'm not angry" your responses suggest otherwise.
"you initially said there were rifles which weren't M110s in the video so I'm just making sure there are no errors. " False, I'm quoting below what I clearly said in teh first comment above. You're correcting errors, by making false statements?
"they are not all M110, many are just AR10 or AR15 setup for long range. " as in, not all AR-10 in Ukraine are M110, and yes, some in the video are not M110 either, but I did Not specifically say that as you claim I did. And neither did I claim you didn't explain that. I made a general statement, as Ukraine has been using a variety of AR platforms for well over a year now.
"As for people watching till the end that's on them, it's a 5 min video" true, but understanding how people are in reality vs your idealistic expectations are two different things. If you're on youtube, you should know by now that people rarely watch all of a given video, and that people comment all throughout a video, not just after watching the whole thing. Don't act like you don't know that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evanfontenot7000 "The Bible is worth trusting because it has never been wrong." Bold statement, since you can't back it up.
"You have faith in the floor you walk on or the car you drive because its proven true and reliable. " You talk as if you know what I believe in, but you do not. You're trying to tell me what I believe, when you have no idea what my beliefs are. You're really getting this whole thing off on the wrong foot already.
You don't have faith in God, all you talk about is proof the Bible is true. But the Bible is actually a lot like a horoscope. The lessons are universal enough to be true, and yes, many things within the Bible are based on real events, including the flood. But none of that proves God exists. Faith does require you blindly trusting in something. But you have not demonstrated an ounce of faith to me so far, nor can you explain what it is I have faith in. You confuse evidence, proof, and knowing, for having blind trust in things you can't know, can't understand, and can't prove. Most people of "faith" i encounter have no faith at all. For them everything hinges 100% on the Bible, and yet when we finally get around to discussing the Bible itself, once again they can't use the Bible in an objective and fact-based manner to prove anything. But the Bible is not supposed to be about proof. The Bible is more about lessons, and guidance, than about convincing anyone God exists.
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Voter fraud, impeachment, election tampering and lies to steal the Presidency (Executive Branch)
Court packing to steal the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch)
Adding states, voter fraud, and election tampering to steal Congress (Legislative branch)
They control public education and the colleges, and oppose school choice
They control the MSM and the narrative
They are pushing for welfare programs and "free" socialized healthcare
They control Hollywood and use it to spread propaganda
They control social media and use it to censor and silence opposition
They promote violence and support groups like BLM and Antifa
They suppress and oppose free speech
They believe in mob justice, and courts of public opinion.
They support "guilty until proven innocent"
They oppose the 2nd Amendment
They don't support Due Process
They oppose freedom of religion
They oppose 2 parent families
They supposedly hate white, old, rich, men (but keep voting for them)
They promote diversity at all costs, solely for the sake of diversity (except when it comes to individuality and differences of opinion)
They support redistribution of wealth
They are racist
They deny conservatives equal right to protest, while they riot
They try to use impeachment and other tricks to try to overthrow the duly elected sitting President of the United States many times over.
..........
Seems like a full blown communist revolution seeking to overthrow the US government and the US Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US has the B-21, B-2, F-35, F-22, NGAD, etc.
Even as other nations like Russia, China, South Korea, UK, and others seek to field their own stealth aircraft, the US's most obsolete stealth aircraft from the 1980s are still stealthier than anything these other nations have yet been able to produce....says a lot about just how far behind everyone else is.
Tacit Blue, Have Blue, Bird of Prey, YF-23, YF-32, F-117, SR-71, various stealth drones, Loyal Wingman, Ghost Bat, AH-66, stealth UH-60, DDG-1000, Sea Shadow, etc. US has a long history of stealth aircraft and stealth technology, both in research as well as operationally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
42:47 this is blatant misrepresentation. just because it acted like a mine, and caused damage, doesn't invalidate the results. face it, the bombs worked, and now you're trying to make up excuses why it didn't count. This if anything, proved the aircraft COULD damage ships, especially if they used the weapons correctly, and that you didn't necessarily have to hit teh ship directly to do it either.
But people who have a bone to pick, and agenda to serve, and a narrative to spin, will twist any detail to suit their narrative.
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arnaldobellucci9033 Highly processed foods that rely on sugar to taste good, and chemicals to be shelf stable for far too long. Such food is more chemical than actual food.
Food that is not junk food will rot if left on the counter for a few days or weeks at most. (not counting things like canned food, potatoes, wheat, and other such base ingredients that is stored properly and can last longer)
Sugar is the leading culprit in the cause of cancer. And fasting is the leading cure for cancer. And diet is the best medicine. With fasting and a good diet, you can cure most modern ailments, have more energy, greater health, be less tired, feel physically better, boost your immune system, breath easier, sleep better, and more.
If you cook from base ingredients, the food is more filling, tastes better, costs less, and is far healthier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottwatrous I'm a combat vet, weight matters. Try carrying a combat load for 10+hrs every day, and then having to fight an ambush when you are exhausted. Adrenaline helps, but all grunts end up with physical injuries for life.
Never has a grunt asked for More weight. No amount of weight lifting will protect you from injuries due to carrying excessive weight. Doubling the weight of a rifle is Huge. And we did change our weapons overseas to reduce weight. Many guys stopped running all sorts of issued accessories as they deemed the weight not worth it.
The XM7 is like carrying a SAW or 2x M4 rifles at once. And for added capabilities most guys don't need, or lack the skill to use. Most guys can't hit 300m with an M4. And most engagements occurred inside 200m where the M4 has Significant advantage over the XM7 (speed, weight, maneuverability, rate of fire, controllability, mag capacity, total ammo capacity....). And the US remains one of the only countries on earth that uses body armor. No enemy we've faced issues body armor. And body armor doesn't cover the vast majority of teh body such as the pelvis, gut, and head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@casperhansen826 "oh it will, everyone will want an EV including you! "
wrong. you know why? because i'm decades ahead of you. I wanted an EV decades ago, when I was younger and more naive. then EVs became real, and suddenly all teh realities came out, and we realized it's not the hype it's made out to be.
A few years ago an Youtuber did two >2000mi trips in his Tesla. My car did the same trips 8hrs faster and cost $7 less in gas for the trip than he paid to charge his Tesla. And that was before electric prices went up in recent years.
my car also doesn't have kill switches, wire tapping of my phones, I can fix it myself easily, no gov monitoring me while I drive, no corporate software updates, etc.
"Soon your local car dealer will close, the service center,"
never needed them before, why do I need them now?
"your favorite car brand will most likely go bankrupt within this decade."
that happened already decades ago. same is true for your favorite EV company....
gas stations will not close. not any time soon. also, I can make my own fuel if necessary.
regarding teh topic of EVs and cars in general, you're incredibly ignorant, naive, uninformed, uneducated, or some combination of those.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trungson6604 yes, it takes surprisingly little land to use solar. Except that whenever people try it in reality, inefficiencies, regular maintenance costs, etc. to maintain that much solar is very high. Not to mention losses from hail damage, cloud cover, nighttime, panels not aligned with the sun at all times, bird poop, dust/sand and debris that needs to be regularly cleaned off, inevitable yearly degradation, constant replacements of old and damaged solar panels, animal nests, cut wires, corroded terminals/connections, etc. The amount of maintenance required (in labor and in $) to keep that much solar running indefinitely is something people never seem to plan for up front.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesmungall6669 10X the normal amount is still FAR less than historical levels of burning in the early 1900s, and in the 1800s. Also, as far as environmentalism and conservation goes, forests NEED to burn to restore them. It's Natural and Healthy for a forest to burn.
I lived and flew in AZ for years, and we'd have forest fires every single year. The forest fire fighting operations were based out of Prescott, AZ each year. When flying, you could tell where the past fires had burned in previous years, but only for 5yrs. After five years, the forests grew back to the point you couldn't tell they'd ever burned at all.
CA has tons of fires, for example, because they do conservation all wrong. They even go so far as to Ban environmentalism, which requires controlled burns to be conducted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with the magnitude of the transistor's impact.
Imagine not having CAD, CNC, computers, software, internet, modern communications, etc. the implications of those other technologies using transistors not existing, or being nearly as developed as they are. Think of phones, cars, airplanes, and more that are packed with transistors these days. Some of those things would have continued to exist without them, but not in the same way.
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fastertove not all, but some certainly do.
My father was a pig farmer and dairy farmer. As a kid we raised goats, horses, cows, chickens, and more.
I also gained a fascination with pandemics in High School and studied outbreaks, fatality rates of different viruses, and even knew quarantine methods and their efficacy nearly 2 decades before COVID, and experienced multiple outbreaks of other viruses in my life previously and so learned a lot about immunity, especially natural immunity and what affects immunity.
I was right the whole time about COVID from day one, fought the lockdowns, the senseless mask wearing, criticized the forced vaccinations, etc. And I was 100% right on every stance I took, and the science has backed me up every step of the way. Farm animals in close proximity to humans is a leading cause of such outbreaks (but COIVD was engineered in a lab, whether the leak was intentional or accidental I do not know, I actually lean towards accidental due to incompetence).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hitler had repeatedly ordered the German generals to halt their advance into France, and they ignored him. Hitler, thinking back to prior conflict, was afraid the rapidly advancing forces would be cutoff and surrounded. He didn't think this Blitzkrieg was going to work so well, was unsure, lacked confidence in the successes they were seeing, as no one had ever seen it done like this before. Hitler was constantly fearing surprise counter attacks on the flanks of the advancing German armor that were never going to happen. He didn't understand how effectively the German panzers had broken through the defending forces, or how slow their vehicles and communications and command and control was. Finally at Dunkirk the generals listened and obeyed, why, I don't know. They came so far ignoring orders, why stop when they were so close? Probably because they too thought the outcome was now inevitable. But, now we can criticize and speculate in hindsight....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
P-38 made its first flight only 3yrs after the Bf110, and well before US involvement in WW2. the P-38 is more so an early war US design like the F4F, P-40, and P-39, not a late war design like the P-51, F8F, F7F, etc. But you could argue it's a sort of mid war fighter, along with the F6F, P-47, and F4U.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HH-ru4bj " dude, that's not even an arguable point, it's just an opinion. Chill out."
that's not a valid argument.
the only person losing their cool here is you. you get so emotional over a valid response.
it is arguable as vehicles are as much protected by privacy laws as your house. also, cellphone communications, emails and other forms of PRIVATE communication are protected by LAW.
Wire Tapping is a CRIME, that is a FACT. Not everyone who these car companies are wire tapping agreed to it.
Also, why does a car company need to wire tap a person while using property that Doesn't belong to that company?
Contracts in the US cannot be one-sided to remain valid under US contract law. both sides have to get something out of it. and you also cannot sign away your rights under US contract law, even willingly. Also, for a contract to be valid both sides must agree to the terms. Most people linking their phones had NO idea there were terms, and the people linking their phones gets NOTHING of value in return for their loss of privacy. So the contract is criminal and invalid on multiple counts.
Just because YOU can't argue it, doesn't make it "not arguable".
If it's not arguable, then your views and opinions on it are a religious ideology and not facts-based.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kirkmarusak7800 Homeschooled kids are now easily outperforming their public school peers. Public schools worked for a time, and their time has come and gone. Charter schools work the same as public schools, but better. I went to one, it was the only "public" school in our area and covered all the kids for the neighboring 7 towns as well. And then there have always been private schools. all of my siblings have removed their kids from failing public schools and found affordable private schools to put their kids in because public schools are so bad. and homeschooling is a perfectly fine option.
