Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Real Engineering" channel.

Imagine that, but around 100x worse....and if something gets too worn out you stop being able to breathe.
94
@krypanzer3620 the USSR was part of the Allied Powers before the US (officially) was.
37
@andrewmattox1233 city dwelling has far less environmental impact by basically every metric. Fuck off and do some research.
15
@gladonos3384 I mean, there are other buffer solutions besides burning fossile fuels, but it is a problem that needs addressing.
13
@andrewmattox1233 hey dumbass, more people in cities means more land is left wild which results in an even better carbon footprint than stretching infrastructure out to everyone so that they can personally own the land trying to keep up with their carbon output. If you can't be assed to do some basic research and just want to keep a myopic perspective so you can feel superior, you don't deserve any respect in a discussion on the topic you're willfully ignorant on. Ps: suburban sprawl isn't necessary or integral to cities
11
@Kekkeri59 yeah, because leftist content isn't basically universally demonitized. Sure buddy /s
10
Correction: Elon Musk: I forget. How many democratic governments are there in the world?
9
@Britannic hayyomatt it's not just the availability of parts. It's designing for field maintenance and repairs which (on top of the often overtaxed mechanics of the heavier later-period German tanks) German tanks were notorious for neglecting. From the maintenance and repair to trying to fit them on railcarsb US tanks were designed thinking about logistics first. German tanks were designed thinking about tactics first (in the late war period, trying to chase the unachievable dream of a "breakthrough tank"). Logistics wins wars. British tanks were kinda a mixed bag on the logistics front, but British tank design was kinda its own thing (not even using the same categories of tanks as everyone else).
4
@Riceball01 off topic but late period European swords are much better against armor than a katana. From inverting to use the hilt as a bludgeon (via the "murder stroke") and grappling aid to the narrower point much better able to be used with half-swording to slip into armor gaps and burst appart (chain)mail rings. The katana is an A-tier cutter, but that's not the only way to use a sword, and (as you allude to) you're not cutting through plate.
4
@jr31419 ngl, my first functional "aircraft" in KSP was just enough jet engines to do a vertical takeoff as if it were a rocket, 4 control surface winglets to provide dirrection and some lift to help semi-horizontal flight, some landing gear, and some sensor equipment. Outside of the sensors and the shape of the cockpit, the entire thing was radially symmetric, and looked more like a spacecraft than a plane (since I'd basically built a jet-powered rocket) but it did the jobs I needed it to.
4
@haroldfiedler6549 The USSR's non-aggression pact/alliance between Nazi Germany and cooperation in invading and dividing Poland between them is widely taught and acknowledged. What world do you live in? It is talked about and condemned everywhere from US history books to Mikhail Gorbachev. It's just not often in discussions because basically everyone agrees it happened so there's rarely any point bringing it up.
3
Facts!
3
@Sean Murray wow, so many uninformed idiots insulting you when they don't understand that not all species are equally valuable to the biosphere. Guess what kids? The entire desert ecosystem could disappear and the rest of biosphere wouldn't even notice as the connections are small, few, and weak. If letting them all go extinct could save just one random non-desert species, that's a damn good trade.
3
I mean...is it not effectively exactly what you described?
3
 @CristianmrWuno suffocation is the least of your concerns with hypergolic rocket fuels. They're pretty much all on par with primitive chemical weapons.
3
 @Brocuzgodlocdunfamdogson if the smoke break is the least hazardous part of a job, there better be hazard pay!
3
Wasn't the issue with the fuel injection fixed in later Spitfires, or am I getting that mixed up with a different plane that had problems with negative Gs only with early models?
2
@therealctoo4183 that's not a rational argument for a whole bunch of reasons. Please avoid thought-terminating cliches
2
@okano.638 yeah. I don't play WoT because I find it harder and harder to get interested in game mechanics built around an HP bar as I get older (not that WoT doesn't have good features), but Gaijin lost me years ago too. Early ground forces were best ground forces and I only hear more and more people dropping the game due to changes that make the game sound even worse for me.
2
@jasonwalker9471 ^ this is the rational approach. We'll eventually be switching to more nuclear in the future, but right now, it's just about building everything we can to get off fossile fuels asap and linking it together to create a robust grid. The cost of delays now will be more than the costs of optimization later.
2
If you want to get technical, Panzer is short for Panzerkampfwagen (literally "Armored Fighting Vehicle"). In context though, it can be used to designate the 1-4 models (especially the 3 & 4 model medium tanks) which didn't get proper names from the model 5 Panther and the model 6 Tiger heavy tanks. If memory serves the Allies would refer to them as such, so I'll call it legit, even if the nomenclature is a bit odd technically speaking. (It's also really common to use the word in another language for a general type of weapon to refer to a specific sub-type of that weapon used by people who used that word in the general sense. You see this all the time with swords.)
2
@Britannic hayyomatt that is a big block of anti-historic drivvel you posted.
2
Yeah, suddenly federally funding large R&D initiatives had nothing to do with the US's tech boom /s
1
@drewschumann1 "pretended" only to lay down more lived than anyone else to fight the bloodiest front in the war and beat us to Berlin. Stalin was a POS but you've completely lost touch with reality (likely due to those fascists you sub to).
1
@j.f.fisher5318 imagine thinking you have a zinger in pointing out something I pointed out months ago as if I didn't know it.
1
@AdamSmith-gs2dv you just equated liberals and socialists. You're completely politically illiterate allong with everyone that upvoted your comment and should never be taken seriously on any political topic.
1
The entire idea of market economies is based on people paying for the costs of production for the things you buy. If those costs are forced onto an unconsenting 3rd party, the entire foundation of the system is broken and the whole thing eats itself. If you oppose carbon taxes being levied to pay for clean up and you're not a socalist, you're a hypocrite because you only support markets when they're to your personal benefit.
1
@alexedelweiss3267 socialism is worker control of the means of production aka economic democracy. Communism is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. China is neither.
1
@Sebastian-yl7nq not better or didn't have issues? Can't even pick a consistent position to argue against. Typical wehraboo "logic"
1
If fossile fuel companies had to pay for the negative externalities of their business, they would all switch to another power source or go bankrupt. It's easy to make a profit with a terrible business model when you get to shift most of the costs of your business onto uninvolved 3rd parties.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD arguably that would be less hazardous.
1
@h2s stop getting your information from fascists. It's rotting your brain.
1
_then laugh because they had to be towed to the battlefield because they broke down 5 miles from the factory.
1
If you have the production, logistics, and reliable machinery to outgun your enemy armored vehicles 5-to-1, use it. If you don't and are fighting WW2, look around and ask yourself "are we the baddies?" https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
1