I'm an engineer, and i teach STEM programs and am a formally trained instructor, and many studies back me up on this. homeschooled kids are just fine, and often perform better in college too. and it's far easier to work with homeschooled kids these days than public schooled kids. I can teach anyone calculus, engineering, and other "advanced" topics with ease. And what school they came from makes no difference to me. I've taught algebra to kids in 2nd grade, and calculus 1 to kids in 8th grade, and taught high school kids theoretical physics concepts. they are more than capable of learning and understanding fi taught well. put them in good schools and they will do just fine, even homeschooled kids.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
when comparing the averages, women hold some advantages in some areas. but in my experience (including 17yrs in the college system as both a student, instructor, and tutor), when considering the TOP men and TOP women, men largely outperform women overall, even in things like reading comprehension and writing skills.
And modern day women are proving overwhelmingly to basically lack empathy, while men have significant empathy (emotional intelligence). Women do have the advantage in nonverbal signals though for sure.
Most great philosophers are men. Almost every man I've met in my life is a deep thinker and philosopher to some degree. few women I've ever met have demonstrated such deep thinking and emotional intelligence. Few women I've ever met can even have or hold a conversation on emotional things, particularly if it at all includes discussing men.
research and data overwhelmingly proves men are better at raising children than women. that children raised by women are 70% more likely to experience suicide, depression, commit crimes, etc. This speaks to a SERIOUS lack of emotional intelligence by women.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I never blame the gun. If I got to a course, a couple things happen. I realize I know less than I thought, and I learn from that. I appreciate what I got and focus on getting better at making it work. I learn what I have isn't working, and figure out how to fix it (new optic? different bipod? what needs to be changed or adjusted? Am I assembling something wrong? Am I overlooking details that are important that I didn't know about?). I come away confident in my ability, learning that I am better than I think and I need to stop being so hard on myself and just do it more knowing I have what it takes if I just keep working at it.
I was raised to make do, make it work, figure it out. I never blame the tool. If the tool is underperforming, then I recognize that if I had a better tool, I could do better. If I can afford a new or better tool, great. If not, then I just have to figure out how to maximize what I do have and make the most of it. Growing up we never had the money to just fix things, or buy better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 Detecting the presence of a missile and having enough info to maneuver against it are not the same thing. often time s the missile is transmitting, broadcasting it's presence. What if an enemy fighter is not doing that?
Flying in close formation is one thing, maneuvering in relation to an unknown bandit within 1-2miles is another.
not all friendly/allied air forces have the transponder tech or latest fighters we have. Are you going to shoot down allies?
"How does one determine a Chinese destroyer from their copied Western designs also." ships are a bit easier, as they are larger and have distinct shapes and radar signatures, the CCP does not possess Arleigh Burke destroyers for example. But still an issue with positive ID, yes. But you must have radar data on them, and have radars capable of that level of detail.
Your radar ranges of small jets is ridiculous. Where are you getting such values. You're talking about over-the-horizon detection with radars that can't bend like that.
"Military officials talk up the AI in these newest drones and can't be all lies." I work in the AI industry. AI is misunderstood by most people, especially those not working on it, and even some who are working on it. AI is not yet to the level people think it is.
You thought you'd just ask, and someone would simply fork over to you Top Secret info on a very sensitive piece of military tech? wow, you're dumb. Why not just ask for specs on the B-21 while you're at it?
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 "Maybe your AI company is garbage at it then lol." Ah yes, insults. The inevitable ad hominem fallacy from those who have no clue what they are talking about.
"We may never know but USA was impressed with it and brought one to test and only time will tell." Without the help, expertise, and gov approval from teh US, the Ghost Bat would not even exist. It is a US project, being done for Australia.
"But the AI was so good they built AI submarine now also using it and wouldn't if was rubbish. " yes, but what does that submarine have to do? Navigate, not run into things, observe, report, etc. Rather simple by comparison.
1
-
@nedkelly9688 My argument isn't contingent on insults.
wow, you can copy and paste. congratulations.
The US defense contractors worked on teh drone, as they did on fighters for a few other countries like japan. Those companies cannot share such knowledge, expertise, technology, etc. with foreign nations without the US DOD's express permission. The US greenlit these projects, provided funding, resources, personnel, etc. to make them happen.
Go ahead and cherry pick aspects of the project specific to Australia, that's to be expected on such projects, just like the projects in Japan and other countries where they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Do you know how many countries funded, manufacture, or worked on the F-35? It's a US design/project though.
But none of this has any bearing on the efficacy and capabilities of a particular AI. Nor does it prove what the capabilities and limitations of that AI are, and what restrictions have been placed upon it, such as weapons firing, target selection, friend or foe ID, etc.
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 The airframe design and stealth is Lockheed Martin. The DOD has AI F-16, X-45, X-47, X-47A, Global Hawk, MQ-25, X-37, X-37B, and much more for decades. Did you know the US used kamikaze drones in combat in WW2 against Japan? Interstate TDR-1.
"the best parts of it of the AI and the detachable nose that no other country has ever done" US has created swappable payload bays for decades in a variety of aircraft. Heck, one could argue the P-38 was an early form of this. Australia has almost no experience designing aircraft. They had some good designs in WW2. Whereas the US has been fielding unmanned unpiloted (and by that i'm not including remotely piloted, but fully unmanned) airframes for longer than I've been alive. US has been at the forefront of AI development both in the military and the civilian world.
"even the resin injection of the frame is Australian as are the only country in the world who can do it." perhaps, but not significant and depends on the Exact details that makes it special, but it could be easily replicated. Resin injection and composites I can even do in my house. Most likely it's merely that no factory currently has the special tool used, which can easily be remedied by buying the tooling.
Keep trying though, maybe you're pathetic attempts to make an unrelated argument might workout, but probably not in my lifetime.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nedkelly9688 "Allies won WW2 with help from other's but again you have no idea as the ground forces in Pacific by Australia and America were about even."
wow, you just keep digging like a good CCP 50cent army soldier.
YEs, the allies won WW2. But take away the UK, Australia, and such and we still would have won. Who provided fighters to Australia? Ammo? Food? Did you know the US brought so many people to Australia in WW2, it changed the Australian population and culture forever?
The US fought in the Atlantic, Pacific, Pacific Island, Alaska, India/China, Med, North Africa, Italy, Western Front in Europe, did strategic bombing, and provided lend lease to the USSR, UK, France, Australia, and many more. We provided the ships, airplanes, rifles, ammo, medicine, food, tanks, trucks, fuel, and more. Australia would have fallen to Japan if not for the US. You had few aircraft and pilots and were outclassed.
But go ahead, be a good Communist shill and claim the Australians and USSR single handedly won WW2 all by themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danhtran6401 still need to know hof far behind they are, what the radar is, range of detection, true flight performance and maneuverability, get better radar signature data, etc.
You can't just go into combat overconfident and relying on assumptions and guesses and expect to win every time. the more you know, the more likely you will be able to win and make the right decisions.
US made a lot of mistakes in WW2 as a result of OVER estimating Japanese capabilities, and not understanding they could beat things like the Zero, not knowing how Japan would use their submarines and battleships (they basically didn't use them, but the US thought they would), etc. and this resulted in missed opportunities to end the war 6months to 1yr earlier. The US also ignored reports of MkXIV torpedo failures for far too long. the number of Japanese battleships, carriers, and other surface warships that would have been sunk in the first 12 months of the war is staggering.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twostop6895 I get that feds control interstae commerce, but the point is that it's not up to CA then either, and the feds can FORCE california's compliance.
But, CO, UT, AZ, NV all touch the water, and could drain it before it reaches the CA border, and thus the river would no longer exist on CA territory, and they'd no longer have claim to it.
While feds control some of this (but clearly are not, as they are leaving it to the states to work out on their own), the water does exist within the physically boundaries of the respective states. and so long as they draw only from their side of state boundaries, it's technically not interstate commerce. Especially for CO if they drew from the river upstream where its banks are solely within CO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Leo.0328 "And the reason you don't see Ukraine performing complex tank tactics or serious combined arms operations is pretty fucking clear. They don't have the resources of NATO. They don't have air superiority. "
And they lack the experience and know-how.
"They don't have millions of precision artillery rounds, they don't have thousands of artillery pieces to fire those rounds."
you don't need such rounds. Even the US relies mostly on standard artillery rounds. Ukraine proved how accurate standard rounds could be when fired properly.
"They don't have tens of thousands of missiles to use."
We largely didn't rely upon that many missiles either. You don't need tons of missiles for combined arms warfare. You need, engineers, mechanics, Medics, Infantry, Tanks, artillery, any amount of air support, etc. It's having the ability to coordinate in teh face of changing circumstances, and having unit level competence and understanding so that they can adjust on the fly to meet the intent of their orders in proper sequence even if things don't go to plan.
"you're not worth debating."
Yet here you are, debating me. You're such a liar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ledzepandhabs the history has already been written. You can't erase the examples above, as well as others from history through denial.
Please name one such world record teh CCP or USSR has in hypersonic aerodynamics?
The only hypersonic missile Russia used was a Cold War relic missile that is older than I am and is not of the type being developed by the US and CCP. It is more just a large AIM-54 missile than it is the scramjet or glide bomb types now in development.
US is right to focus on defense of these overly expensive missiles. The US can already intercept and destroy aircraft, missiles, rockets, mortars, artillery rounds, ICBMs, satellites in orbit, and everything in between with a variety of weapons (that have been demonstrated and are known to the public), and hypersonics fall within that engagement envelope in terms of speed and altitude.
Also, the CCP and Russia brag about tech and abilities they don't actually have, while the US keeps secret the actual abilities it Does already have in service.
The CCP tests have so far missed their targets (stationary targets at that), and the US tracked their tests as well.
1
-
@ledzepandhabs but we're not talking about cruise missiles now are we? If you want to win a debate, you have to argue the correct topic.
But, seeing as you brought it up, military analysts are saying the Kalibre missiles are failing to reach their targets 50% of the time. That's a really bad failure rate.
Russia has a miniscule fraction of the budget the US does, and unlike Russia, the US can mass produce as many of its own weapons and vehicles it likes. US has fired cruise missiles for decades without running out. And the US doesn't waste missiles striking hospitals, churches, schools, and other nonmilitary targets like Russia does. Russia is using up stockpiles of missiles that are older than I am. It took them decades to build and amass that many missiles. Russia cannot produce a single new missile of any kind right now. Once they've run out, that's it. Russia has no ability to manufacture the chips required, let alone the other technical parts needed. For example, the Su-35 computers, radar, etc. were built using Chinese and US made chips. None of it was made in Russia.
Now, getting back on topic, what is your argument about hypersonic missiles?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
P-47N is the only variant of the P-47 that is a contender for the list of best fighters of WW2 in my opinion. The P-51, F4U, Ta 152, Sea Fury (maybe?) and others were far superior overall and most outlasted the P-47 in service. P-47 was tough (many stories demonstrating legendary toughness), and good at high altitude, good in a dive.....but there were too many airplanes that were better overall for me to even put it on the top 10 list if judged objectively. Objectively, the F4U seems to be the all-around best fighter, and it took me some time to accept that myself. The F4U was a great dive bomber, fast, maneuverable, tough, had a 4,000 lb bomb load, could fly off carriers, outlasted many other fighters such as the P-47, P-38, F8F Bearcat, F6F Hellcat, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I pose a hypothetical scenario:
Suppose you have 3 kids, the oldest is a teenage daughter. You're at work, and some riots or protests begin in your area. you're on your way home, but you kids get off school earlier. Your daughter leaves the house to pick up her siblings, but given the growing danger outside, she decides to grab your gun (which she knows how to use) to take with her. On the way home she has to defend herself and her younger siblings against multiple hostile attackers and does so successfully.
According to the letter of the law, she cannot have that handgun or use it. But I challenge any one of you to claim she did the wrong thing, and should be punished for her actions. In the US justice system we have Juries for a Reason. They exist to deal with the exceptional cases that the laws can never fully account for. Every law, no matter how well written, has at least one exceptional case, if not hundreds or thousands of possible exceptions. Juries exist to determine if a crime was committed even when the law didn't strictly forbid it, or if the law was broken but given the circumstances the person actually di the right thing and is innocent of the charge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@depthcharge6215 I understand certified issues all too well. I am a mechanical engineer, as well as holding licenses and certifications in a host of other fields and careers.
DIY implies you're not hiring someone, and you'll just fix it yourself and you're ok with that. Many DIY'ers are FAR more competent and skilled than certified people, others are FAR worse and have no clue what they are doing.
But individuals have every right to fix their own car, or their own computer, if they want to, or to take it to repair shops that are not endorsed by the manufacturer. that's what free market capitalism and freedom is all about. It's my stuff, I bought it, and I can do with it as I please and no one can stop me. And sometimes, I'm more qualified to fix things than the "certified" person. They may be certified to repair/service it, but as a mechanical engineer I am the person who invents or designs the thing in the first place. An engineer is more qualified than a mechanic, and so when I encounter things I understand, I'd rather do it myself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
this is a problem in ALL of "modern medicine". The TRUE cures are often times just, "get more and better sleep, exercise/walk more, eat unprocessed foods and high fat high protein diets, avoid chemicals and toxins, don't over eat, periodic fasting, keep you mind intellectually active with reading, writing, puzzles, games, conversations, and spend time with family and people in your community, cold exposure, etc.". But none of the things you should do to ward of health issues can be monetized, they are personal choices and there is no money to be made from giving this advice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John-Peter Hundt
Socialism = gov controls all business
Communism = gov owns everything, private property is abolished.
Socialism leads to communism, and they always go after the farmers. Why? if you own land you can farm, and barter for things. Thus to stop this "business" they must take away land and private property from productive people.
Communism is a form of economics that is deeply flawed and never works out, and always results in famine (Russia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwae....).
Socialism is a form of economics, and leads to communism and economic stagnation (Sweden).
Capitalism is a system of economics that also enables a form of Democracy by allowing consumers to vote with their money about which businesses and products should be successful and continue. It gives the people the power to control the economy, not the gov, hence democracy.
1
-
Socialism = gov controls all business
Communism = gov owns everything, private property is abolished.
Socialism leads to communism, and they always go after the farmers. Why? if you own land you can farm, and barter for things. Thus to stop this "business" they must take away land and private property from productive people.
Communism is a form of economics that is deeply flawed and never works out, and always results in famine (Russia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwae....).
Socialism is a form of economics, and leads to communism and economic stagnation (Sweden).
Capitalism is a system of economics that also enables a form of Democracy by allowing consumers to vote with their money about which businesses and products should be successful and continue. It gives the people the power to control the economy, not the gov, hence democracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dr_shrinker "you literally said “gov” in your original reply to my comment. "
and I said "gov" 2x in my original post as well, what of it?
"The problem with capitalism is it forces the country into a mandatory system of enslavement by placing a perpetual debt on everyone. It’s an absurd system and for every person who wins, others must lose. "
not true at all. debt is a choice. you can live without debt, my entire family is living without debt. Amish live without debt. Debt is a tool, when used and leveraged properly, can expand you're wealth immensely.
Debt also exists in communist and socialist societies.
"There should be a system where everyone wins."
It does, it's called "Utopia", and fantasy that only people with low intelligence believes can exist. Such a system has never existed in the history of the universe. Life is not fair, fight to survive, fight to thrive, or die or live in poverty. your choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kryzzan7039 the opening attacks in Ukraine were spearheaded by elite russian regulars, like teh Spetznaz, airborne, and elite tank units, etc. They've been decimated. And consider that the average spetznaz soldier only has 2-4yrs experience. In the US an average infantryman probably has more training and years of service and experience than a russian spetznaz, and is better equipped and supported. The Russian military sent their trainers to Ukraine, and so have no experienced soldiers nor trainers to train replacements. Their active duty soldiers lack competant officers, have basically no NCOs, and only about 2-4yrs experience average.
Russia has been hilariously bad at logistics since well before WW2. Logistics wins wars, and russia has none.
The west has logistics down to an artform, and I fought in combat alongside guys with 2-40+yrs of experience, a very elite NCO corps, and competent officers (many of them mustang officers). In Iraq I fought alongside guys who'd fought in Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Desert Storm, Bosnia, etc. And that was just the guys in my Company. Russia has nothing to compare to that.
Ukrainians are being trained by the British, US, and others, best of the best. They are getting proper training, proper equipment, before being sent to the front.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mastery of warfare is THE HARDEST job on earth. Harder than Law, Medicine, Engineering, Physics, etc. To truly master war and consistently deliver winning results across numerous geographies and climates, utilizing a wide range of weapons, technology, espionage, psychology, deception, tactics, strategy, logistics, etc. requires significant intelligence, problem solving, adaptability, physical and mental resilience, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terrymckenzie8786 People seem to report ~250-350miles real world range, before factoring in cold losses, partial charging losses, etc. Depends upon the EV. 600km of range is great for someone that has an EV with that range, but useless to someone with an EV with much less range.
And again, all ranges specified for a given EV are the Max possible range in ideal conditions.
My Cessna airplane has a 100hp engine, but that HP rating only applies to a brand new engine, at sea level, at maximum RPM. Also, some of that horsepower is used to run the vacuum pump, fuel pump, magnetos, and the generator. As I climb in altitude I lose horsepower, and only create useful thrust from the propeller from whatever HP is left over. It works the same for range specs on an EV.
If you tow a load, operate in cold climates, use the heaters, don't fully charge the battery to 100%, etc. you won't get the maximum range.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hobbitronic Iraq had THE densest air defenses on the planet in 1991. If you can operate there, you can operate anywhere.
most people don't understand that, "air superiority doesn't mean uncontested airspace". and they wrongly claim the A-10 cannot operate nor survive in contested airspace. They also lack understanding of how teh US conducts air warfare. We never send in single assets, there are always supporting aircraft. (SEAD, CAP, CAS, refuelers, ELINT, AWACS, etc.)
"to compare the Iraqi and modern Russian air forces and anti air capability is just silly"
why? neither the Iraqis in 1991 nor Russia in 2023, controls the airspace over their battlefields.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cedriceric9730 " to be fair to the iraqis , NOBODY had ever fought against stealth and gps guided munitions before , "
False. Stealth was not used to shoot down aircraft nor to conduct SEAD. The F-117 was first used in combat in 1989 in Panama.
the B-2 did use the first ever GPS guided bomb, but it was not used to take out SAMs either. And prior to that the military had already used inertial guidance, laser guidance (Vietnam), TV guidance (WW2), remote control (WW2), etc. for precision munitions. Most munitions in 1991 were ballistic, laser guided, TV guided, Radar guided, or thermal guided.
Most SAMs in 1991 were destroyed with HARM and ballistic Cluster Bombs, and 20mm cannons. The HARM was an evolution of the Shrike used in Vietnam.
In WW2, the US used a TV guided kamikaze drone carrying 2000lb+ of explosives against teh Japanese. of the total number launched, 60% reached their target, and of those that reached their target, 100% hit their targets. The 40% that didn't make it were all lost to enemy AAA and fighters. This is a higher success rate than Russia's Best cruise missiles and smart weapons in Ukraine (including their S300/S400 missiles).
but you're getting off topic and into the weeds now
1
-
1
-
@ChucksSEADnDEAD an A-10 can eat a strela and keep going. A-10s have survived worse.
but also, Strelas are only so good, and the A-10 isn't the only one getting low and at risk. So too did teh F-16 get low, and they couldn't eat a strela.
low speed means little. Many fighter jets can't go mach 1 at sea level, and fewer still are going mach 1 in CAS.
A-10 has the best visibility of any jet as to what threats are on the ground. It's visibility is no worse than any F-15, and its speed and altitude permits a better look.
"The A-10 force, flying more than 8,000 combat sorties, suffered only five A-10s destroyed (a loss rate of . 062 percent). Twenty of these aircraft returned with significant battle damage, and forty-five others returned with light damage that was repaired between sorties."
5 aircraft, 20 ate missiles and AAA. No fighter jet like the F-15, F-16, F-4, etc. can match that.
How come so few A-10 have been shot down by strelas since 1991? They've had decades of chances to shoot at it. Why can't they kill it with a strela?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
with modern methods of growing, including hydroponics, permaculture, square foot gardening, grow lamps, etc. Anyone in the developed nations who has the luxury to be concerned about their impact on the climate and the environment is fully capable of setting up growing on their own land, in their own homes or apartments, either indoors or outdoors, or both. Grow your own food. When you're only trying to provide food for yourself or your family, it takes Very little space to do that. Only commercial farms for the purpose of turning profit requires such space. So if anyone wants to complain, they need only look in a mirror to find the person to blame. Largely hands-off and automated systems can be put together to require very little effort to grow plants solely for personal consumption. You may not get the high yields and larger produce of a commercial operation, but that's not what is important for personal consumption. Just build in acceptable amounts of loss in you growing, and compost the stuff that fails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
what purpose was this rifle designed to serve? Outside of the US military, few nations are using body armor, and the 5.56 is equally capable of penetrating body armor. Most soldiers can't shoot as accurate as the 5.56 can hit, let alone a more powerful rifle. Most soldiers already struggle to control recoil with the 5.56, let alone a more powerful rifle. Most soldiers struggle to hit past 200m even with a low recoil rifle like the 5.56 AR15/M4/M16 platform. Ammo is life. He who brings more ammo to the firefight wins, and this weapon brings Less ammo. This weapon has been tested and does not hold up to dirty conditions as well as the AR platform. It has more parts, more complexity, less reliability, and weighs more.
Again, what battlefield threats was this designed to contend with? In Ukraine they are using the AR platform just fine. The AR platform did great in OIF/OEF (for those who actually hit their targets and didn't lie and blame the rifle to cover up their lack of marksmanship skills).
The round is powerful, don't get me wrong. But what problem are we trying to solve here?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nagantm441 What are you even talking about?
Artillery is artillery. yes, it's not a massive barrage. but that's just it, the US doesn't just sit back and let enemies fire at it with impunity.
But we had Artillery, Rockets, Mortars, and even RPGs and Recoilless Rifle rounds lobbed at us as artillery, falling all around our TOC, Tents, and motor pool daily overseas.
So, tell me in detail how you think it's not comparable, and do share your personal combat experiences with artillery while you're at it, so that we can all appreciate where you're coming from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nagantm441 no, my experience helps me put into context what I'm seeing, and analyze the differences, and know how to win.
but you've not said anything of value, failed to defend your arguments (the few you've attempted to make), and proven you have Zero experience to draw upon to form your opinions other than watching videos, and reading what others say.
Keep trying though, you're bound to learn something. Just find it odd you keep saying you're done, but yet you're still here. means your word isn't worth anything either, as you don't follow through, making it impossible for a person to trust you to do anything you say you will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RyanMcBethProgramming I was in 2004-2012, we always had bangalores. We'd get multiple crates of them at a time. Sometimes we'd see how long a string of them we could make. I've used them at four different installations in 3 different states over those years. Never used them overseas as we had no use for them. We used MICLIC, APOBS, etc. overseas. We were shown how to make improvised torpedos, but never had to do it.
We also used the shaped charges, cratering charges, satchel charges, CompB, LOTS of det cord, C4, improvised clearing and cutting charges, etc. Heck at times we even used the enemy's own IEDs for our own destructive ends a few times. We'd find/clear them, put them in the truck, then use them to blow up something else. But on the ranges they'd give us all sorts of stuff to play with. We'd bring in old cars, one guy brought in a boat, and we'd blow them up. One time we obliterated an M60 tank. We started with a whole tank initially. We just kept packing all our leftover demo on/under it and blowing up the pieces that were left until we ran out of explosives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LV_CRAZY I've been learning more about the bombing campaign against Japan lately, as well as more about the Malaysia and New Guinea campaigns in WW2. I know the P-47s were used in the Pacific, more than many probably realize and they are rarely mentioned. I did realize the P-47N was a big improvement, but thought it was only made in small numbers, being a latecomer (like the A-1 skyraider, Bearcat, Sea Fury and others). I have not heard of the P-47N replacing P-51s, but I will look into the P-47s in the Pacific more, as I've been meaning to anyways.
I've never been a huge fan of the P-47 myself, though I know well the stories and respect it. But the P-47N really changed my mind about the P-47. It's unfortunate it came along so late. It feels like the P-47N was what the P-47 wanted to be all along, trapped inside it's own skin for too long, so to speak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hjf3022 then explain it to them. patients used to be educated and know the difference my whole life. got a bunch of dumb people running around today. product of our failing education system.
"For your average person, it's a synonym, and incredibly culturally ingrained."
no, it's not, that is a recent phenomena, one that physicians themselves caused, so they can now fix it.
Lying to people about what a Doctor is caused this, and now your solution is to perpetuate that lie rather than teach people the truth? how pathetic. How insulting to teh intelligence potential of the common person. Stop perpetuating people's ignorance, as it only causes more stupidity to ensue later.
We have established terms and conventions, use them properly. if Physicians aren't professional enough to use correct terms and definitions, then they aren't smart enough to be licensed MDs either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnchandler1687 correct, we were down to ~210ppm, and at 180ppm all plat life other than grasses begins to die. Historical levels of CO2 during the greatest periods of biodiversity on earth were around 4000ppm, and life thrived!
Not only that, but Methane is another gas, but has little to no impact on our temps, as our sun doesn't emit enough light energy on the spectrum that methane absorbs.
you could argue that temps increased ~0.8C since we've gone from 200ppm to 400ppm, but many things have also happened in that time so who is to say all of it is due to CO2. But due to CO2 having a logarithmic effect, to get to 1.6C warming (assuming it was all due to CO2 alone), we'd have to get to 800ppm, and to get to 2.4C warming, we'd then have to get to 1600ppm, and to get to 3.2C warming, we'd have to get to 3200ppm of CO2. And 3.2C warming (2.4C warmer than we are today) wouldn't even bother anything. In fact it would make more land usable and farmable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sawyer4981 you 100% have room for a home gym. you do NOT need big weight machines to get in shape.
If you need ideas, look at how combat vets worked out overseas, or how prison inmates work out. and they had less space than you do.
and it costs next to nothing to buy a few misc items to help, which you savings on gym can go towards.
and if you can afford and justify the expense of a gym membership, then i guarantee you I can find more ways for you to save money. I've lived off $9k-$11k per year debt free for many years, living in small studio apartments, living so well people thought I was making over $60k. And I exercised 5 days per week. I've never had a gym membership in my life. And the most I ever worked out in my life was even during a 2 month period on my first combat deployment to Iraq in 2006. Was in great shape back then.
If you can justify spending money on a gym membership, I 100% guarantee, i could find you other things to save money on in your life as well, and show you cheaper ways to do certain exercises. gotta exercise that brain of yours a little more, same as your muscles. if you don't use it (brain matter), you lose it. Be more creative. Stop making excuses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Stratigoz When you're using lots of high-precision munitions to conduct daily surgical strikes for years on end, it does consume stockpiles. (don't forget Syria)
And if the US were to fight in a war such as Ukraine, yes, we'd consume precision weapons at a much faster rate, but so too would the enemy run out of high value targets like Tanks, SAMs, etc at a much faster rate than they could replace them. Munitions are cheaper and easier, and faster to replenish than tanks, ships, aircraft, SAMs, etc. And the US has been able to switch to using much smaller munitions due to the high precision. Smaller means more can be produced at higher volumes, lower cost, and faster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you can't criticize something, it's not science. Censorship is anti-science, anti-free speech, anti-freedom.
Proof climate change is a lie and can only be defended by tyranny, lies, propaganda, threats, and censorship.
Climate change is not science.
CO2 is good for plants. NASA/NOAA does alter the reported temps from the recorded temps without explaining how nor why they did it. CO2 also has a logarithmic effect on temp, and this sis a known proven scientific fact. CO2 has also been far higher in the past and life didn't end back then.
Consensus is not science.
the ONLY proper way to counter "scientific misinformation" is with scientific debates. We aren't afraid of debating flat eathers nor do we censor them because we can easily defeat them in debate, but climate change freaks refuse to debate their critics. Why is that? It's because they know they'll get destroyed in fair debate. Their claims can't withstand critique when they can't control the narrative.
You criticize people like me as "deniers', but I dare you to point out and PROVE anything in this comment that is factually untrue.
1
-
1
-
@andrewgodly5739 yep, you're one of them. those of us old enough to grow up before all this modern tech and easy living, or who've spent years of our lives living in 3rd world countries and se the squalor and violence others still have to contend with, we understand what it takes. We don't need to ask, because we know, we've lived it.
You have to ask, because you never lived it, so you haven't learned the lessons, can't recognize the difference. If you knew, you wouldn't have needed to ask.
I suggest you find a 3rd world country, not a tourist trap, and go volunteer there for at least 1 yr of your life. help them to build a better world for themselves and their families, then you'll understand. Live with them, learn their culture and their ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sungukyun2608 in some ways, yes. They had better camo in Iraq for one. ACU stood out like a sore thumb and looked like crap. Marine desert digital worked great. And the uniforms look great.
But the Army often equipped themselves with stuff from home, resulting in even better gear. People constantly mistook my unit for Special Forces. We were a top unit, used marine vehicles and uniforms, and had rare prototype equipment, as well as personally modified rifles. It always threw people for a loop, and we often times used that and pretended to be special forces to get people to leave us alone.
Most of the equipment/mods I used overseas are on my personal rifle now. We changed out the handguards, triggers, selector levers, charging handles, stocks, optics, pistol grips, mags, lights, slings, mag releases, and more. We'd return them to issue spec before turning them in. I came up with a durable and effective sling mount overseas I still use as my go-to, a solution I've never seen a single other person use to-date. It was fun getting the reactions we got overseas. Kept things interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dxyzxyz Wrong, integrated circuits is not causing eth scale up, we've had them for many decades.
the scale up is that more places are using them for more tasks to maintain their competitive edge. People who never could afford supercomputing in the past are now buying the capability and learning hot it benefits them. these large systems have become accessible and viable to more industries. Another reason is the recent explosion in AI, and everyone worried about getting left behind if they dont develop their own. Everybody wants in on the bubble.
graphics, video, AI, applications, etc. are not waste. Games fall under simulation. Simulations have been a PRIME consumer of supercomputing since the early days, and will remain so, as that has military and other critical applications that are neither wasteful nor going away.
Social media is run on servers, not supercomputing, but I agree there is a lot of wasted energy there. But not computing power, as it's mostly storage.
1
-
@Dxyzxyz I don't care. you're incompetent. you couldn't even answer the questions.
Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. And CEO, CTO, CFO, etc. just proves you're out of touch with reality. the business leaders of the past 30yrs have driven financially stable companies into the ground systematically one after another for short-term gains rather than playing the long game. You screw over employees and stop successful Engineer-centric companies from continuing to be successful, and instead turn them into a top-down shareholder-centric business. HP inc, Boeing, Maytag, and many others were ruined this way.
The fact that after all those years you still don't know that Appeal to Authority is invalid, shows how low intelligence you are. it only took me one gen-ed class in college more than 2 decades ago to learn that and never forget it.
And I guarantee I've already personally accomplished more in the super computer industry than you ever will. I hold world records, world firsts, tens of patents for computers, etc. Not to mention 2 prior careers with notable accomplishments in each as well.
but none of that makes my argument right, it only proves what I am capable of, and proves I know how to apply science systematically to get results consistently. My arguments must stand on their own merits. They must be logically consisten, factual, and supported by evidence, with conclusions that are repeatable by others given the same level of information about the issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@calvinnickel9995 "The AVERAGE age of a car in the USA is 12 years old."
only due to "Cash for Clunkers"
My car: 20yrs old, still looks like new
My Truck: 32yrs old, still looks like new
I've had to do nothing but Wipers, Tires, Oil Changes, brakes, struts, etc. The only thing I've done than an EV wouldn't need is the oil change, which takes me 15min and $15.
My older car and truck are FAR cheaper and FAR easier to work on than modern cars. and this was even more true for vehicles older than mine. life was simpler, things may not have lasted as long, but they do now and we could have equally simple vehicles with exceptional reliability today had we followed the lead of the past rather than digitize everything for no reason.
your cherry picking and making things out to be worse than they really were. Talk to a mechanic and ask if they prefer old cars or new. and ask individuals who like cars that same question. They will all tell you they prefer old cars and wish we made them like we used to.
So cars do not support your claims. cars were also FAR cheaper relative to average incomes back then too.
it is possible to produce a work truck for $15k brand new today, but they wont do it. And because anti-capitalist gov regulations prohibit it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
we need to compile a list of suck racist and Marxist quotes, and cite who said them, when, or what book they came from (like the Communist Manifesto). And only include quotes from the leftists themselves, don't include quotes of Sowell, Orwell, etc. We need to show people in the words of the Leftists and Marxists themselves, what they truly believe and think.
Show them their racism, their eugenics, their elitism, their wealthy attitudes, their stances on voting, welfare, the family etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CulchieBrand Necessary and Mandatory are synonyms, meaning they are largely interchangeable. even if I weren't very bright, you're even dimmer.
But let's clarify it, shall we. Below are definitions and synonyms of each.
nec·es·sar·y
adjectuve
1. required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential. "it's not necessary for you to be here"
Similar: obligatory, required, compulsory, MANDATORY, needed, called for, essential, vital
2.determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable.
man·da·to·ry
adjective
1. required by law or rules; compulsory.
"wearing helmets was made mandatory for cyclists"
Similar: obligatory, required, compulsory, NECESSARY, essential
Both mean "required to be done, compulsory"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
but what is gained in all of this? more complex and fragile weapons? a meager reduction in weight? there are better areas to focus to reduce individual soldier weight right now. I see nothing here that makes me think, "wow, that is way better than the M4!". In fact, i see nothing desirable in all of this. The silencers are good, the low recoil high power machine gun is cool. But just not seeing anything revolutionary here that doesn't cause me real concern about durability, reliability...
Revolutionary is guided bullets, high tech optics like the one that fires the gun only when on target, remote targeting, thermal imagery, improved accuracy and penetration, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenparry6811 Associates, Bachelors, Masters, Doctorate
there are "honors" and such, and I've graduated with "honors", but it means absolutely Nothing in the workplace. the only thing that matters is RESULTS. What can you DO? and how good are you at it?
Many people graduate with various honors, but they are book smart and couldn't apply what they learned in the real world to save their life.
Others are amazing and do amazing work. total crap shoot.
I judge people on their results, and nothing more. I value results far more than a degree even.
When I was in High School I competed against college students in High Mileage vehicle competitions, bridge competitions, and more and I always trounced them, either winning outright or finishing top 3 to top 10. Surely college engineering students should have been able to beat high school kids, right?
it only matters what you can do. not what credentials you can claim. Unless those credentials are backed up with results.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
100% Wrong
Doctor comes from Doctorate, as in Doctorate Degree. it has literally NOTHING to do with medicine.
the title Doctor is bestowed upon literally Anyone who earns a doctoral degree in any subject. Philosophy, history, engineering, math, physics, etc.
PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy
MD = Doctorate of Medicine
Medical doctors are a subset of the larger group of doctors. They do not have sole rights to that title. and if it's so confusing, then medical doctors, if anyone, should be stripped of the right to use that title if they feel it's causing so much confusion, as it is medical people who have co-opted the term improperly in teh first place.
1
-
@meloniedropik3539 Doctor =/= Physician
you've already stated the solution. MDs need to go by "Physician", as was the case originally before MDs co-opted the title "Doctor", and stupidly claimed it meant something it doesn't.
if MDs aren't smart enough to read and comprehend a dictionary and know they are the ones in the wrong, then they need to have their degrees/licenses stripped.
Notice how non-MDs don't use the title "physician", since they know full well they are not one? But they are Doctors, and have every right to use the title. Morse so than MDs in fact, since MD was not the first Doctoral Degree.
"The woman in the story Steve read needed to accept that she needed to have the credentials of a physician to call herself Dr. Sara when dealing with patients in a health care setting."
100% wrong. She needs only the credentials of Doctor to call herself Doctor, which she holds. To call herself a "physician", she needs an MD specifically, which she didn't have, nor claimed to have.
1
-
1
-
@meloniedropik3539 Doctor = anyone with a Doctoral degree of ANY kind, period.
Anyone with a Doctoral degree can use the title Dr., ask to be called Doctor, and use that title freely, without restriction
Physician = a medical doctor, MD
Only Medical Doctors can call themselves Physicians, and use the MD and Physician name. But they can also use the title Doctor since they hold doctoral degrees.
It's just like how only Professional Pilots can call themselves Professionals, if they hold a Commercial or higher license. All other pilots are just recreational pilots. But professional pilots can't tell other pilots they can't claim to be a pilot at an airport.
"I thank you for the civil, if contentious, discussion. I suspect that neither of us is going to concede any points, so I understand if you choose not to engage further. I will not interpret it as though I have convinced you."
I must say, you are the first person to say something like this in online discussion, that I have seen. You've earned respect from me for doing so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthiuskoenig3378 "the M2 used to be worth it, but not anymore. its now in a negative goldilocks zone, it can't penetrate anything .338 can't penetrate that it actually faces on the battlefield, but doesn't have enough penetration compared to 30mm which can easily replace it on all vehicle mounts (due to 30mm RWS systems)."
this was not my combat experince with the M2. it penetrated things many weapons could not. We loved our M2, and nothing I see will replace it.
I couldn't help but notice how you completely skipped/ignored the 20mm's existence.
If you replace the M2 where it is used, such as tanks, aircraft, trucks, fixed defensive positions, etc. the RM338 is giving up tons of firepower. In WW2 the RAF had to mount 2-3x as many .30cal to cause as much damage as what 4-6x .50cal could dish out. And 6x .50cal were as good or better in certain cases than 4x 20mm.
Also, the Ohio REAPR is also 338 and lighter than an M240B, making the RM338.....OBSOLETE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why 5%. Because the math needs 5% to make sense. Um, how do we know the math is right to begin with? It you start with a broken theory, and then force the math to work, and then observe something different than what the math said it has to be, maybe the theory is wrong. Until recently, logic led the math. Now math leads everything. Used to be you'd come up with a idea than might explain how things work, then set out to do the math to see if you can prove that idea works. I know there have been examples of seemingly useless math solutions that led to technological breakthroughs later, but the big theories like those of Newton, Faraday, and Einstein led with logic, not math.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheSuperappelflap Well, don't know what to tell you man. You claim to have everything the ladies want, yet can't attract one. Either you're looking for women in all the wrong places, or you're doing something awfully wrong. Why you seek validation from women so bad I don't know. Even guys in the pre-feminist days rarely had fairytale marriages. Putting women as your priority is probably part of your problem. Maybe you're lacking in adequate social skills? Try adjusting your priorities, and see how that affects everything else. Willing to bet you'd get better results.
You can be surrounded by people and still be alone, but many of the greatest minds in history were alone, but never lonely. If what you're doing now isn't working, then you need to change and try something new. If you don't change, then you only have yourself to blame for not getting the results you want.
" id rather die alone than adopt a kid that wasn't wanted by their genetically inferior parents." This tells me an awful lot about you. Not all children are born of bad people. Some lost their parents to war, or accidents, etc. The fact you think so poorly of them suggests you should lump yourself into the "genetically interior" category. And if these are the sorts of attitudes you carry with you everyday, I can't blame good women for not wanting to be around you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
F4U came with at times 4x 20mm cannon and had better bombload capability, and was a superior dogfighter to the P-47.
6-8 .50cal is roughly equivalent in damage potential to 4x 20mm cannon.
The F4U, P-38, Mosquito, and A-36 were all arguably better ground attack aircraft than the P-47.
Below ~15K, the P-47 was an inferior dogfighter to most other fighters, including the P-40, Bf109, Spitfire, P-51, F4U, F6F, and many more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fietereim8190 Women: make 17% less money overall than men
Women: spend 70% of ALL income earned in the US by EVERY citizen of the US.....
and women complain about working for free? free labor? what are they doing for men exactly that is free to the men? Only Chads are getting women for free.
So, lets work this math out a bit,
Man: earns $100
Woman: earns $87
Total: $187
Woman spends 70%, or $131 of the total, on things like clothes, eating out, shoes, jewelry, hair, etc.
Man gets to spend only $56, and most of that will be for bills like utilities, rent/mortgage, gas, insurance, etc.
So if woman only earned $87, but got to spend $131, then she is the one getting men's free labor. She gets to spend 150% of her income, and he only gets to spend 56% of his income.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matchesburn F-4 Phantom (countless countries and the USAF), F-18 (Switzerland, Canada, Australia...), A-4 Skyhawk (Argentina, Israel...), F4U, F4F, TBM, SBD, F-111 (Australia, USAF...), Super Étendard, etc.
Then you have the variant aircraft like the F-35, F-86, F-15, Mig29, Su27, Spitfire, Mosquito, and more, where the naval and land based versions add or remove the features.
Then you have the land-based aircraft that need no carrier modifications at all. B-25, C-130, V-22, OV-10, AV-8B, etc.
And even still, the F-15 and many others still have tail hooks, though not quite as robust if used daily, but could be upgraded to be tougher. And the F-16 landing gear is very much like that of the F-8, meaning it could be navalized, and was considered for navalization.
And let's not forget the need for operating from damaged or unimproved runways. Something we used to plan for in teh Cold War, and that Ukraine is proving was/is a valid concern. Aircraft like the Gripen, F-5, A-10, AV-8B, OV-10, Mig29, Su27, and more were specifically designed for this purpose. While others like the F-18, F-35, and such could be used in this manner.
1
-
@matchesburn Way to ignore the entire argument due to invalid cherry picked criteria that doesn't prove you right.
Notice I also listed many US aircraft examples. Mostly US in fact.
F-4, AV-8B, OV-10, C-130, U-2, B-25, F4U, F4F, SBD, TBM, F-18, F-111, A-4, F-86, V-22, F-15, F-35, and more.
But in truth, you can't provide a valid counter argument to mine, and so rather than admit defeat, you falsely try to claim my arguments are invalid while trying to change the rules of the debate like a child trying to change the rules of a game of Monopoly whenever they are losing.
My argument is 100% valid and intact.
You have no argument at all.
"Carrier aircraft have their own special requirements to meet CATOBAR standards. Requirements which lessen performance and... I shouldn't have to point this out... but aren't necessary to the USAF."
this claim is not specific to only US aircraft, and the USN and USAF has historically flown aircraft of other nations as well, so they count, and other nations have used USAF and other naval aircraft as well, both for carrier and land based uses.
1
-
@MotoroidARFC Wrong.
Landing is the toughest and most dangerous part. The catapults can be adjusted, and rather fragile aircraft have been catapult launched throughout history, and there are many types of catapults, many which don't attach to the landing gear at all. The first ever
AV-8B uses no catapult, nor did the C-130, B-25, U-2, OV-10, etc. F-35 can launch with or without a catapult.
Aircraft like the FJ-1, FJ-4, F6F, A-4, F-4, F-8, F4D, F11F, P-51 Sea Horse, F4U, and Super Etendard, and many more didn't attach the catapult to the landing gear at all.
Aircraft like the B-25, P-40, J-3, P-47, Mosquito, and many more also launched from carriers both with and without catapults.
Catapults put very little stress on teh airframe and landing gear the way a crash down arrested landing does.
Want to see weak landing gear on a carrier? look at the Spitfire and Seafire.
Hurricanes were even catapult launched off of transports in the Atlantic to ward off air attacks.
All of Langley's attempts at powered flight used a catapult launch of his fragile aircraft, the last attempt on Oct 7, 1903. He died never knowing the Wrights had flown.
The first ever ship launch and landings were done with Curtiss aircraft, very fragile in nature.
Seaplanes were catapult launched from battleships, cruisers, seaplane tenders and such for many decades without issue.
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MotoroidARFC "I said they were heavier and endured more stress than landing when they are lighter than at launch."
Wrong, you said,
"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."
And this statement is FALSE. The forces at launch are completely different than at landing. the forces during launch are rather mild and benign, other than the local stresses felt by a nose wheel launch due to the stresses being applied to it specifically in a sub optimal way. the ONLY thing feeling such stress on takeoffs is the nosewheel strut.
On landing, the ENTIRE aircraft is getting a beating. the Wings, fuselage, tail, landing gear (mains and nosewheel), pylons, etc. and all being subjected to very large forces compared to takeoff.
1
-
@MotoroidARFC "yes it does matter when equipment isn't available to do so and when the people who are experienced in such launches aren't around and such launches are unnecessary."
it takes a few hours to train people. all the training manuals, training videos, etc. still exists, as do the blueprints for the parts.
"There are more modern aircraft that can do far more than the aircraft that use the obsolete method."
more capable in terms of what? avionics? an F-14 or F-4 could have ben upgraded with ALL of the latest sensors, avionics, targeting pods, etc. Just like the F-15EX, and F-16 block 70.
An F-4 and F-14 in many ways are far more capable than many modern carrier fighters, in things such as payload, speed, range, maneuverability, etc. And imagine if they were given newer engines, fly by wire, and such they'd be even better.
But even still, saying, "There are more modern aircraft that can do far more than the aircraft that use the obsolete method.", does NOT prove that aircraft experience far greater forces on launch than landing.
If you want to compare launch and landing fairly, then consider a single jet (F-4D?) at 50% of its internal fuel weight, and no weapons. then explain how launch stresses it more than landing at the same weight.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottinohio701 2 aces? but the Top 2 US aces flew Allison powered P-38s, not P-47.
P-47 was used longer, proves nothing.
P-47N wasn't used in Europe, and existed too late to matter. Same with the Spiteful, MB.5, CA-15, Ta-152, Hornet, F8F, P-38K, F2G, N1K2-J, A7M, Ki-94, P-80 and others.
You like to yell a lot, chill dude, before you have a stroke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First "modern war"?
US Civil War: iron warships with turrets, underground warfare, land mines, hand grenades, machineguns, artillery, trench warfare, repeating rifles and pistols, trains, Sherman's March to the sea (maneuver warfare), etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
six figures, work out, joined military at 17 and fought in 2 wars, successful post-military career, own my own house, own multiple airplanes and cars, paid for 4 STEM degrees myself debt free, can cook and clean, take care of my health, look good enough to turn heads of women when around town even when they are with other guys, have traveled to foreign countries and most of the US, don't drink nor do drugs, etc. Everything a woman claims to want.
Yet I've never been in a relationship. Women weren't interested in me before. And now I can't risk everything I've worked so hard for. And never come across good looking women with good attitudes anymore either. They are all high maintenance gold diggers, tattoos, purple haired freaks, overweight, don't dress nice, bad attitude, rude, tons of ugly piercings, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisknight6884 wow, conspiracy theorist alert!
and when was the flyer added to teh smithsonian? and why did this other guy never make any claims npor demonstrate a functional airplane prior to that time?
"Ader was not the only contender, there are others, some of which are plausible."
no, none of the claims are plausible. All have been disproven definitively. Langley was closest, but it took modern engineers to fix all his issues.
"The fact that he flew 8 years after the first time it was done and that 80 people had flown the Atlantic before him, was ignored."
list the first 3 people then....
"The Brazilians maintain that Albert Santos-Dumont was the first, the French that it was Ader etc. "
they are both wrong, and have been proven wrong.
"Ader's claim is widely supported by aviation historians "
no it's not. this is nothing but your unqualified and biased opinions. no facts, no names, no dates, no airplanes, no proof. just false claims. Historians, by definition, weren't there. they study things that happened, which they weren't present to witness. Someone who was not there cannot testify to that act having been done. And name one historian who claims they can substantiate Ader's claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@irrelevant_noob Because we know full well they WILL do it. And once they DO do it, it's a crime. So don't give them that kind of power they can abuse in the first place.
They already are illegally spying on Americans, illegally searching people's info without warrants, etc. And the laws that protect people's privacy doesn't have an "intent" clause/exception.
"PS Also, i think some forms of intent are punishable, and they're called attempted <action>."
Wrong
Attempt = action
Intent =/= action
Attempt =/= intent
Attempt: "To try to perform, make, or achieve. "
As in, trying to perform a crime.
Intent: "Something that is intended; an aim or purpose."
As in, aimed to commit the crime, but never actually carried it out. Thought about it, but never attempted it.
Attempt is the crime, whether it succeeds or fails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everyone acting like it's all men's fault.
These days the divorce rate is so high, and most of it is female initiated. Most women these days are Not wife/family material.
I am single too, not by choice, but because of a few factors. The women I meet that I am interested in are already married (no surprise there). I have a good job/career, willing and able to provide for the right person, good health, physically active, get to travel for work and such, etc. But the only women who tend to take notice or express interest are not the kind of women I would take to meet the family. These women are looking for free stuff, a one night stand, or who knows what else. But so few women are worth the insane risk. I've worked hard all of my life to get where I am and I will not risk it all on someone who isn't worth it.
There are just so few women worth it these days. Too many are shallow, irresponsible, sexually promiscuous, untrustworthy, unreliable, undisciplined, selfish, overweight, etc. And the few who aren't tend to get married very quickly given how many men are competing for them.
I know tons of men who are financially well off, good looking, healthy, etc. who also are smart enough to see the risk women now represent, and/or who women won't give a second look. Women hold the keys here, not men.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klpnaGupta " a proper family is one that has mutual respect. " agree 100%
"Not the selfish belief that husband is the authority and in the lead." whether you like it or not, women prefer men in charge, and lose respect for a man who is not in charge, and women like being cared for and provided for, etc. Simple facts, and study after study, and all the data supports this. The feminist narrative is a communist lie.
The divorce rate of men who are subservient to their wives is sky high, well over 90%, and almost always initiated by the wife. A relationship requires respect, but women don't respect a man who is weak and subservient.
"you seem to think men are immune to making mistakes and thus can be trusted with deciding what's good for the both of them" typical feminist woke projection. Projecting your own thoughts and ideas onto others, accusing people of things they never said. How about you stick to what i ACTUALLY said and stop making up childish nonsense?
"with a woman asking for something automatically deemed as broken." who said this, other than You? Modern women do have a laundry list of demands upon men, but offer Nothing of themselves in return. A relationship is built on mutual respect, but a man cannot respect a lazy and worthless nagging childish women who contributes nothing of value to teh relationship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wuppie62 I was unable to discern which comment of min you were responding to.
Also, I never advocated the need to put nukes in Ukraine. This was a discussion about Germany, not Ukraine.
Germany does not need to waste it's limited and precious resources on nukes. One, as you pointed out, NATO has nukes and will respond on Germany's behalf as appropriate and as required. Two, by the time Germany realized it was under rea life nuke attack, it would be too late to fire its own, as Germany is so close to Russia, thus again defeating the point of having nukes. Three, nukes are expensive to build, maintain, protect, etc. Funds which could be better spent on Europe's incredibly inadequate number of fighter jets, munitions, and other weapon systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickmoz "do they really? Or is that just a few videos / articles you see online…"
yes, and it's not just articles, its the actual dealership auctions and dealership lots where it's happening most.
"and personally I don’t really care. "
so even when I prove you wrong, you've already declared you wont listen. your pride, stubbornness, and cult beliefs is more important to you than the truth.
"Got my PCP and after four years I’ll swap"
I've never owned an ICE car for less than 7yrs. and I've paid a grand total of $10k for ALL the ICE cars I've ever owned in my life. and the worst one got 27mpg in town, and the best has gotten as high as 47mpg in town.
But you prefer to take the consumerist approach which is FAR worse for the environment. Your EV requires rare earth elements that cause harm by themselves, then buy and sell so often and the used car gets junked because no one wants it rather than reused for 20-30yrs like ICE cars. if you do the math ICE cars actually cause less total emissions cradle to grave than an EV. Mining, manufacturing, energy to operate, repair, lifespan, and recycling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knighthunteroi they didn't have anything close to being able to support the needs of modern jets. No IFR navigation, no GPS navigation. Thirsty jets and helos on limited fuel reserves. You'd severely degrade their fuel situation just to fly these jets. WW2 aircraft used Chaff. Curious how missiles behave when trying to target a tight cluster of tens to hundreds of slow moving maneuverable airplanes, would they keep switching targets, or get confused at all? Time to integrate the fighters and develop tactics for proper use and employment. Either the jets would fall under existing commanders and be used improperly, or there might be a power struggle. Also, the modern Luftwaffe is an allied force, not a Nazi force, so would they really fight against the allies? if only equipment is time warped, who would operate it? the jets would be destroyed just trying to figure out how to fly them, and would take decades to understand how the tech works to repair or maintain them. Imagine WW2 scientists trying to figure out what an integrated circuit is, or a CPU chip?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt: "Men, improve yourselves, do better."
Matt: "It's ok for 90% of women to be fat, lazy, worthless, and to not contribute anything nor have to better themselves."
Hey Matt, remind me of all the passages in your Bible that describe female behavior, and how women are supposed to submit to their husbands, and not sleep around, not nag, etc.
1
-
1
-
Women: make 17% less money overall than men
Women: spend 70% of ALL income earned in the US by EVERY citizen of the US.....
and women complain about working for free? free labor? what are they doing for men exactly that is free to the men? Only Chads are getting women for free.
So, lets work this math out a bit,
Man: earns $100
Woman: earns $87
Total: $187
Woman spends 70%, or $131 of the total, on things like clothes, eating out, shoes, jewelry, hair, etc.
Man gets to spend only $56, and most of that will be for bills like utilities, rent/mortgage, gas, insurance, etc.
So if woman only earned $87, but got to spend $131, then she is the one getting men's free labor. She gets to spend 150% of her income, and he only gets to spend 56% of his income.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Name a famous military battle won by only women...
If that's too hard, name a famous military battle won by a female General...
If that's still too hard, name a famous military battle won by a female platoon leader...
If that's still too hard, name a famous battle won by an army comprised of at least 10% women (not counting nurses, cooks, doctors, secretaries, but actual military jobs like drivers, infantry, artillery, tankers, mechanics, etc.)...
If that's too hard, then by now you should understand why women don't belong in the military or leading combat troops, or leading armies period. If you can't do the job, you have No right to lead them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coolioso808
"Market capitalism is socially, environmentally and economically unsustainable."
This one is objectively false, the problem is that unregulated and unenforced capitalism leads to Corporatism, which is what we have today. We used to be a Capitalist system, but it was hijacked. Can be proven, but this is not a conversation or debate that can be done effectively in the comments section of YouTube.
"Poverty is the worst form of violence. Capitalism mathematically guarantees large numbers of people in debt and poverty."
Multiple fallacies in this one. Poverty is relative, and often times a choice. so you need to elaborate on that, and account for personal choice. If another person is in poverty, no violence has been taken against them. Violence is a very specific thing, like hitting someone, or cutting them, or hitting them with a car, etc. Violence involves physical and intentional harm. Stop conflating and misusing the word "violence".
Capitalism is objectively THE most successful system in recorded human history at raising people Out of poverty. literally no other economic system tried to date has ever done as good a job, period. The second most successful system doesn't even come close.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alastorgdl yes, the statements in question, were both yours, I wasn't addressing my comments in that particular moment. reading comprehension is a skill, you should work on it.
your arguments can also fall under Red Herring or Non Sequitur fallacies, as drugs have nothing to do with Capitalism. and when you use a fallacy in science, let alone multiple, your argument is ruled void/false and you lose the argument by default if you fail to remove the fallacies from your reasoning.
Also, we are not in a Judicial proceeding, another logical fallacy, we are in a scientific debate if anything. the rules of logic apply, not the rules of law. but the rules of law are loosely inspired by the rules of logic/science. But this is not a judicial proceeding, and it doesn't change the fact your arguments and questions are irrelevant to the issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samgyeopsal569 We fought Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda was an international organization, formed in Saudi Arabia and trained some in Afghanistan, but for some reason they preferred Iraq. At some point they decided Ramadi, Iraq was their capital city and came there and fought us for it. Don't ask me why, makes no sense to me. Look how many Al Qaeda leaders were killed in Iraq. We were fighting Al Qaeda and others from around the world that hated America in Iraq. It was very easy for them to get into Iraq through the various borders such as Syria and Iran. And when Al Qaeda was finally defeated, a Pentagon analyst wrote a report about what would happen if the US withdrew from Iraq prematurely before things were adequately stabilized. Obama decided this report was a good battle strategy and withdrew, allowing the remnants of Al Qaeda to reform into what is now ISIS, which caused chaos and death in Iraq, but also spilled into Turkey and Syria, in an bid to oust Assad.
Al Qaeda has everything to do with Iraq.
We fought the Taliban in Afghanistan for no reason, but we fought Al Qaeda in Iraq. Ironic isn't it given all the rhetoric about the two wars over the years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
46:30 very true, can't prove nor disprove god. Science can't and doesn't prove a negative. Faith doesn't require evidence. But I still choose not to believe in god due to my scientific leaning and pursuit of objective truth.
but the big reason religion drove me away, and continues to do so today, is that most religious people i know are ignorant hypocrites, and one thing I personally just cannot stand is hypocrisy. Ignorance of the true foundational principles of morals. Ignorance of "science" and objectivity. Religious people are usually the first to bury their heads in the sand and not do anything about a problem claiming , "god will take care of it", or something to that effect.
I simply cannot accept the bad behavior, lack of conviction, lack of knowledge and understanding, lack of faith, hypocrisy, downright vile behavior, etc. of most people I know who have religion, including many of my own family members.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SmallSpoonBrigade Fair, but in general most wont need it. But medical doctors don't have exclusive rights to use the title of Doctor. They never have had that right. And no state can pass laws curtailing free speech in this manner, they do not have legal authority to overrule the US Constitution. There would be no confusion among patients if they were properly educated and informed. All they need to do is tell people that if the Doctor doesn't have MD in their title, then they are not a Medical Doctor, that simple.
Banning rights and criminally prosecuting innocent people just so others wont be confused is a tyrannical solution to the problem.
The real solution is telling Doctors they need to start a nationwide effort to explain to all their patients the difference between a Doctor with an MD, and a Doctor with something else. In this way, everyone eventually learns the truth, confusion is removed. Have all the gov public schools teach it too. Now no one is harmed needlessly, and people can enjoy their freedoms tyranny free.
The Founding Fathers knew that education was crucial to maintaining a free society. we used to have a good education system, and people used to know and understand this stuff, and not need the gov to intervene every time they didn't know something. People used to take personal responsibility (a critical necessity for a person to be free).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@konankunoichi94 starving out the Russians =/= killing the entire civilian population
by starving the Russians, they become weak, succumb to disease, exhaustion, etc. become unfit for battle, easier to defeat. Just look at Leningrad, Stalingrad, and all the castle and fortress sieges of the gunpowder era and see how long they lasted. it can take years to completely win through starvation alone. you don't want to wait that long, so you just want to weaken them before moving in.
Destroy their moral, their will to fight, make them see it is hopeless and inevitable that they will lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@georgelionon9050 3.8C? funny, no actual data outside of doomsday models (which have all been widely over estimating reality so far) suggests that. Solar energy is still unaffordable to most of the world's population, and doesn't work in many locations such as where I live (perpetual cloud cover, high latitude, short days, snow cover, hail damage, etc.). you need to do more research into the sum total realities and problems with "renewables", look at what happens to wind. They are replaced every 20yrs, and either put in landfills or burn the waste for energy. can't be recycled. and despite wind power being next to nothing in global energy, it contributes a significant portion of plastics waste. increasing wind will only make that far worse. Never mind the effect wind has on local wind and rainfall patterns, disrupting agriculture and other effects (birds).
1
-
1
-
@georgelionon9050 Not jumping around at all. clearly this is all just new to you. 1.0C in the past 150yrs.
Yes, it rose a bit since 1970, but it also plunged dramatically between 1940s and 1970 first, so that averages out. climate cycles are typically 15-30yrs. So up for a time, down for a time, up for a time. You're seeing a short term up for a time, that is ending, and falsely projecting it forward without end. That is wrong, that is not scientific, and it is called cherry picking. Only looking at teh section of data that supports your claims. Yet temps haven't increased much in the past few years. and where I am we've had a number of cold years in a row now. we're still getting snow this past week in fact.
Please explain how heat in the oceans works. Because NO one alive knows for sure how it works. There are good theoretical starting points from teh research done after WW2, but that doesn't explain everything, and there has been no significant progress in oceanography since. So, nothing has been settled at all regarding the oceans, and definitely hasn't been settled regarding climate change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@defaultarab well, it makes no sense to be dependent upon your enemy for weapons, parts, technology, etc. now does it.
But look at Ukraine. They were "friendly" and "allied" with Russia until recently, and they had very obsolete equipment.
NATO allies are afforded access to higher tech weapons and systems, as well as a a wider range of options too. NATO nations also tend not to be attacked by NATO. the Same cannot be said for allies of Russia (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, China, Germany, etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Queen = tyrant, monarch, inbreeding, leader of a recognized nation, sense of entitlement, needs to be waited on hand and foot, brings power and wealth to the relationship that the man (king) benefits from, etc.
Queen =/= beautiful, smart, empathetic, caring, etc.
anyone claiming to be a queen is most certainly not, and an immediate red flag. If I ever hear women describing themselves or others as Queens, I run away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3:06 not true. this is a form of survivor bias, like the WW2 study of surviving aircraft.
Historically, rural people had less opportunity for upward mobility than those born near cultural centers. Keep in mind the distances people could travel easily without trains, horses, etc, and how far rural areas could be from city centers of excellence, and how much smaller cities were historically than they are today as well (far less sprawl).
This meant that many geniuses simply never had the chance to learn things or try things beyond farming, mining, and other jobs that kept them and their families alive. they were too busy working hard to survive and had little to no access to information and others from which to express their genius. But make no mistake, those geniuses still existed, but were never allowed/able to develop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cliffordwebb3656 Many companies supporting the computer industry, such as cooling, cables, etc. had already begun moving to places like Mexico, USA, Germany, France, Thailand, Vietnam, Africa, India, etc. We had to revalidate their new factories to make things for us. There has been a federal gov driven push in the USA for years to get out of China. Some industries have been mandated by law to get out of China, for national defense reasons, and so we complied, as did the vendors we work with who value our business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not letting something in, is not the same as taking something. If piracy, then explain the following.
Someone is in an apartment (college students?) listening to a video podcast on YouTube, not using adblock. The friends can hear and watch it too, for free. Lets say there are 3 people total. 3 people got to watch the video, for the price of one. Is that piracy?
When you post your stuff for free on a public forum, and Google (YouTube) has the adblocker as an extension in chrome even, you don't get to complain if some people are able to view it for free.
If I listen to teh radio in my car on teh way too/from work, and change stations when the ads come on, is that piracy too?
No, this is NOT piracy at all. Not even close.
1
-
and even if you compare a female engineer to a male engineer., it has been my experience that male engineers are better engineers. The men build things and design their own projects outside of work too. They are always tinkering on something. The women do not do this. Don't get me wrong, i actually have multiple female engineer coworkers who I rely on at work, as they are good at their jobs. But they don't have projects outside of work. Women don't have the type of intuition and drive to design and solve problems that men do overall. So even comparing careers in an apples to apples way, men will still earn more in some cases due to higher overall levels of competency, skills, and knowledge as a result of their personal activities outside of work. And even if men and women work the same days and hours per year, men will output more overall than women during those same hours per day or year. Men are stronger, faster, and more driven overall.
I know almost no women who want to discuss their work/job once they get home. Me, I have spent over a decade already trying to master all aspects of what I do and am interested in. I study the history of the field, the skills, the knowledge, teach it to kids, design my own projects and develop new solutions, etc. All in my spare time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OMAD, high fat, high protein, low carb, low sugar, fasting, etc works. processed food, carbs, sugar, etc are objectively not good for you. They are ok in moderation, but overall not ok. I've been doing the things above for years with great results. If you look what is going on in your body at the cellular level when different things are consumed, the science is sound.
Chewing food is good for health. Improves mouth shape and posture, which reduced tooth crowding, improves breathing, etc. Eating certian things and avoiding others can restore teeth too, and revers cavities if done early enough. Fasting also cures cancers. Ignore nature and reality at your own peril.
Nobody is claiming cooking is bad for you, eating processed foods loaded with sugar and carbs and devoid of fat are bad for you. Raw food is good for you: salad, carrots, apples, berries, nuts, oranges, bananas, etc. this anti-raw nonsense is 100% bullshit. Yes, cooking meat is necessary for health and other reasons. But Paleo diets don't say you cant cook teh meat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@piotrd.4850 F-16, F-15, and F-18 don't have that good of range either. There are tradeoffs with stealth, and that is why the 4thg gen fighters aren't dead and we're still buying more.
But the YF-23 had things like space shuttle-like heat tiles to maintain, and the range and engines situation is not 100%. Look how much the YF-22 changed between then and production. the YF-23 would have had to change some too, and we don't know exactly how. It's all just guessing and wild speculation. They were comparable designs with comparable performance, and the YF-23 had the same limitations on internal weapons carriage.
Sometimes a fighter competition gets two equally capable planes and it can be a tough decision (YF-16 vs YF-17), or you get a weird outcome (F-111 vs F-14, where teh F-111 was chosen but failed as a carrier aircraft so they had to build the F-14 to replace it).
People want the YF-23 to be the answer, I like the plane too, and it's an interesting what-if, but we'll never know for sure. The fact is logistics plays a huge part in these competitions, more so than people realize, and all indications I see are that the YF-23 was more logistically challenging and expensive due to certain technology they decided to use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Audioremedy0785 "as a quick little fact check, there are 7.9bn people in the world and last time I checked, not every one of them had cars. Most toddlers don’t."
You're not very bright are you? By me rounding UP and assuming Everyone was in teh market, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But now you're just making my case for me, and arguing against yourself.
1) still no source, just your word, and I asked you specifically for a source on that. Try again.
2) " If 98% of EV owners are converting from ICE cars as estimated), then sales can go down and their market share would still increase."
you clearly have no idea how market share works. If people are switching to EV from ICE, then ICE market share is going down. How do you et rising demand for ICE? By having dropping demand for EV.
8 of those EV sales in your example are the same people buying another EV. so you're more like 88/12 with dropping EV demand. 10 people buy EVs, then 10 more buy EVs while 4 switch back to ICE.
EVs last about 2-6yrs tops, and most well off people who understand money know that keeping an EV longer than 2yrs costs them dearly in depreciation. And the insurance for EVs is far higher too.
"There are some brilliant economics websites aimed at kids online that you could learn a lot from "
Well, that explains a lot. Now I know where you got your ideas from.... Maybe when you're older, all grown up, consuming adult content, and actually own a car, we can have this debate again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gorak9000 I think most people understanding the Right to Repair movement understands the underlying economic factors at least somewhat. But yes, when your company lacks innovation and only knows how to sell the product that made it successful, then you get stagnation and they resort to such tactics Thing is, such approaches don't actually help the stock price.
If a market has become saturated with a product, design a New product, innovate.
You think that is the future, but really it's centuries old unimaginative business practices taken to the extreme. But that will only be the future until people like me come along and start disrupting markets with longer lasting products. My mindset is different, I live and breath innovation and red tape makes my blood boil. I like lean and mean operations. I value my employees, customers, and reputation. I know how to avoid stagnation with a business when a successful product market becomes saturated. I also know how to compete in existing markets with quality, longer lasting, and repairable products. But you have to give up the current old fashioned way of thinking. Just selling product in a saturated market wont improve your stock prices. Only innovation will. Apple has stopped innovating, and they (and others) are merely trying to hang on to what they have. Their business practices reek of desperation to stay profitable and relevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MonkeyJedi99 "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole:"
That's Communism.
They've been altering the dictionaries and defintions. Go read a dictionary defintion from the 1960s.
Socialism is where teh gov controls the means of production and tells people what they can produce, sell, buy, etc.
When the gov designs a car instead of Ford, Chevy, Honda, Toyota, etc. It is a piece of crap.
When the gov designs a fuel can, it sucks.
When the gov implements price controls, that is Socialism.
When the gov uses tax money to give lazy people free income, that is Socialism/Communism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marveliciousgoku4343 Wrong. Military servicemembers sacrifice their lives and bodies for the country. And do more for the country than just war fighting.
Most people who serve never get a pension, never get free healthcare (and it's crap healthcare on it's best day too, gov healthcare sucks hard). The Housing is sub par and most servicemembers end up paying for their own housing anyways.
Reserves and National Guard get nothing for their housing and such. Of all the people that serve this country, military members do the MOST for what they get in return. Teachers, Postal Workers, Politicians, etc. all give less, do less, in exchange for their benefits. Far more Firemen, Police, Postal Workers, etc. get their pensions and benefits. Far more is spent on politicians and welfare programs from noncontributing citizens who pay net negative taxes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gagamba9198 "It's politically untenable to FDR to sue for peace."
given the way it happened, yes. but the way I would have done it, FDR would have had little choice.
"How many ships did the US raise and repair? Even if all the aircraft carriers were there and damaged/destroyed, it shifts much of Atlantic fleet to California."
you don't even know what my plan is. and everything you say here is 100% irrelevant. not one ship could be raised until peace was achieved if done my way.
"That's Yorktown, Ranger, and Wasp. Hornet's shakedown is expedited."
Ranger wasn't a proper carrier. Was, Hornet, and Yorktown were all sunk in the early battles of the pacific, without all the losses my plan would have caused. Also, you forgot Saratoga. But again, peace would be achieved before any ships could be repositioned from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
"Is your gambit the oil tank farm? There's more than one way to skin a cat."
Wow, you're such an amateur. Do you even know Anything about WW2 Naval history, anything about Naval warfare theories and doctrines?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kingwein89 You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of air combat.
F4F and P-40 finished WW2 with more kills than losses against japanese aircraft. Your "facts" are false.
You get tired of hearing about it, because it doesn't fit your narrative. You want certain things to be true, even when they aren't. Sakai and other Japanese pilots didn't think much of the early P-40 and P-39 models, but the later models did much better. And the Japanese wholly acknowledged that the P-38, F6F, P-51, etc, completely owned them in the skies. I'll take their word over yours. A few elite pilots can generally win no matter what. But that doesn't make one plane objectively better. Maneuverability doesn't matter in WW2 air combat, speed, climb rate, altitude and range did. But in dogfight, speed, climb rate and team tactics were what mattered to survive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RoCK3rAD I'm aware of that, and well know that the USMC and USN have a lot of helicopters and V-22.
but they have Fighters, cargo planes, Attack aircraft, and more, just like the USAF. The US Army lacks all of that, except helicopters.
US Army cannot shoot down Chinese aircraft in a dogfight, the USN, USMC, and USAF can. US Army cannot deploy paratroopers in a large scale assault without help from USAF, or USMC C-130, C-17, etc. The US Army cannot carry out SEAD missions, the USN, USMC, and USAF can. The US Army cannot transport its cargo by air for thousands of miles without help from the USMC or USAF.
1
-
@RoCK3rAD The Marines are leaving the armor to the army because they never needed tanks, and becasue they are few in number, and becasue we're gearing for a war in the pacific with china where tanks are all but useless.
"The army operates all of our anti air operations without having a bird in the sky." I guess that depends upon what you classify as an anti-air operation? Patriot batteries have shot down friendlies multiple times, proving birds in the sky. And with U-2, Global Hawk, Predator, Reaper, Shadow, Puma, Raven, AH-64, aerostats, AWACS, E-3, and more almost always airborne over the battlefield at all times, that's a lot of birds in the sky.
Most of the US anti-air assets are the F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, F-18.... US has famously neglected Army antiair for decades other than the Patriot and Stinger predominantly.
I was with the USMC in Iraq, USN in Afghanistan, and served in the Army. So, I'm not picking sides here. I'm commenting only on the realities of the distribution of assets.
1
-
You know guns.
You don't know simple math, manufacturing, and the realities of such a conflict.
The US will NEVER run out of AR15 platform parts, rifles, accessories, optics, etc. in ANY WAR for the foreseeable future. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. One, the number of parts made every year in the US in peace time is staggering, let alone ramp up for war. Two, there are already tens of millions of these rifles in the US not counting military stockpiles, far more than we'd ever need. Three, your comprehension of manufacturing is rather limited. Nobody is going to stop production of adjustable length stocks, springs, buffers, buffer tubes, etc. to retool for fixed stocks. Fixed stocks take more time/material to make and there is, and never will be, a shortage of the parts in the US in wartime for adjustable stocks. Few companies even make fixed stocks/parts anymore. Also, CNC manufacturing is a thing. Most of the parts you rag on like rear sights are actually rather easy to make these days compared to Vietnam before CNC became almost the exclusive manufacturing machining method (manual machining being nearly extinct in manufacturing, not even counting 3D printing and other methods).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Elthenar I personally received Danger Close air support from a B-1 in Afghanistan. 38x 500lb bombs dropped within 200-500yds of our position one night. I'll never forget that.
I also received CAS from the A-10s of the 23rd Flying Tigers. Close up gun attacks. Nothing like seeing an A-10 attack, and it truly does put the enemy on notice. The enemy never sees the B-1 coming, but they see the A-10,a nd that is more effective than people realize at pushing back enemy attacks. Some times a show of force is required.
"The sensors and electronics on an F-35 would let it drop an SDB extremely close to friendlies relatively safely."
same for the F-15E and F-15EX, which can theoretically carry up to 50-60 SDBs at once. and SDBs have a potential glide range after drop of up to 50miles to target, allowing significant standoff from the targets.
The F-15E would orbit overhead in Afghanistan and just wait for calls for air support. You could spot them if you looked hard enough, just flying circles overhead, waiting.
In Iraq my unit got CAS mostly from AV-8B, F-18, AH-1, UH-1, AH-64....(with the Marines)
In Afghanistan my unit got it mostly from Kiowa, AH-64, A-10, B-1, and F-15E... (with the Navy Seabees)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FDMKuma I already served 8yrs, would be coming up on 20yrs if I'd stayed in. The military would never let me do what I do best, I've tried. Instead, I study logistics of wars throughout history, and its effect on strategy and tactics, and on how to revolutionize the effect of logistics on modern warfare. But it will never be more than an academic exercise, because ideas like mine are always met with hostility and suffering. Nobody likes change, people feel threatened by it, but I crave the challenge of solving problems. In the end I care more about the war itself (winning), but the study of logistics is crucial to that. But I have no interest in a career specifically in logistics, I'd lose my mind from boredom in less than a month. I am a frontline soldier, a pilot, an inventor, a historian, an instructor, and an engineer. I seek only to revolutionize something, then to move onto the next challenge, and the next....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ggarlick46 "There was no way at all of the USA ever liberating Europe by itself, just the sheer distance and resupply, added to the amount of ships aircraft and troops needed would have made Dday a minor event. "
yet the US supplied Russia, UK, US itself, and more in Europe.
Clearly you've never studied US logistics in WW2. it took nearly 80yrs after WW2 to finally use up the leftover stockpiles of parts and equipment produced in WW2. and that was after much of it got scrapped when the war ended.
The US produced so much stuff in WW2 it shaped the global economy until recent times.
Clearly you've never seen how many warships, cargo ships, aircraft, fleet carriers, etc. the US had in the pacific in 1945. Clearly you never learned how many warships and aircraft orders got cancelled when the war ended, many mid-construction. P-51H, P-47N, Iowa and Montana class battleships, Midway class carriers, Victory class transports, P-80 fighters, F7F tigercat, A-1 Skyraiders, F8F Bearcat, F-82, P-61 Blackwidow, and much more. The US invasions in the pacific were even larger than in Europe.
"Having no strong fighting allied country as a base in Europe( UK) to build up its forces, it would have been a disaster for the US."
you do know the US first attacked North Africa from across the atlantic right? and then invaded Europe multiple times from North Africa. Without the UK we'd have stuck to a more southern assault.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
@random.3665 doesn't matter what the definition is for, it's not valid as far as teh 2A is concerned.
"The weapons you listed would not be considered assault rifles by any western military"
Wrong. My unit had the M14/M1A and M110 in Afghanistan, FAL and SCAR are also military weapons, just to name a few. They are select fire or can be had as such. The definition of Intermediate Cartridge also includes the like of .30-06, .338, .308, etc.
"There is nothing "false" about those definitions from that perspective, and there are not any more arbitrary than ANY definition"
wrong, if a definition leaves people confused and unable to apply that definition as is happening now, then it is an invalid and arbitrary definition. Definitions are required to be objective and logically consistent, not logically self-contradicting.
You cannot exclude the likes of teh M1A, M14, AR10, M110, FAL, SCAR< and more from be declared an "assault rifle" per the three criteria alone. Not unless you intend to alter the definition. They meet the 3 criteria in every regard.
so are you claiming that we require more than 3 criteria, or less, to define an assault rifle?
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logoslucht8935 Sure, but local communities should be using some taxpayer funding they collect to help with that. Building shelters, and organizing the community, helping identify who needs help ahead of a storm, etc. These are all problems that should have been addressed at the local level for decades. Those with means and time to learn how to survive, helping those who are new to the area or in need of help for whatever legit reasons. Community effort to educate locals how to plan for and survive hurricanes and all the side effects. This is a local issue if such things are not already in place or being done, and a failure of leadership.
In my area, I've learned all my life, even as a kid, how to survive every sort of natural disaster we can expect to face. We've gotten so good at it, that almost nothing feels like an emergency anymore, and deaths are so rare now. I grew up learning all about surviving extended power outages (which used to be very common), forest fires, tornadoes, blizzards, flash floods, earthquakes, etc. Even volcanic eruptions, as there was a famous volcano nearby one place I grew up. None of this even causes people to run in fear anymore. We know how to deal with it, and we build and plan for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@exnihiloadnihilum5094 wrong, good looks is only partially good genetics. good looks broadcasts good diet, fitness, and effort in maintaining one's health. A person can do many things within their control to improve their looks. If everyone magically woke up last year deciding to do everything in their power to look good (not counting drugs, surgeries, etc. just using natural methods such as diet, exercise, and many other things anyone can do at no cost other than their time and effort), we'd be living in a world full of super hot people right now.
A fit person looks hot. A healthy person looks hot. a person who breathes properly has a hot face. a person who doesn't slouch looks far better than one who does. a person who eats right is not overweight at all and has very healthy skin, hair, etc.
Good looks broadcast our suitability as a mate, both physically, and mentally (self discipline and willing to put in the effort).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@j3kfd9j Websters 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.
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 wrote blacks out of early American history textbooks.
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hyperteleXii you really don't get it do you? Learn to use your brain, logical reasoning is a critical skill you need to develop.
Warm climate leads to prosperity in which great nation states arose. during that period of warming those nations rose, became wealthy, became corrupt. But the natural progression of wealth to corruption itself has nothing to do with climate.
When climate cools, plants can't grow, rivers and lakes freeze over, you need heat to stay warm, animals migrate, etc. Warm climates are better for life. Also, higher CO2 helps plants grow bigger and faster, and makes plants more drought resistance and water efficient by lowering levels of stomata in the plants.
Hard to disprove anything when your comment was nothing but nonsense. you cannot prove a negative. but we've already established logical reasoning is not one of your skills.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:06 if you knew the facts/science behind CO2 in the atmosphere, you'd believe it was a scam. Never once had a single person, college educated, smart, whatever, debate me and win using hard facts and data on climate change. And I even use IPCC, NOAA, NASA, and others as my primary sources to prove it's all a lie, as well as first principles of Math, Physics, and Chemistry.
The science of climate regarding CO2 is actually very simple to understand and well established sciences with studies and evidence going back well over 100yrs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rupe53 " for the purpose of using that
communication to assist in the commission of a criminal
offense or to avoid or escape arrest, trial, conviction,
or punishment or who divulges to any person he or she knows
to be a suspect in the commission of any criminal offense,
the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect or
meaning of that communication concerning escape from arrest,
trial, conviction, or punishment is guilty of a misdemeanor."
you're only proving my point. Listening and disseminating info is 100% legal, so long as you are Not using it to commit a crime. What about that simple statement is not getting through your skull?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1